A method of morphological analysis for the general modeling unquantified

A method of morphological analysis for the general modeling unquantified Fritz Zwicky was a pioneer in the development of morphology analysis (MA) as a method of investigation of all reports in a multi-dimensional, usually non-quantifiable problem complexes. Over the past two decades, MA has been extended and applied in the field of future studies and for structuring and analyzing complex policy spaces. This article describes the basic elements of morphology and describes recent applications of policy analysis. "... Within the last and true world image everything is related to everything, and nothing can be excluded a priori as irrelevant. "(Fritz Zwicky: Discovery, invention, research through the morphological approach.) Note: The original article morphological pattes and images of the fields that are not available in text format. The original article can be downloaded from the Swedish Morphological Society at: INTRODUCTION General morphological analysis (MA) was developed by Fritz Zwicky - the Swiss astrophysicist and scientist based in the aerospace industry in Califoia Institute of Technology (Caltech) - as a method for structuring of research and reporting in multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable, problem complexes (Zwicky 1966, 1969). Zwicky applied this method to these different fields, such as the classification of astrophysical objects, the development of jet and rocket propulsion systems, and legal aspects of travel and colonization of space. He founded the Society for Research and Advanced Morphological the "morphological approach" for about 40 years between the beginning of 1930 until his death in 1974. More recently, morphological analysis has been extended and applied by a number of researchers in the United States and Europe in the field of policy analysis and futures studies (Rhyne 1981, 1995a, 1995b; Coyle 1994, 1995, 1996, Ritchey 1997, 1998, Ritchey, Stenstr? M & Eriksson, 2002). The method is currently undergoing a renaissance of sorts, not least because of the development of small, fast and flexible graphical user interfaces. This article begins with a discussion of some of the methodological problems, non-quantified modeling, particularly as applied to policy analysis and future studies. This is followed by a presentation of the foundations of the morphological approach with a recent application of policy analysis. BACKGROUND METHODOLOGICAL analysis of complex policy areas and the development of future scenarios presents a number of difficult methodological problems. First, many if not all the factors involved are not quantifiable, because they contain a strong social and political consciousness and reference among actors. This means that traditional quantitative methods, causal modeling and simulation are relatively useless. Secondly, the uncertainties inherent in these problems are complex, in principle, not reducible, and often can not be described or defined. This represents a blow even more the idea of causal modeling and simulation. Finally, the process by which conclusions are drawn in such studies is often difficult to find - ie, who rarely have an adequate "audit trail" which describes the process to obtain the first issue of specific solutions or conclusions . Without some form of traceability we have little control over the possibility of scientific results, not to mention reproducibility. As an alteative to formal (mathematical) methods and modeling of causation is a way to not depend on quantitative models to judge the processes and inteal consistency, rather than causation. Models of causality, if you can - and should - be used as an aid to the ruling. However, a certain level of complexity (eg in social, political and cognitive level), the premium should be often used - and has worked with - more or less directly. The question is: How can we judge the process on a sound methodological basis? Historically, scientific knowledge develops through cycles of analysis and synthesis: every synthesis is based on the results of an analysis procedure, all the analysis and synthesis needed to verify and correct its results (Ritchey, 1991). However, the analysis and synthesis - based on scientific methods - say nothing about a problem of having to be quantifiable. Complex social-political problem fields can be analyzed in any number of variables not quantified and the range of conditions. Similarly, the combinations of conditions can not be quantified in well-defined synthesis of the data or configurations, which represent "solution spaces". In this context, there is no fundamental difference between quantified and unquantified modeling. Morphological analysis - extended by the technique of cross-consistency assessment (CCA, see below) - is a method of investigation and discipline of the properties of the inteal structure can not quantify complex problems, which contain any number of different parameters. The Committee encourages the investigation of boundary conditions and almost requires operators to examine the number of contrasting configurations and policy solutions. Finally, even if the process of experimentation in the month of May ever in track, such as, for example, a mathematician formally derives a proof, MA is a long way in providing a proper audit trail, as might be expected. THE MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH The term morphology comes from the ancient Greek (morph) and / or form. The general definition of the morphology is "the study of the shape or patte," ie, the shape and arrangement of the parts of an object, and as "conforming" to create a whole or Gestalt. "objects" in question may be physical objects (eg, body, anatomy, geography or an ecology) or mental objects (eg linguistic forms, systems of concepts or ideas). Fritz Zwicky proposed a generalized form of morphological research: "The attention was called to the fact that the term morphology has long been used in many fields of science to describe the research on structural interrelations - for example, in anatomy, geology, botany and biology. ... I have proposed to generalize and systematize the concept of morphological research and include not only the study of geometric shapes, geological, biological, and