Procrustes is Alive and Well
and Teaching Composition
in the English Department

The above is the title of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Integrative Studies, Phoenix, Arizona, September 30, 1995.

John N. Warfield
George Mason University
Mail Stop 1B2
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

© 1995, John N. Warfield


SUMMARY

The development and understanding of interpretable patterns involving complexity is incompatible with the structural constraints that are inherent in prose. This is true for all of the most common prose languages on earth. While the structural constraints of prose are sometimes stated metaphorically, they are best understood when seen in structural patterns based in De Morgan's fundamental Theory of Relations (1847).

Application of prose to narrative involves the intuitive constraints imposed by linguistic structure. Two key constraints are the "linearity" of prose and the "parallelism" of prose. That these can co-exist is graphically illustrated using two "interpretive structural models", which are given to illustrate linearity and parallelism separately.

Modern mathematics of logic and the development of "Interpretive Structural Modeling" (ISM), based in logic, enable computer-assisted production of non-linear structural models. While these structures can exist in many different types, a very common type is the "problematique". Every problematic situation that engenders complexity in the human mind implicitly corresponds to one or more problematiques. An example of one such structure is given herein. It is very easy to see by inspection of this nonlinear structure that attempts to fit the information given in that pattern into a linear prose format utterly defeat the purposes of communication.

While departments of English have long taught prose constructions as the mode of composition and narration, it should now be clear that this unduly concentrates on the type of narration involved in novels; at the expense of something that is more than mere "technical writing". The distinction is between fantasy and scientific communication, first brought into prominence by Leibniz; and subsequently dealt with by many writers.

The academic error of limiting education in communication to prose is now being emulated and amplified in efforts to promote indiscriminate use of small television screens in attempts to work with complexity. Politicians compound the situation by striving to drive their political communiques into the mind through the human ear; an organ totally incapable of transducting communications involving complexity. A much more appropriate organ is the eye, and a much more appropriate vista is a mural-like display extended onto large walls.

A combination of the use of exorcism and constructive design to resolve complexity is now technically feasible. Whether it is possible to bring these proven forms into higher education has also been shown to be feasible on a small scale, but it is not clear how long it will take to expand their use significantly in higher education.


PROCRUSTES IS ALIVE AND WELL AND TEACHING COMPOSITION
IN THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

"Theseus...put an end to the criminal career of the giant Polypemon, known as Procrustes, who forced his victims to lie on a bed too short for them and then cut off whatever overlapped. Alternatively he would stretch them if the bed proved too long. Theseus made him undergo the same treatment"

---New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, New York: Hamlyn, 1968, p. 176

Procrustes today is alive and well, teaching composition and exposition in English Departments everywhere.

To be convinced of this, one must appreciate the extent of the cognitive burden with which

the mind is burdened when creating a composition ... and it helps to recognize the fundamental flaws in the nature of prose exposition which mitigate against effective exposition--at least for exposition involving complex subject matter.

It is much easier to develop a composition about complexity with the help of the computer-assisted structural modeling process than it is to try to do writing the way Professor Procrustes has been attempting to force you to do for lo these many years.

The approach just suggested might, at first sight, appear to pose a severe threat to the continued existence of that part of the English Department that deals in composition. While there might be a modest threat, it is not nearly as likely to devastate the faculty individual as one might think. After all, people do need to continue to study composition. So it is not as though the teaching of composition is going to go out of style and take the jobs of the teachers with it. No--the threat to them is much less. They simply have to take a little time to learn what is really needed, so that they can stop doing what is not needed.

In carrying out that task a computer software program designed especially to facilitate the development of structural models will be indispensable. Such a program can be the underpinning for most forms of composition involving complex subject matter.

Moreover, the graphics developed in applying this program can be used as an integral part of the exposition. And now the teachers will have to teach people how to read and interpret the graphics but, after all, in doing this, they will simply (at long last) be taking advantage of the great liberal legacy of the philosophers and logicians who have shown us how to present complex relationships in ways that do not always, and inappropriately, force the presentation into the linear structure of prose.

THE LINEARITY OF PROSE.

The "Procrustean Bed" of prose consists partly of its structural linearity. Structural linearity is independent of subject matter, but is inherent in the way prose is designed. In Figure 1, the linearity of prose is demonstrated graphically.

Beginning with the construction of the word "cat" from its constituent letters, one can construct the structural presentation ("map") portraying the relationship "directly precedes" as in the first graphical drawing in Figure 1. In reading the map, one notes that the arrow itself can be taken as the graphical substitute for the relationship, thus one can read from the map the following:

"c directly precedes a"

"a directly precedes t"

and one can infer, from these, the following relationships:

"c precedes a"

"a precedes t"

One can further infer from these two statements of relationship that

"c precedes t" (but not that c directly precedes t).

(In passing, one can note that all of the foregoing statements would apply equally well

if the word "carat" were at issue instead of the word "cat". Don't worry about that.)

One can also observe the graphical basis for the use of the term "linearity". When the relationships are mapped, there is a straight line from the initial member of the map to the final member which touches every box and every arrow on the map. But the property of linearity is not limited to the relationships among letters in a word. Instead, as the other maps in Figure 1 demonstrate, this property applies to the relationships among words in a sentence, sentences in a paragraph, and paragraphs in a chapter. One could continue with chapters in a volume, and volumes, e. g., in an encyclopedia. Prose is fundamentally linear.

