When interrelating breaks down, individuals represent others
in the system in less detail, contributions are shaped less by
anticipated responses, and the boundaries of the envisaged
system are drawn more narrowly, with the result that
subordination becomes meaningless. - Weick & Roberts, 1993

Following on from the last post, which models do people find best for studying behavior and environments, and identifying design features which will promote 'good' adaptations and reject poor options at a critical phase transition? Currently reading Marten Scheffer on this topic.

"Traditionally, safety research and industrial safety management have focused on unwanted events and outcomes. In the growing field of resilience engineering, a proactive approach to safety management is pursued. Success and failure are seen as outcomes of the same underlying behavior." - Hollnagel

This page won't just be quotes. It's an ongoing conversation about complexity, what makes complex systems tick, and what we can do to design systems for safety and performance rather than putting the onus on end users to accommodate broken systems. Follow if that sounds good to you!

“The beauty of a flower is not diminished by the fact that we know it is made of cells and molecules. It only adds.” - Richard Feynman