generally material structures, but also to explore the more abstract structural interrelations among phenomena, concepts and ideas, regardless of his character could be. " (Zwicky, 1966, p. 34) Essentially, general morphological analysis is a method to identify and study all the possible relationships or "configurations" in a complex problem. In this sense, is closely linked to the type of construction (Bailey 1994), although it is higher in conceptual form and extent. The approach begins by identifying and defining the parameters (or dimensions) of a complex problem to be investigated, and assigning each parameter a set of "values" or conditions. A morphological box - also appropriately known as a "Zwicky box" - is built by setting the parameters against each other in an n-dimensional matrix (see Figure 1). Each cell of the n-dimensional box containing a "value" or status of each parameter, and therefore represents a particular state or configuration of a complex problem. Ideally, it would consider all the configurations in this field, to determine which of them is possible, feasible, practical, interesting, etc., and which are not. In this way, the mark in the relevant field "solution space". The solution space Zwickian morphological field consists of a subset of configurations that meet certain criteria - one of which is inteally consistent. However, a typical range of 6-10 morphological variables can contain between 50,000 and 5,000,000 formal configurations, too many to check by hand. So, the next step in the process of synthesis, analysis is to examine the inteal relationship between the sector and reduce the parameters of the sector by identifying and weeding, all mutually contradictory conditions. This is achieved through a process of evaluation of the consistency of (CEC). All the values of morphological parameters of the field are compared with each other in pair-wise, in the form of a cross impact matrix. In each pair of conditions, with a verdict is reached if - and to what extent - the pair can coexist, ie represent a consistent relationship. To the extent that a couple of conditions is a blatant contradiction, then all those configurations containing the conditions of this pair is also inteally inconsistent. Using this technique, a typical morphological field can be reduced to 90 or even 99% depending on the problem of the structure. There are three types of inconsistencies involved here: purely logical contradictions (ie those based on the nature of the concepts); empirical constraints (ie relationships judged be highly plausible or empirical reasons), regulations and limitations (for example, reports are goveed by example, ethical or political). Regulatory constraints should be used very carefully and clearly marked as such. We must first know what the court as possible before making decisions about what is desirable. Reduce the field to a solution of space allows us to focus on a number of inteally consistent configurations. These can then be considered as elements of scenarios or solutions in a complex political space. With support, the morphological field can be treated as one model inference. (To this end, the FOA has developed a Windows-based software package that supports the entire process of analysis-synthesis involving General Morphology. The program is called MA / Casper: Computer Aided Scenario and Problem Evaluation Routine). The morphology has several advantages over less structured approaches. MA Zwicky calls "complete", in an unbiased way attempts to obtain all the solutions to every problem. "We can help discover new relationships or configurations that may not be so obvious, or you might have overlooked by other - less structured - methods. Important because it promotes the identification and investigation of boundary conditions, ie the limits and extremes of different contexts and factors. It also has clear advantages for scientific communication and - notably - for group work. As a process, the method demands that parameters, conditions, and the issues behind these are clearly defined. Becomes ill-defined parameters immediately (and embarrassingly) evident when cross-referenced and assessed for inteal consistency. REFERENCES Bailey, K.: typologies and taxonomies - An introduction to classification techniques, Sage University Paper: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994). Coyle, RG, Crawshay, R. and Sutton, L.: "Evaluation of Future Field Anomaly Relaxation", Futures 26 (1), 25-43 (1994). Coyle, RG, McGlone, GR: "Projection Scenarios Southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific, Futures 27 (1), 65-79 (1995). Coyle, R.G. and Yong, Y. C.: "A scenario projection for the South China Sea", Futures 28 (3), 269-283 (1996). Doty, DH and Glick, W. "Typologies as a unique form of theory building", Academy of Management Review, vol. 19, No. 2 (1994) Rhyne, R.: "The whole future of the projection-patte, Using field anomaly relaxation," Technology Foresight and Social Change 19, 331-360 (1981). Rhyne, R.: "Field anomaly relaxation - Use of the Arts", Futures 27 (6), 657-674 (1995a). Rhyne, R.: "Evaluation of alteative systems Indonesian Sea-Sovereignty", Informa: Institute for Operations Research and Management Science (1995b). Ritchey, T.: "Analysis and Synthesis - On Scientific Method based on a study by Behard Riemann" Systems Research 8 (4), 21-41 (1991). (Available as REPRINT at: Ritchey, T.: "The scenario of development and risk management analysis using morphological field", Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information Systems (Cork: Cork Publishing Company), vol. 3: 1053 -- 1059 (1997). Ritchey, T. "Fritz Zwicky, Morphologie and Policy Analysis," Presented at the 16th Conference of operational analysis, Brussels (1998) Ritchey, T, Stenstr? M, M. & Eriksson, H ., "Use of morphological analysis to evaluate the preparation of an accident involving hazardous materials", Proceedings of the 4th Conference LACDE, Shanghai (2002). (Available as REPRINT at: Zwicky, F., Discovery, Invention, Research -- Through the Morphological Approach, Toronto: The Macmillan Company (1969). Zwicky, F. & Wilson, A. (ed.), new methods of thought and procedure: Contributions to the symposium on methodologies, Berlin: Springer ( 1967).