FIGURE 1
(You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read this. If you don't have one, click HERE to get one)

PROSE COMPOSITION DEMANDS COGNITIVE
PARALLELISM FROM THE WRITER

The "Procrustean Bed" of prose consists, in part, of its demand for structural parallelism. Implicit in writing prose is the concept of structural parallelism, which must be an ingrained part of the writer's psyche. Figure 2 shows the nature of this structural concept. The three letters are each included in the word. As before, the relationship applies to all structural components of prose. Thus letters are included in words, words are included in sentences, sentences are included in paragraphs, and so on. But all of these inclusion relationships have to be remembered and/or developed by the writer during the act of writing. This is a major reason for bad spelling, misuse of words, incoherent sentences, bad paragraphs, bad organization, etc.; and one must also realize that in concert with the evocation of parallelism by the writer, simultaneous evocation of linearity in sequence must be carried out. But that's not all. The writer must deal concurrently with the structural restrictions inherent in prose, while trying to formulate the structural conditions involved in the content being created. In effect, Professor Procrustes insists that the writer force the frequently non-linear and non-parallel content that the writer is trying to create, into the Procrustean bed with a mattress consisting of the linearity of prose, and headboards involving the parallelism of multiple structures.

It is remarkable that anything gets written. As can be seen from the foregoing, not all literature which tells a story has a chance to measure up to Shakespeare's standards. What we need to recognize is that the interrelationships involved among aspects of the content which the author wants to produce are often very different from what the raconteur has to deal with. Much of what Shakespeare produced was discretionary, determined by his own fertile imagination. However scientific, technological, or business-oriented content is not generally well-received if the content springs primarily from the author's creative imagination. No, it is expected that what is produced will reflect accurate observations of real-world phenomena; often phenomena which an author must garner from the minds of many people, each of whom has only had a limited opportunity to observe limited parts of the situation being discussed.

Shakespeare and other authors provide proof that the imagination of a creative individual and the intellect of that person are sufficient to overcome the limits of the Procrustean Bed. But this does not mean that the English Department gets off scot-free. On the contrary, we must recognize that writing involves at least two categories: fiction and non-fiction. And while this is hardly a new idea, we must adjoin to this idea that the requirements of fiction are structurally much less stringent than the requirements of non-fiction. Then when we embellish the concept of non-fiction, we can split this type into two parts: complex and non-complex non-fiction. Our concern in this writing is with non-fiction lying in the domain of complexity. And it is in this arena that Procrustes must be thwarted. Relax, fiction writers.

FIGURE 2
(You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read this. If you don't have one, click HERE to get one)

PATTERNS OF COMPLEXITY

Complex situations normally become of more than passing interest to human beings when they present some kind of threat to human well-being. Examples of such situations might include: (a) the need to design automobiles in 60% of the time in which they were designed formerly, because international competitors have demonstrated that this can be done, while improving quality; (b) a desire to change the United States defense acquisition system, to improve greatly its efficiency and effectiveness, while cutting dramatically the costs paid for equipment and parts; (c) an organization is being buried under paper work, and foresees the day when it will either have a much-better designed information system, or it will be forced out of business; and (d) a business is organized along obsolete lines, and much reconstitute itself in order to arrive at congruence between its organization and the functions the organization must perform.

Such situations normally will reflect at least one and often all of the following attributes:

  • A set of perceived problems to be resolved, which may number between 50 and 150
  • A large set of perceived actions that could be taken to improve the situation, without any clear priority among the actions
  • Significant differences in belief among responsible actors as to the relative importance of perceived problems or perceived action options
  • Declining sources of revenue to be applied to improve the situation
  • Each actor involved in the situation describes it quite differently

Given this type of situation, it has been found that with appropriate computer assistance, to be discussed later, a set of actors can be identified and can develop combined graphical-prose patterns that shed substantial light on the otherwise confused situation.

A PROBLEMATIQUE

Let's look at one example of such a pattern. Figure 3 offers a graphical pattern called a "problematique". The problematique shows how members of a set of problems identified in a given situation aggravate or do not aggravate one another. One of the significant values in such a pattern is that it reveals, to those who have produced it, the small subset of problems that are highly influential in preserving the problematic nature of the situation; while also revealing which problems tend to be created by other problems. In addition, it often reveals the presence of "problem cycles"; i.e., subsets of problems that are mutually aggravating, tending to form a small problem world unto themselves, and giving a clue to the actors that such cycles may have to be dealt with collectively with a strategy that recognizes the reinforcing feedback that is at work. Most people cannot "read" the problematique, because they have had no instruction. It is not as hard to learn to read as English prose, but until some very small percentage of the time given over to teaching prose is diverted to teaching people how to read structural graphics, the full utility of these patterns will remain unrecognized by most.

Comparing the graphic in Figure 3 with the graphics in Figures 1 and 2, it is very apparent that the problematique is not linear. Please recall that, in constructing the linear graphics in Fig. 1,

FIGURE 3
(You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read this. If you don't have one, click HERE to get one)

Print at 60% of full. On one page.

a beginning could be made with the prose form "cat", and upon analysis one could arrive at the linear structure. Moreover, given the linear structure, one could produce a reversion to the word "cat". In Figure 3, the structure is given, but it is not so obvious how to revert to the prose equivalent.

REVERTING TO PROSE

Actually, it is fairly easy (though somewhat time-consuming) to replace the graphic in

Figure 3 with a prose version of what is contained in the graphic. (However in doing so the structure is no longer visible.) The following rules can be applied in sequence to carry out this operation:

1) Define the following to be a canonical statement form: "x aggravates y"

2) Recognize that each problem represented in Figure 3 can be substituted for x in the canonical form, and that for each such problem there will be a set of problems that can be substituted for y. Any problem substituted for y need only satisfy this condition: There is a path on the graphic from x to y, discovered by following a sequence of one or more arrows.

3) Construct all possible statements having the canonical form, by systematically substituting for x in the canonical statement form every problem that is represented on the graphic, and for each x substituting all problems representing y that satisfy the condition expressed in the foregoing italics.

