#Examples of coherence full

More generally, systems can be both incoherent and unresponsive, both top-down and bottom-up processes can function poorly, and so on. For example, a bad system can be both unreliable and stubbornly ignorant of actual usage patterns. On the negative side, just because we do worse on one dimension, we won't automatically do better on the other that is, we can do worse than zero sum. And as long as we stay on this curve, the dimensions are still in an antagonistic relationship: If we do better on one dimension, we do worse on the other (see Figure 2).Д«ut now we can see it is possible to leave this trade-off curve.

When we shift to two dimensions, our one-dimensional, zero-sum line becomes a trade-off curve. Viewed in this way, we can easily see the relationship is not simply zero sum. Moving to two dimensions lets us explore the relationship between the two poles. Instead of trying to pick a 'right place' on the single dimension between the two poles, we can see responsiveness and coherence as separate, more independent dimensions of our systems. There is another way to see the tension in these pairs. We find coherence and responsiveness to be the most general of these dichotomies, but all point in a similar direction and all raise similar issues. However, there are many similar dichotomies, embodying the same tension, that seem to require the designer or policy maker to choose a balance. So system designers often find themselves trying to pick the 'least worst' point on this spectrum, regretfully sacrificing some responsiveness or some coherence. This is even stated as a binary choiceВ—order or anarchyВ—though no real system can ever achieve those extremes (see Figure 1). System designers often see themselves as confronted with a zero-sum choice: Increase responsiveness to local needs or opportunities and you must reduce the system's ability to conform to preferred patterns, and vice versa. The more a system drives toward coherence, the stronger the relationships between its parts, and the less freedom each part has to adapt to its circumstances in unexpected ways. Systems are therefore always engaged in an interplay of responsiveness and coherence: The more a system's parts are responsive to the diversity and dynamism of the world, giving people the ability to meet their needs, the less we can know about how the whole system will behave. At the same time, users affect each other, so a system must provide coherence.ДЄs designers and users, we would like each part of a system to be responsive to local circumstances and also the system as a whole to be coherent. Even better, systems can help users in their interactions with one another.Д®ach system we create embodies a tension: The world is diverse and dynamic different users at different times have different needs and expectations. They help individual users get their work done more easily. Systems pattern activity in their domain. Systems are made up of people and things, rules and practices, options and constraints. Systems are designed and evolved they are built, maintained, modified, and replaced.

#Examples of coherence full

The world we live in is full of systems: phone systems, legal systems, air traffic control systems, educational systems, banking systems, digital communication systems (such as the Internet), computer operating systems, purchasing systems, HR systems, healthcare systems.