can you be critical of Snowden and Hoverstadt particularly on their innate understanding on what it is to be an engineer
Critiquing Dave Snowden and Patrick Hoverstadt regarding their understanding of “the engineer” requires looking at how they utilize engineering as a metaphor versus how they treat the actual, material practice of engineering. While both advocate for moving beyond “command and control,” the sources suggest that their frameworks may still fall into the trap of treating the engineer as a detached observer or a functionalist modeler rather than a “tinkerer” with skin in the game.
Here is a critique based on the integrated perspectives of the sources:
1. The “Clockwork” Straw Man (Snowden)
Snowden’s primary critique of systems thinking is that it is an “ordered” approach suitable only for “complicated” engineering puzzles[1][2].
• The Critique: Critics within the “Meeting of Minds” (MoM) and “The Other Group” (TOG) argue that Snowden presents a “straw man” version of engineering[3]. By equating engineering entirely with “best practice” and linear “fail-safe” design, he ignores the unselfconscious design and “stochastic tinkering” that define real-world engineering[4][5].
• The “Expert” Bias: Snowden’s reliance on “human sensor networks” still positions the leader/designer as an observer who interprets “micro-narratives” from a distance[6][7]. This contradicts the Alan Kay or Christopher Alexander view of an engineer as an agent who “lives in the environment” to understand its deep structure[8][9].
2. The “Variety Machine” Functionalism (Hoverstadt)
Hoverstadt utilizes “Variety Engineering” to design for organizational autonomy[10][11].
• The Critique: The TOG group labels this as “functionalism”—the act of “turning the handle” on a cybernetic framework (like the VSM) without necessarily understanding the unique value or the “quality” of the outcome[12][13].
• Ignoring the “Water”: A significant critique is that Hoverstadt’s “Grammar” focuses so heavily on information and variety that it can ignore the hard physical constraints (the “water”) that actual engineers must navigate[14][15]. For example, no amount of “adaptive variety” can overcome the physical limit of a Victorian railway tunnel or a specific refinery feedstock[12][16].
3. The “Missing” Innate Engineer (Kay & Alexander)
Both authors are criticized for perhaps missing the innate, unselfconscious nature of the engineer as described by Alan Kay and Christopher Alexander.
• Invention vs. Categorization: Alan Kay distinguishes between “better” (incremental news) and “needed” (fundamental new context)[17][18]. Snowden and Hoverstadt focus heavily on categorizing the mess (Cynefin) or diagnosing the structure (VSM)[19][20]. An engineer, however, is someone who creates a “new literacy” or “architecture” that makes the old complexity disappear[21][22].
• **The Epistemic Cut:**David L. Abel and Howard Pattee would argue that both thinkers occasionally blur the line between “Laws” (physical necessity) and “Rules” (cybernetic choice)[23][24]. If an engineer is “innately” doing something, it is often because they are harnessing laws via rules; Snowden’s “emergence” can sometimes feel like “waiting for the laws to change themselves,” while Hoverstadt’s “laws” can feel like they are being imposed on a social reality that is actually made of arbitrary rules[25][26].
4. The Problem of “Guru” Distance (Revans & Taleb)
Reg Revans and Nassim Taleb provide the sharpest critique regarding the “stance” of these authors.
• Skin in the Game: Taleb argues that a true engineer/practitioner cannot be understood without “Skin in the Game”[27]. Many of the “complexity tools” sold by consultants are criticized as “cheap talk” because the consultant does not go down with the ship if the “safe-to-fail probe” causes systemic ruin[28][29].
• P+Q vs. Pure Q: Revans’ equation L=P+Q suggests that “Questioning Insight” (Q) must be grounded in “Programmed Knowledge” (P)[30]. The critique of “complexity gurus” is that they prioritize “Q” (the fresh question) to such an extent that they devalue the “P” (the hard-won technical expertise) that an innate engineer brings to the coalface[31][32].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Critique Table
| Author | Perceived “Engineer” Role | Systemic Critique |
|---|---|---|
| Snowden | The “Sense-Maker” interpreting patterns from afar. | Reifies “ordered engineering” as a straw man to sell “complexity”[3][33]. |
| Hoverstadt | The “Structuralist” tuning the variety of the VSM. | Risks “functionalism”; may ignore the hard “water” of physical reality[13][34]. |
| Innate Engineer | The “Tinkerer” creating new architecture through action. | Prioritizes “doing” and “skin in the game” over categorization[4][28]. |
In your experience with engineers, do they seem more like Snowden’s “sensors” who wait for patterns to emerge, or do they possess the “unselfconscious” drive to build a “stone bridge” regardless of the complexity labels we put on them[35]?
References
[1] 💬Distinctions.md [2] 💬What is Complexity.md [3] 💬Distinctions.md [4] 💬Gists.md [5] 💬What is Complexity.md [6] 💬Gists.md [7] 💬Perspectives.md [8] 💬Environment.md [9] 💬Gists.md [10] 💬Distinctions.md [11] 💬Distinctions.md [12] 💬Questions.md [13] 💬Questions.md [14] 💬Perspectives.md [15] 💬Questions.md [16] 💬Perspectives.md [17] 💬Gists.md [18] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [19] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [20] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [21] 💬Environment.md [22] 💬What is Complexity.md [23] 💬Gists.md [24] 💬Gists.md [25] 💬Questions.md [26] 💬Questions.md [27] 💬Gists.md [28] 💬Perspectives.md [29] 💬Questions.md [30] 💬Gists.md [31] 💬Gists.md [32] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [33] 💬Gists.md [34] 💬Perspectives.md [35] 💬Gists.md