Example. Let's construct all of the prose statements associated with the problem number 7 just by inspecting the problematique and applying the three rules given above. The statements are:

  • • The problem (7) "resistance to change by users and management" aggravates the problem (14) "limited financial resources".
  • • The problem (7) "resistance to change by users and management" aggravates problem (21) "failure to get buy-in from all powertrain offices".
  • • The problem (7) "resistance to change by users and management" aggravates problem (8) "difficulty in developing software to encapsulate AP tools to control information flow".

We see that problem 7 aggravates 3 other problems. Proceeding in the same way, we can construct Table 1 showing us how many other problems a given problem aggravates.

TABLE 1. NUMBERED PROBLEMS AGGRAVATED BY PROBLEM "x"

 

Problem Number "x"

Problems aggravated by Problem Number "x"

1

(9)--3,7,8,12,14, 21,22,88,114

2

(14)--3,7,8,12,14, 16,19,21,22,46, 64,82,88,114

3

(4)--7,8,14,21

4

(15)--2,3,7,8,12, 14,16,19,21,22 46,64,82,88,114

5

(8)--7,8,14,16,19 21,22,88

6

(22)--1,2,3,4,5, 7,8,12,14,15, 16,19,21,22,30, 38,46,64,82,88, 92,114

7

(3)--8,14,21

8

(0)

12

(1)--8

14

(3)--7,8,21

15

(8)--3,7,8,14,16 21,22,88

16

(5)--7,8,14,21,88

19

(5)--7,8,14,21,22

21

(3)--7,8,14

22

(0)

30

(8)--3,7,8,12,14, 21,88,114

33

(23)--1,2,3,4,5, 7,8,12,14,15, 16,19,21,22,30, 38,43,46,64,82, 88,92,114

38

(11)--3,7,8,12,14, 19,21,22,30,88, 114

43

(23)--1,2,3,4,5, 7,8,12,14,15, 16,19,21,22,30, 33,38,46,64,82, 88,92,114

46

(5)--7,8,14,21,22

49

(13)--1,3,7,8,12, 14,21,22,30,46, 82,88,114

64

(9)--7,8,14,16,19, 21,22,46,88

82

(9)--3,7,8,12,14, 21,22,46,114

88

(1)--8

92

(19)--1,3,5,7,8, 12,14,15,16,19, 21,22,30,38,46, 64,82,88,114

114

(6)--3,7,8,12,14, 21

 

PROSE REPRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEMATIQUE

Suppose we decided to construct a prose representation of the Problematique. From Table 1, adding all the numbers in parentheses, we get the number 227. There are 227 statements represented on the Problematique (each in the form of the canonical statement). All 227 of them can be written out, using the data given in Table 1.

We saw earlier, when looking at Problem Number 7 as an example, each relational statement occupied two lines of text. If the same amount of space is assumed for all 227 statements represented on the Problematique, our prose representation would require 454 lines of text, using font size 10 as in the foregoing example. Each line requires approximately 0.17 inches, and the page can accommodate approximately 8.5 inches of text. This number converts to about 50 lines of text. So a printout of all of the prose relational statements would require about 9 pages of text. The problematique, on the other hand, occupies only one page of text.

Unlike the prose version, the problematique is not linear. Moreover, while the prose version of the content of the problematique is linear, that linearity totally masks the structure of the problematique.

We require nine times as much space, and we lose the power to visualize the structure, and to interpret the significance of the structure, when going to the prose version. We pay a high cost for using prose in two ways: we use much more space and lose most of the interpretation that is sought. That is why we must convince Professor Procrustes to begin to teach structural modeling, as a way of achieving two valuable results:

(1) The power is gained to save space and acquire an advanced capacity for interpretation
(2) The student is freed from being taught (implicitly and erroneously) that complex situations can be adequately described solely by prose representation

EARS, EYES, AND VIDEOTAPE

Another way to approach matters relating to the structure of prose is through modes of human perception. As Americans watch the debates going on in the halls of Congress, it becomes clear that the system is operating on the basis of the concept that ears require linearity of presentation. To force the point again, the human ear is receptive to sequential presentation, in which word follows word, sentence follows sentence, paragraph follows paragraph, and so on. Senators and Representatives make their linear presentations in verbal prose, to which the voters' ears are highly attuned. Procrustes has had a field day preparing members of Congress to force fit the most complex subject matter into Cicero's mode of expression.

Videotapes offer complementary insights. Television transmission is highly linear, just as is prose. The camera scans a very small slice of whatever is in view, and then scans another very small slice displaced slightly from the first slice, and continues this until a raster is filled; then it repeates the process. Scan follows scan, raster follows raster, etc. The human ear can be ignored here, since it is invoked just as it is in Congress--linearly. But what of the human eye? When the scans reach the television screen, their linearity is obscured because the flight of the activating electronic particles hitting the screen is so fast compared to the ability of the eyes to respond, that the viewer does not seen the scans as such. Instead the eyes see a pattern. To summarize, a highly linear presentation is furnished to the eyes, but the eyes tell the brain that it is the pattern that is perceived--not its individual linear, sequential components! This outcome is precisely what would be sought in constructing a means of communicating complex information to a human being.

Procrustes' overwhelming success with legislative bodies is not necessarily as easy to come by with the general public. Even as we speak, however, Procrustes is at work in a new domain. He is trying to make people believe that since small television monitors can portray landscape patterns, they are also quite appropriate for portraying complex discrete patterns, such as the problematique shown in Figure 3.

THE TELEVISION MONITOR--A NEW PROCRUSTEAN BED

With relatively few exceptions (those being mostly in the professions such as engineering and law, but operating without precise logical foundations), a standard size sheet of paper has had a long life as a Procrustean Bed for persons who operate with symbols.

