http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_yeager/archive/tags/Complexity+Theory/default.aspxTags: Complexity Theoryen-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_yeager/archive/2006/01/04/software-as-systemic-core.aspxThu, 05 Jan 2006 03:14:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:509455mty1http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_yeager/comments/509455.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/michael_yeager/commentrss.aspx?PostID=509455<P>Developers/architects of software applications generally&nbsp;think of those applications as tools. Tools&nbsp;to be used by individuals, teams, and corporations&nbsp;in the achievement of their individual, team and corporate goals.&nbsp;</P> <P>Office&nbsp;is&nbsp;the classic example of a "transparent" software tool&nbsp;that any&nbsp;individual or enterprise can use singlely or multiply without the tool itself directly&nbsp;imposing any particular&nbsp;organizational structure or style&nbsp;on those&nbsp;employing it. </P> <P>Even&nbsp;systemic tools such as ERP and CRM systems are planned and painstakingly imposed upon whole divisions rather than&nbsp;being the driving force&nbsp;for those divisions. Portal systems are agonizingly architected to mimic the organization of the corporation rather than to organize the corporation. Business Intelligence systems are built and rebuilt and then rebuilt again&nbsp;to&nbsp;aid decision making&nbsp;by the corporation rather than to decisively guide the corporation.</P> <P>We&nbsp;haven't yet fully come to terms with the concept&nbsp;of software as the&nbsp;systemic&nbsp;core of an organization or corporation... but we will.</P> <P>Just thinking.</P> <P>michael</P> <P mce_keep="true">&nbsp;</P> <P mce_keep="true">&nbsp;</P><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=509455" width="1" height="1">Software ArchitectureComplexity Theory