Gall's Law - Something to Think About (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

If you have a complex project, follow "Gall's law" — or it will fail

Functional complex systems arise from functional simple systems. Failing to heed this advice can and will lead to disaster.

bigthink.com

Until reading the above article, I don't think that I ever heard about Gall's Law.

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.

Seems that this would rate along side of Murphy's Law (and its derivatives) and Parkinson's Law (and its derivatives).

 

[GaP42]

And the Pareto Principle, insofar as 80% of the function can be achieved with 20% of the total effort. That 80% is the simple(r) part. The remainder is complex. Also there is the notion of tightly coupled complex systems are more likely to suffer catastrophic failure, whereas loosely coupled systems can be more easily managed ( the five-mile island accident was a case in point )

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding the Pareto Principle, you stated it incompletely. 80% of your effort covers 80% of the problem. The last 20% of the problem requires the OTHER 80% of your effort. (What? Doesn't add up right? Welcome to the real world of project management.)

And Gall's Law is actually similar to work done by Alan Turing regarding how simple things grow to become more complex naturally. Such as life itself, which started unicellular and, suddenly, wasn't unicellular any more. And eventually WE came along to bollix up the works.

 

[Steve R.]

Another example: Fukushima nuclear disaster.

On detecting the earthquake, the active reactors automatically shut down their normal power-generating fission reactions. Because of these shutdowns and other electrical grid supply problems, the reactors' electricity supply failed, and their emergency diesel generators automatically started. Critically, these were required to provide electrical power to the pumps that circulated coolant through the reactors' cores. This continued circulation was vital to remove residual decay heat, which continues to be produced after fission has ceased. However, the earthquake had also generated a tsunami 14 metres (46 ft) high that arrived shortly afterwards, swept over the plant's seawall, and then flooded the lower parts of the reactor buildings at units 1–4. This flooding caused the failure of the emergency generators and loss of power to the circulating pumps.The resulting loss of reactor core cooling led to three nuclear meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions, and the release of radioactive contamination in Units 1, 2 and 3 between 12 and 15 March. The spent fuel pool of the previously shut-down Reactor 4 increased in temperature on 15 March due to decay heat from newly added spent fuel rods, but did not boil down sufficiently to expose the fuel.

 

[Galaxiom]

Procrastination is a strategy to overcome Parkinson's Law. Use the procrastination time before starting to visualise complex system as a network of simple systems obeying thus Gall's Law.

Address the Pareto Principle by identifying early which twenty percent of parts are going to be the problem and focus eighty percent of the initial efforts on them. The goal is to level the remaining effort required on each of the parts.

The most dangerous factor is not knowing enough about the broad details of the sub-systems to design complete interfaces from the start. In flight changes to the interfaces of a subsystem disproportionately consume effort because they propagate to other subsystems it interfaces with.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Regarding Fukashima, if the Japanese had reported the problem and asked for help, the disaster could likely have been averted. Not sure where that fits into the "laws"

 

[Lightwave]

Regarding the Pareto Principle, you stated it incompletely. 80% of your effort covers 80% of the problem. The last 20% of the problem requires the OTHER 80% of your effort. (What? Doesn't add up right? Welcome to the real world of project management.)

And Gall's Law is actually similar to work done by Alan Turing regarding how simple things grow to become more complex naturally. Such as life itself, which started unicellular and, suddenly, wasn't unicellular any more. And eventually WE came along to bollix up the works.

Yes I'm not totally on board with these laws - they kind of seem to contradict each other... Second law of thermodynamics... Law of Entropy. Is life an example of greater order or greater disorder?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Is life an example of greater order or greater disorder?

Yes.

My wife and I are perfect examples of this dichotomy. She is slightly OCD. I'm slightly sloppy. Yet through each other, we found a good life.

 

[GaP42]

Lightwave, just to ensure there is no misunderstanding here ... the second law of thermodynamics - the idea of increasing entropy - a measure of the tendency to disorder is valid in terms of life, requires that it is the system under consideration is a closed system - one in which the total energy of the system (conservation of energy) does not change. A difficult situation when life is considered, unless you think about it in the larger context. Life, as we know it, always relies on an external energy source - the sun. If you now consider the scope of the system to include the Earth - Sun System and energy flows, then there is certainly sufficient energy inputs to allow complex life to develop and evolve - a process that does by itself appear to lead to less entropy (greater order). And for the Doc_Man some semblance of balance over the two competing forces of nature.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

From the chemist's viewpoint, Entropy always increases - but the loophole is that you CAN decrease entropy by expenditure of energy. Simplest example? Certain batteries built for it can be recharged. The infamous lead-acid car battery, for example, provides power when sulfuric acid reacts with lead electrodes to remove tiny layers of metal. The recharge in this case simply uses electricity to re-plate lead back on the electrodes - which creates a more ordered surface and thus DECREASES entropy at the cost of energy.

Or in the case of me and my dear wife, I'm entropy positive, she's entropy negative - so we are nearly in equilibrium.

 

[jpl458]

If you have a complex project, follow "Gall's law" — or it will fail

Functional complex systems arise from functional simple systems. Failing to heed this advice can and will lead to disaster.

bigthink.com

Until reading the above article, I don't think that I ever heard about Gall's Law.

Seems that this would rate along side of Murphy's Law (and its derivatives) and Parkin

Regarding the Pareto Principle, you stated it incompletely. 80% of your effort covers 80% of the problem. The last 20% of the problem requires the OTHER 80% of your effort. (What? Doesn't add up right? Welcome to the real world of project management.)

And Gall's Law is actually similar to work done by Alan Turing regarding how simple things grow to become more complex naturally. Such as life itself, which started unicellular and, suddenly, wasn't unicellular any more. And eventually WE came along to bollix up the works.

Entropy or facilities expand to use all available resources
son's Law (and its derivatives).

 

[Steve R.]

There appears to be a subtle but significant distinction between Gall's law and Parkison's law.

Parkinson's law holds that work expands: "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." It does not explicitly refer to developing a new complex system from scratch. Parkison's law seemingly refers to an ever growing bureaucracy managing an existing mandate.

Gall's law holds that: "A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system." Gall's seemingly implies that a complex system must be built upon modules of simple systems. Ironically, this is appears similar to a Linux/Unix hissy fit. Philosophically, Unix favored a series of small programs to boot specific computer services. Linux, at least some distros, have gone to using one (big) program to boot all services.