The false assumption that Procrustes has largely succeeded in selling is this:

No matter what the required size of a graphical presentation to portray a comprehensive image of a complex situation, it must be sized to fit an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper (or an A4 paper if you're in some countries).

And the added false assumption that he is trying to score with in the computer age is this:

No matter what the required size of a graphical presentation to portray a comprehensive image of a complex situation, it must be sized to fit on the screen of a computer monitor.

THE WALL-SIZED MURAL

Thomas Hart Benton and other famous muralists have shown us the folly in listening to the false assumptions of Procrustes. Portraying much of the history of a region in one huge wall mural, Benton has shown that one picture is worth a lot of sequential prose. Let the historians attach their prose outputs to small pieces of the mural. But don't let Procrustes get tenure in the History Department after he is impeached by the English Department!.

The kind of logic-based graphics that require careful study and examination cannot be confined to conventional sized paper or to computer screens. Instead such graphics require large wall displays granted space akin to that given to murals. Not only does this size space allow the human eye to function to its greatest advantage, but it accommodates to many viewers and to constant display and updating, as required.

 

THE PROBLEMATIQUE REVISITED

The Problematique was introduced via Figure 3. An example was given, and the nonlinearity of the example Problematique was noted. Also it was seen that if it were converted to linear prose, about nine pages would be required just to show the relationships that are represented graphically on the single page; and also it was noted that once the conversion to prose was made, the structure of the relationships became invisible, being buried in the prose.

NON-RELATIONSHIPS AND THE PROBLEMATIQUE

Actually the situation is more dire than the foregoing discussion revealed. While Figure 3 represents 227 relational statements, each in the canonical form, this figure also reflects additional information. This additional information can either be considered to be non-relationships, or relationships of a different type.

For example, in Figure 3, there is no arrow path directed from problem 8 to problem

This means that the participant group which created the Problematique did not believe that the following relational statement could be true:

Problem 8 aggravates Problem 6

Since that statement is not supported on the Problematique, one of the following two statements can be considered as true: either

(a) Problem 8 does not aggravate Problem 6

or (b) Not enough information is available to indicate that Problem 8 aggravates Problem 6

One could consider that statements (a) and (b) could be a non-relationship, in the sense that the Problematique shows only aggravation relationships; or one could consider that statements (a) and (b) represent a different type of relationship, in that they involve a "non-aggravation" relationship. With either interpretation, we have a condition where still more information is contained on the Problematique. If we arbitrarily call the pair (a) and (b) a non-relationship, then it turns out that there are 423 non-relationships represented by the Problematique.

If these 423 non-relationships are converted to prose, and the same assumptions are made as those previously applied, an additional 17 pages of text is required to show the prose form of the non-relationships. This means that a total of 26 pages of text is required to present both the relationships and non-relationships represented on the Problematique! And, as before, the structure is not evident from the prose. If we arbitrarily define "Graphical Advantage" as the ratio of the number of pages required to present the prose content of the Problematique to the number of pages required to present the Problematique, we see that the Problematique in Figure 3 has a Graphical Advantage of 26 over its prose representation; and that is before we take into account the loss of visible structure. If we arbitrarily assigned a (conservative) value of 10 to that, and added that in, the Graphical Advantage would be 36, meaning that the graphically-presented Problematique is 36 times more advantageous than its prose equivalent as a conveyor of information.

EXORCISM

Hopefully it is now clear that the development of a Problematique has great value in enabling an interpretation of what is wrong in a situation. But the Graphical Advantage is not the only significant advantage in development of a Problematique.

Suppose you wanted to conceptualize a national policy on some topic that is in the public eye, such as health care or welfare reform or crime. If you decided that, in order to prepare a document that offered such a policy, you would first engage a group in helping to structure such a policy.

Draw on your experience with groups and what you may well remember is that any time someone proposes an idea that could become part of a solution, someone else is inclined to explain why that idea won't work, due to some kind of anticipated problem in the system.

You might want to chastise people for constantly shooting down other peoples' ideas, but keep in mind that if an idea is thought to be defective in some way, a person is really obligated to say so instead of not contributing to the dialog.

But what if all or almost all of the foreseen problems have been brought out and placed in easily-readable full view of the participants. Now the obligation to list problems has been largely, if not entirely, fulfilled. People can then proceed to concentrate on ideas for possible solutions or resolutions. In effect, in creating the Problematique, an exorcism has taken place that opens up the group activity to positive contribution. Truly this reflects a key idea set forth by Osborne when the invention of "brainstorming" was disclosed: that you get more creative performance from groups if no criticism is allowed. But it also reflects an extension of that by, in effect, purging the criticism ahead of time through recognition of the many problems that beset the system.

In dealing with major problems in organizations, it has been found that by constructing Problematiques very early in the work, it is then possible to move to a constructive mode, generating and ultimately structuring possible resolutions (design alternatives) with a minimum of interference.

The person who wishes to construct an article or book describing an existing or proposed system will do well first to reveal the negative aspects of the situation in all their glory, and then go on to discuss a constructive resolution, explaining how the problems revealed either can be overcome or can be significantly diminished by the proposed resolution.

The combined task of exorcism and constructive design are typically beyond the scope of a single individual faced with a complex situation. Therefore the person who intends to write or orate about that situation will do well to begin by having groups work on that situation in the style and with the methods comprising Interactive Management.

 

REFERENCES

References relevant to the foregoing are almost entirely on the subject of complexity, and on what is required to allow it to come within the purview of human interpretation. The Appendix lists relevant references derived from the work of the author. Other contributions can be found in some of the bibliographies identified in the Appendix.


