>Maybe that is what happens with systems - they look like wholes today but
>they were never built to be that way....
IMHO, systems are *never* built -- they emerge [prototyped and refined
from feedback, and so on]. That is the only way to get the
complexity/interdependencies working properly. You cannot engineer and
build very complex systems 'to spec'. Even complex man-made systems like
the lunar expedtion evolved from 1940s through feedback, learning and
vision.
Those of use who write software and install business computer systems also
readily admit[or should!] that it is never right the first time[unless we
already did this 43 times before in very similar circumstances, but even
then...]. Version 1 is [hopefully] a 'good enough' start, that can be
refined with constant feedback from the environment. MS Windows is a
great example of this. Most people only recognized Windows as a product
when 3.0 came out. Many thought, "Wow, look what Microsoft pulled out of
the hat!" The expensive, evolutionary learning process from Windows 1 and
2 [4-6 years?] was absolutley necessary to build 3.0 and get Microsoft
where it is today. They could not have predicted/designed/engineered the
leap from MS-DOS to Windows 3. Now they have evolved further thru Windows
95, and soon 'Web Windows' [not their name] -- an operating system that
will meld your desktop with the rest of the information space.
Valdis Krebs
inflow@concentric.net
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>