Access to Assistive Technology,Systems Thinking,and Market Shaping: A Response to Durocher et al.

Fairness of access to assistive technology is important for its allocation on an equitable basis and for broader social justice and rights issues. Although the use of Daniels’s notion of “justice as fair opportunity” is helpful to the context of assistive technology, other aspects of Daniels’s broader conceptualisation of “just health” are not appropriate in this context. It is argued that fairness of access to assistive technology is crucial for the equitable attainment of the sustainable development goals; however, such access will be achieved only by the sector developing a much stronger systems thinking and market shaping perspective.     

异步异构分层并行演化算法及其在串并系统可靠性优化中的应用(英文)

本文提出了一种新的并行演化算法――异步异构分层并行演化算法(AHHPGA),用于求解串并系统可靠性分配的多目标优化问题(RAP)。AHHPGA采用分层结构,上层由粗粒度模型构成,下层由细粒度模型构成。在AHHPGA的每个子种群中,采用不同的全局/局部搜索度和拓扑结构,构成异构模型。AHHPGA的迁移方式包括异步接收和异步迁出。采用基于模型的复杂系统可靠性评价工具(HiP-HOPS),以克服可靠性框图方法(RBD)的缺点。仿真结果表明,基于异步异构分层并行演化算法和HiP-HOPS工具的串并系统可靠性分配的多目标优化方法,优于传统的基于遗传算法的优化方法。     

Critique of Sharif’s and Pitt’s Models of Technology

abstract

In this article Pitt’s and Sharif’s models of technology are discussed. These models are based on two different conceptions of technology, which are technology as “instrument” and as “making use of instrument.” Sharif considers technology as a collection of empowering tools, including technoware, humanware, infoware and orgaware. On the other hand, Pitt sees technology as “humanity at work.” Based on his definition, Pitt proposes a model of technology with three components; first-order transformation, second-order transformation, and the assessment of feedback mechanism. In this article this model will be explained and criticized. After that, Sharif’s model is criticized in the light of Pitt’s theory and it will be shown that Pitt’s model provides a better understanding of different aspects of technology. For example, it will be argued how Pitt’s model is efficient in explaining dynamicity, transfer and control of technology along with its soft dimensions, while Sharif’s model is incapable of doing so. In the next part, Pitt’s model is criticized and it is shown that the mechanism of knowledge progress suggested by this model is controversial and Pitt’s framework cannot support the idea of indigenous technology. Furthermore, the ability of Pitt’s model in describing different technological phenomena is called into question, since this model provides a superficial view of the complexity of an assessment of technology’s consequences. Finally, a list is proposed that contains minimal requirements that every model of technology is expected to explain. It is incumbent on technology theoreticians to consider this list.     

Alter Egos: Notes on the basic Processes of specular Identification

Although identity is always dependant on observing minds, identification in physics and biology remains merely external, avoiding therefore the more serious problems of identity which arise in the presence of observed minds. Minds are defined in this paper as specular machines, i.e. systems capable of crossed self‐representations. Specularity is introduced as the primary condition of any objective identification, and self‐identification is presented as the core of specularity. Elementary illustrations are given of the role of specularity in both sociology and psychopathology.     

Multiobjective optimization for interwoven systems

In practical situations, complex systems are often composed of subsystems or subproblems with single or multiple objectives. These subsystems focus on different aspects of the overall system, but they often have strong interactions with each other and they are usually not sequentially ordered or obviously decomposable. Thus, the individual solutions of subproblems do not generally induce a solution for the overall system. Here, we strive to identify “re‐composition architectures” of such “interwoven” systems. Our intention is to connect the subsystems adequately, analyze the resulting performance, model/solve the overall system, and improve the overall solution instead of just solving each subsystem separately. We review recent developments in this field and discuss modeling and solution paradigms in a general and unified framework using the example of an interwoven system consisting of two interacting subsystems.     

Team adaptability and task cohesion as resources to the non-linear dynamics of workload and sickness absenteeism in firefighter teams

ABSTRACT

The current study builds on the non-linear Dynamic Systems (NDS) perspective to test the assumption that change in sickness absenteeism is non-linear, and that such change is due to workload, team adaptability and task cohesion. Participants were 37 firefighter teams (n = 250 individuals) from a main European capital city. The research hypotheses were tested using SPSS and the “cusp” package, in the statistical software R. The results suggest that change in sickness absenteeism behaviours over time is non-linear, with the cusp catastrophe model predicting such behaviours better than the linear and logistic models. In our model, task cohesion functions as an asymmetry factor (i.e., the independent variable that determines the strength and discrepancy between the two stable states of the dependent variable) leading to a linear change in sickness absenteeism. Interestingly, both workload and team adaptability function as bifurcation (i.e., the independent variable that determines the change between the two stable states of the order parameter) and asymmetry factors leading to non-linear and linear change in sickness absenteeism over time. This study contributes to the growing evidence that incorporating the NDS perspective enables a better understanding of action teams, namely those working in extreme environments.     

An introduction to the Priority‐Pointing Procedure

A qualitative research‐based diagnostic procedure, the Priority‐Pointing Procedure (PPP), is proposed that synthesizes responses to open‐ended questions about the direction an organization should take. It points to a priority for action by measuring imbalances in the numbers of responses in the context of the structure of adjustment decision‐making from nomology. It is shown to be useful for defining variables and structuring criteria for strategic Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) problems. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.