APPENDIX

WARFIELD PUBLICATIONS
ON COMPLEXITY:

  • PAPERS AND MONOGRAPHS
    CHARACTERIZED BY THEMES

    • Applications
    • Education
    • Graphical Representations
    • Interactive Human Processes
    • Mathematics of Modeling
    • Organizations and Human Behavior
    • Philosophy
  • BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

  • BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Organization of this Appendix

This Appendix organizes publications by the author that relate to complexity into three Parts. In the first Part, papers and monographs are cited in categories. Some of the entries fall into more than one category. The categories adopted for this presentation are (in alphabetical order): Applications, Education, Graphical Representations, Interactive Human Processes, Mathematics of Modeling, Organizations and Human Behavior (these two topics being grouped in order to discuss the human being in a context), and Philosophy. Within each category, publications are sequenced by date of publication.

The first publication listed appeared in the year 1956, so this document deals with a 40-year span. However the research on complexity that is portrayed here by titles, largely spanned the 27-year period from 1968 to 1995, since that period involved virtually continuous research (both theoretical and experimental) on the subject of complexity. Publications appearing before 1968 can be considered as isolated instances of what was to become a driving force in research.

Part 2 lists monographs and books on the subject, in which many of the shorter publications are incorporated in a more comprehensive way.

Part 3 lists bibliographies. These annotated bibliographies contain references not only to the work of the author, but also to the publications of many others whose writings were studied in the prolonged course of the research.

This Appendix has been prepared to try to offer an organized overview of the work, while simultaneously focusing on some of its component categories, each of which may reflect possibilities for applications.

The author carried out this work primarily at three institutions: Battelle Memorial Institute (1968-1974), the University of Virginia (1975-1983), and George Mason University (1984-1995).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

    PART 1: THEMES

  • Applications
  • Education
  • Graphical Representations
  • Interactive Human Processes
  • Mathematics of Modeling
  • Organizations and Human Behavior
  • Philosophy

    PART 2: BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

    PART 3: BIBLIOGRAPHIES


PAPERS AND MONOGRAPHS

THEME: APPLICATIONS

 

(1973) Warfield, J. N., "Constructing Operational Value Systems for Proposed Two-Unit Coalitions", Proceedings 1973 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 204-213.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., "An Interim Look at Uses of Interpretive Structural Modeling", Research Futures, Third Quarter.

(1974) El Mokadem, Ahmed, J. N. Warfield, D. Pollick, and K. Kawamura, "Modularization of Large Econometric Models: An Application of Structural Modeling", Proceedings of the 1974 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, November, pp 683-692.

(1975) Warfield, J. N., "Profiles of Metapolicy", Proceedings of the 1975 Conference on Cybernetics and Society, September, 14ff.

(1979) Warfield, J. N., "The Interface Between Models and Policymakers", Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems, 3(1), June, pp 53-64.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Modeling Management", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, April, p197.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Priority Structures", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October, pp 642-645.

(1983) Warfield, J. N., "Comments on B. Golden and A. Assad: 'A Preliminary Framework for Urban Model Building'" in Adequate Modeling of Systems (H. Wedde, Ed.), WestGermany:

Springer, Verlag, pp 333-335.

(1984) Warfield, J. N., "Progress in Interactive Management", Proc. 6th International Congress of the World Organization of General Systems and Cybernetics, Paris: AFCET, pp XXIX-XXXV.

(1985) Warfield, J. N., "Structural Analysis of a Computer Language", Proc. 17th Annual Southeastern Symposium on Systems Theory, New York: IEEE, pp 229-234.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., "Implications of Scale for Systems Design", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, Budapest: SGSR, pp 1205-1211.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., "A Complexity Metric for High-Level Software Languages", Proc. International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, New York: IEEE, October, pp 438-442.

(1988) Warfield, J. N., "Do As I Say: A Review Essay of John W. Burton, 'Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict: A Handbook'", International Journal of Group Tensions 18(3), pp 200-208.

(1989) Warfield, J. N. and M. N. B. Ayiku, "Sociotechnical Modeling for Developing Nations", Journal of Management Science and Applied Cybernetics (SCIMA), January, pp 25-40.

(1990, 1991) Warfield, J. N., "Generic Planning: Research Results and Applications", in Managing Knowledge for Design, Planning, and Decision Making (W. F. Schut and C. W. W. van Lohuizen, Eds.), Delft: Delft University Press, 1990, 109-128 and in Knowledge in Society 3(4), Special Issue, Winter, 1990-91, 91-113.

(1992) Warfield, J. N., "Design and Manufacturing Methodologies: A Comparison of American and Japanese Developments", Working Paper Number 92-9, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University (62 pages).

(1993) Warfield, J. N., and Carol Teigen, "Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations", Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 68 pages.

(1994) Warfield, J. N., "Accelerating Productivity of Intellectual Organizations by Systems Methodologies", Proceedings, International Symposium on Intellectual Facilitation of Creative Activities, Miel Parque Tokyo, 34-39.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "SPREADTHINK: Explaining Ineffective Groups", Systems Research 12(1), March, 5-14.

 

THEME: EDUCATION

(1979) Warfield, J. N., "Systems-Oriented Environmental Education", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, August, pp 797-799.

(1979) Warfield, J. N., "Systems Planning for Environmental Education", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, December, pp 816-823.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Modeling Management", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, April, p 197.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "A Role for Values in Educational System Design", Proceedings 1980 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October, pp 234-241.

(1981) Warfield, J. N., "Learning Through Model Building", in Computer-Assisted Analysis and Model Simplification (H. J. Greenberg and J. Maybee, Eds.), New York: Academic Press, pp 69-78.

(1981) Warfield, J. N., "Mapping Environmental Education", University of the District of Columbia Graduate Journal 1(1), Fall, pp 23-28.

(1982) Warfield, J. N., "Organizations and Systems Learning", General Systems, 27, pp 5-74.

(1983) Warfield, J. N., "Systems-Oriented Environmental Education", in Systems Education: Perspectives, Programs, Methods, Seaside, CA: Intersystems, pp 61-63.

(1984) Warfield, J. N., "A Model of a Discipline", Proc. of the Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, New York: IEEE, pp 78-84.

(1985) Warfield, J. N., "Developing a Design Culture in Higher Education", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, Seaside, CA: Intersystems, (2) pp 725-729.

(1985) Warfield, J. N., "Institutionalizing Environmental Education", Environmental Education and Information 4(3), Manchester: University of Salford.

(1986) Warfield, J. N., "Education in Generic Design", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, Salinas, CA: Intersystems, (I) pp H22-H33.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., "Developing a Design Culture in Higher Education", General Systems, XXX, pp 63-68 (reprinted from the 1985 conference version).

 

(1989) Warfield, J. N., "Design Science: Experience in Teaching Large System Design", Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, June, 39-41.

(1990) Warfield, J. N., "Cybernetics, Systems Science, and the Great University", Systems Research 7(4), December, pp 287-294.

(1990) Warfield, J. N., "A Course in Generic Design for Engineers", Projektowanie i Systemy XI, pp 26-43 (in Polish).

(1990) Warfield, J. N., "Economics and Systems Science", Journal of Management Science and Applied Cybernetics (SCIMA, New Delhi) 19(3), pp 65-71.

(1991) Warfield, J. N., Underconceptualization, in Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Special issue of Systemica: Journal of the Dutch Systems Group (R. Glanville and G. de Zeeuw, Eds.), Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, 415-433.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., "Structural Thinking: Producing Effective Organizational Change", a Silver Anniversary Paper, commemorating 25 years of research on complexity by the author,

Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 65 pages.

(1994) Warfield, J. N., "Cybernetics", Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Academic Press, 63-72.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "SPREADTHINK: Explaining Ineffective Groups", Systems Research 12(1), March, 5-14.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "Demands Imposed on Systems Science by Complexity", Proceedings of the United Kingdom Systems Society 4th International Conference: Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice, Hull, United Kingdom, July (Keith Ellis, Amanda Gregory, Bridget Mears-Young, and Gillian Ragsdell, Editors), 81-88.

(1996) Warfield, J. N., and S. M. Staley: "STRUCTURAL THINKING: Organizing Complexity Through Disciplined Activity", Systems Research 13(1), March, to appear.

 

THEME: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS

(1957) Warfield, J. N., "How to Improve Systems Engineering", Aeronautical Engineering Review, 16(7), July, pp 50-51.

(1968) Warfield, J. N., "Switching Networks as Models of Discrete Stochastic Processes", in Applied Automata Theory, J. Tou (Ed.), Chapter 4, New York: Academic Press, pp 81-123.

(1971) Warfield, J. N. and J. D. Hill, "The DELTA Chart: A Method for R&D Project Portrayal", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-18(4), November, pp132-139.

(1972) Hill, J. D. and J. N. Warfield, "Unified Program Planning", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC2(5), November, pp 610-621.

(1973) Warfield, J. N., "Intent Structures", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, March, pp 133-140.

(1973) Warfield, J. N., "Binary Matrices in Systems Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, September, pp 441-449.

 

(1973) Warfield, J. N., "Constructing Operational Value Systems for Proposed Two-Unit Coalitions", Proceedings 1973 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp 204-213.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., "Developing Subsystem Matrices in Structural Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, January, pp 74-80.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., "Developing Interconnection Matrices in Structural Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, January, pp 81-87.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., Structuring Complex Systems, Columbus: Battelle Memorial Institute Monograph No. 4, April.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., "Toward Interpretation of Complex Structural Models", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, September, pp 405-417.

(1974) El Mokadem, Ahmed, J. N. Warfield, D. Pollick, and K. Kawamura, "Modularization of Large Econometric Models: An Application of Structural Modeling", Proceedings of the 1974 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, November, pp 683-692.

(1977) Warfield, J. N., "Crossing Theory and Hierarchy Mapping", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, July, pp 502-523.

(1979) Warfield, J. N., "Some Principles of Knowledge Organization", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, June, pp 317-325.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Complementary Relations and Map Reading", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, June, pp 285-291.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Priority Structures", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October, pp 642-645.

(1986) Warfield, J. N., "Dimensionality", Proc. 1986 International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2, New York: IEEE, pp 1118-1121.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., and A. N. Christakis, "Dimensionality", Systems Research 4(2), pp 127-137.

(1988) Warfield, J. N., "On the Design of Language for Systems Design", Cybernetics and Systems '88, Proc. 9th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (R. Trappl, Ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp 133-140.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., "Structural Thinking: Producing Effective Organizational Change", a Silver Anniversary Paper, commemorating 25 years of research on complexity by the author,

Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 65 pages.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., and Carol Teigen, "Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations", Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 68 pages.

(1996) Warfield, J. N., and S. M. Staley: "STRUCTURAL THINKING: Organizing Complexity Through Disciplined Activity", Systems Research 13(1), March, to appear.

THEME: INTERACTIVE HUMAN PROCESSES

(1956) Warfield, J. N., Systems Engineering, United States Department of Commerce PB111801.

(1957) Warfield, J. N., "How to Improve Systems Engineering", Aeronautical Engineering Review, 16(7), July, pp 50-51.

(1972, 1973) Warfield, J. N., "Participative Methodology for Public System Planning", Proceedings of an International Symposium on Systems Engineering and Analysis, West Lafayette: Purdue University, October, 1972, 23-40 . [reprinted in Computers and Electrical Engineering 1(1), 1973, 187-210, by invitation of the Editor]

(1975) Warfield, J. N., Improving Behavior in Policymaking, Approaches to Problem Solving, No. 1, Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, August.

(1975) Warfield, J. N., Totos: Improving Group Problem-Solving, Approaches to Problem Solving, No. 2, Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, August.

(1975) Warfield, J. N., H. Geschka, and R. Hamilton, Methods of Idea Management, Approaches to Problem Solving, No. 4, Columbus: Academy for Contemporary Problems, August.

(1976) Fertig, J.A., and J. N. Warfield, "Relations and Decision Making", Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation, Pittsburgh: Instrument Society of America, pp1177-1181.

(1983) Warfield, J. N., "Selecting Participation Methodologies for Systems Design", Proc. International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, New York: IEEE, January, pp 762-764.

(1983) Warfield, J. N., "Principles of Interactive Management", Proc. International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, New York: IEEE, January, pp 746-750.

(1991) Warfield, J. N., "Complexity and Cognitive Equilibrium: Experimental Results and Their Implications", Human Systems Management 10(3), 195-202.

(1991) Warfield, J. N., Underconceptualization, in Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Special issue of Systemica: Journal of the Dutch Systems Group (R. Glanville and G. de Zeeuw, Eds.), Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, 415-433.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., "Structural Thinking: Producing Effective Organizational Change", a Silver Anniversary Paper, commemorating 25 years of research on complexity by the author,

Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 65 pages.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., and Carol Teigen, "Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations", Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 68 pages.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "SPREADTHINK: Explaining Ineffective Groups", Systems Research 12(1), March, 5-14.

(1996) Warfield, J. N., and S. M. Staley: "STRUCTURAL THINKING: Organizing Complexity Through Disciplined Activity", Systems Research 13(1), March, to appear.

THEME: MATHEMATICS OF MODELING

(1968) Warfield, J. N., "Switching Networks as Models of Discrete Stochastic Processes", in Applied Automata Theory, J. Tou (Ed.), Chapter 4, New York: Academic Press, pp 81-123.

(1972) Hill, J. D. and J. N. Warfield, "Unified Program Planning", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC2(5), November, pp 610-621.

(1973) Warfield, J. N., "Binary Matrices in Systems Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, September, pp 441-449.

(1973) Warfield, J. N., "Constructing Operational Value Systems for Proposed Two-Unit Coalitions", Proceedings 1973 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 204-213.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., "Developing Subsystem Matrices in Structural Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, January, pp 74-80.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., "Developing Interconnection Matrices in Structural Modeling", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, January, pp 81-87.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., Structuring Complex Systems, Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute Monograph No. 4, April.

(1975) Warfield, J. N., "Transitive Interconnection of Transitive Structures", Proceedings of the 6th Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation, Pittsburgh: Instrument Society of America, April.

(1976) Warfield, J. N., "Implication Structures for System Interconnection Matrices", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, January, 1976, 18-24.

(1976) Warfield, J. N., "Extending Interpretive Structural Modeling", Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation, Pittsburgh: Instrument Society of America, pp 1163-1167.

(1979) Warfield, J. N., "Some Principles of Knowledge Organization", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, June, pp 317-325.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Complementary Relations and Map Reading", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, June, pp 285-291.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Priority Structures", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October, pp 642-645.

(1982) Warfield, J. N., "Interpretive Structural Modeling", Chapter 5 in Group Planning and Problem-Solving Methods in Engineering (S. A. Olsen, Ed.), New York: Wiley, pp 155-201.

(1986) Warfield, J. N., "Dimensionality", Proc. 1986 International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2, New York: IEEE, pp 1118-1121.

(1986) Warfield, J. N., "Micromathematics and Macromathematics", Proc. 1986 International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2, New York: IEEE, pp 1127-1131.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "Demands Imposed on Systems Science by Complexity", Proceedings of the United Kingdom Systems Society 4th International Conference: Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice, Hull, United Kingdom, July (Keith Ellis, Amanda Gregory, Bridget Mears-Young, and Gillian Ragsdell, Editors), 81-88.

THEME: ORGANIZATIONS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

(1975) Warfield, J. N., Improving Behavior in Policymaking, Approaches to Problem Solving, No. 1, Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, August.

(1975) Warfield, J. N., Totos: Improving Group Problem-Solving, Approaches to Problem Solving, No. 2, Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, August.

(1975) Warfield, J. N., H. Geschka, and R. Hamilton, Methods of Idea Management, Approaches to Problem Solving, No. 4, Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, August.

(1982) Warfield, J. N., "Organizations and Systems Learning", General Systems 27, pp 5-74.

(1985) Warfield, J. N., "On the Choice of Frames for Systems Studies", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, Seaside, CA: Intersystems, (1) pp 294-299.

(1988) Warfield, J. N., "The Magical Number Three--Plus or Minus Zero", Cybernetics and Systems 19, pp 339-358.

(1990) Warfield, J. N., "Presuppositions", in Cybernetics and Systems '90, (R. Trappl, Ed.), Singapore: World Scientific, pp 213-219.

(1991) Warfield, J. N., "Underconceptualization", in Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Special issue of Systemica: Journal of the Dutch Systems Group (R. Glanville and G. de Zeeuw, Eds.), Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, pp 415-433.

(1991) Warfield, J. N., "Complexity and Cognitive Equilibrium: Experimental Results and Their Implications", Human Systems Management10(3), 1991, 195-202.

(1992) Warfield, J. N., "Widely-Ignored Subtleties That Are Critical to Decision-Making", in Multiple Criteria Decision Making -- Proceedings of the Ninth Multicriteria Decision-Making Conference: Theory and Applications in Business, Industry, and Government, (Edited by Ambrose Goicoechea, Lucien Duckstein, and Stanley Zionts), [conference held at George Mason University, Aug., 1990], 449-457.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., "Complexity and Cognitive Equilibrium: Experimental Results and Their Implications", Chapter 5 in Dennis J. D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe (Eds.): Conflict Resolution Theory

and Practice: Integration and Application, New York: University of Manchester Press, pp 65-77.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., "Structural Thinking: Producing Effective Organizational Change", a Silver Anniversary Paper, commemorating 25 years of research on complexity by the author, Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 65 pages.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., and Carol Teigen, "Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations", Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 68 pages.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "SPREADTHINK: Explaining Ineffective Groups", Systems Research 12(1), March, 5-14.

(1996) Warfield, J. N., and S. M. Staley: "STRUCTURAL THINKING: Organizing Complexity Through Disciplined Activity", Systems Research 13(1), March, to appear.

THEME: PHILOSOPHY

(1978) Warfield, J. N., "Notes on Conceptual Science", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October, pp 744-745.

(1980) Warfield, J. N., "Science and Systems Science: A Technology Perspective", Proc. Society for General Systems Research , January, pp 212-218.

(1986) Warfield, J. N., "The Domain of Science Model: Evolution and Design", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, Salinas, CA: Intersystems, I pp H46-H59.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., "Implications of Scale for Systems Design", Proc. Society for General Systems Research, Budapest: SGSR, pp 1205-1211.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., and A. N. Christakis, "Dimensionality", Systems Research 4(2), pp 127-137.

(1987) Warfield, J. N., "What Disciplines Large-Scale Systems Design?" Proc. 1987 Conference on Planning and Design in Management of Business and Organizations (P. C. Nutt, Ed.), New ork: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 1-8.

(1987, 1990) Warfield, J. N., "Thinking About Systems", Editorial in Systems Research 4(4),

pp 227-234, reprinted in General Systems, 1990.

(1988) Warfield, J. N., "On the Design of Language for Systems Design", Cybernetics and Systems '88, Proc. 9th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (R. Trappl, Ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp 133-140.

(1988) Warfield, J. N., "Criteria for a Science of Design", Proc. 19th Annual Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation, Research Triangle Park: Instrument Society of America, pp 643-646.

(1988) Warfield, J. N., "Implicit Aspects of Much Systems Thinking", Systems Research 5(4),

pp 333-342.

(1989) Warfield, J. N., "Underconceptualization", Proceedings of the Conference on Support, Society, and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science (G. De Zeeuw and R. Glanville, Eds.), Univ. of Amsterdam, March, 1989, 15-39 (see 1991 for formal publication).

(1989) Warfield, J. N., "Artificial Philosophy and the Decline of Technology", Simposio Internação de Communição, Significão e Conhecimento, Seccão I, Set. 13/15, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 542-549.

(1989) Warfield, J. N., "Simple System Models Based on Sophisticated Assumptions", Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa (Science of Science), Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences 3-4,

pp 653-662, (in Polish).

(1990) Warfield, J. N., "Cybernetics, Systems Science, and the Great University", Systems Research 7(4), December, pp 287-294.

(1992) Warfield, J. N., "Dwie postawy projektowania" ("Dual-Basis Design) (in Polish),

Prakseololgia 1-2(114-115), pp 43-58.

(1993) Warfield, J. N., "Structural Thinking: Producing Effective Organizational Change", a Silver Anniversary Paper, commemorating 25 years of research on complexity, Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 65 pages.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., "Demands Imposed on Systems Science by Complexity", Proceedings of the United Kingdom Systems Society 4th International Conference: Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice, Hull,

U. K., July (Keith Ellis, Amanda Gregory, Bridget Mears-Young, and Gillian Ragsdell, Editors), 81-88.

(1996) Warfield, J. N., and S. M. Staley: "STRUCTURAL THINKING: Organizing Complexity Through Disciplined Activity", Systems Research 13(1), March, to appear.

 

PART 2: BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

(1972) Warfield, J. N. and J. D. Hill, et al, A Unified Systems Engineering Concept, Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute, Monograph Number One, June.

(1973) Warfield, J. N., An Assault on Complexity, Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute, Monograph No. 3, April.

(1974) Warfield, J. N., Structuring Complex Systems, Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute Monograph No. 4, April.

(1976, 1989, 1993) Warfield, J. N., Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity, New York: Wiley Interscience, 1976 [reprinted in paperback--Salinas, CA: Intersystems, 1989] [Chinese translation published in 1993, directed by Professor Zhang Bihui, Chairman of the Wuhan Science and Technology Commission, and Director of The Administrative Office of Wuhan East Lake High Technology Development Zone; publisher is the Hubei Science and Technology Press, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China]

(1990, 1994) Warfield, J. N., A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems Design, Salinas, CA: Intersystems, 1990 (two volume set) [Second Ed., Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1994]

(1993) Warfield, J. N., Self-Study Program Development Guides for Warfield Literature, Contract Number MDA903-90-C-0192, (209 pages).

(1994) Warfield, J. N. and Roxana Cárdenas, A Handbook of Interactive Management, Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press (draft version published locally in preliminary form for review in 1991 and 1992).

(1995) Warfield, J. N., The Work Program of Complexity: From Origins to Outcomes (tentative title), in progress.

 

PART 3: BIBLIOGRAPHIES

(1980, 1990) Warfield, J. N., Annotated Bibliography: Interpretive Structural Modeling and Related Work, Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 1990, 131 pages (first edition was made available by the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Virginia in 1980).

(1990) Warfield, J. N., Annotated Bibliography: Generic Systems Design and Interactive Management, Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 1990, 141 pp.

(1994) Warfield, J. N., The IASIS File: A Bibliography of Books and Papers Relevant to Complexity, Organizations, and Design, Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 1994.

(1995) Warfield, J. N., Warfield Publications on Complexity, Fairfax, VA: IASIS, 1995.