Based on the clustering framework we developed, David Blockley occupies a crucial intersection between Cluster 8: Radical Uncertainty, Antifragility & Adaptive Action and Cluster 3: Soft Systems & Epistemological Constructivism.
As an engineer grappling with the limits of traditional predictive models, Blockley’s work bridges the gap between hard engineering and human subjectivity. Here is exactly where he fits and why:
1. His Primary Home: Radical Uncertainty & Adaptive Action
Blockley belongs firmly alongside authors like David Spiegelhalter, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and the TOG group because of his profound focus on the limits of traditional probability and the dangers of ignoring what we do not know.
- Open vs. Closed Worlds: He argues that traditional statistical analysis only works in a “closed world” where all possible outcomes are known. However, human systems and “wicked problems” exist in an “open world” characterized by completely unknown consequences.
- The FIR Model of Uncertainty: He breaks uncertainty down into three distinct types: Fuzziness (imprecision), Incompleteness (lack of knowledge), and Randomness (statistical variation).
- Mitigating High-Impact Shocks: Much like Taleb, Blockley studies high-impact, low-probability risks (like the Fukushima disaster or the New Orleans levee collapse). He advises that engineering strategies must be “insensitive to the lack of knowledge,” focusing on robust connectivity rather than relying on perfect forecasting.
2. His Methodological Bridge: Soft Systems & Problem Structuring
While he deals with physical engineering risks, Blockley completely adopts the epistemological stance of the Soft Systems thinkers (like Peter Checkland and Hylton Boothroyd).
- Systems as Epistemology: He argues that systems thinking is a “way of going about thinking” used to structure messy realities, completely distinct from complexity science, which studies the physical nature of the world.
- Negotiated Knowledge: He recognizes that problems are mental constructs shaped by individual “worldviews”. Instead of looking for an objective, mathematical “truth,” he advocates for participative debate to arrive at “negotiated knowledge”—a shared, dependable model that stakeholders can use to make decisions.
3. His Signature Contribution: The Italian Flag
The tool that perfectly encapsulates Blockley’s position across these clusters is his “Italian Flag” framework for evaluating evidence. To navigate conflicting perspectives and extreme uncertainty, he demands that groups explicitly articulate three things:
- Green: Evidence for success.
- Red: Evidence against success (failure).
- White: Acknowledged ignorance (what we know we do not know).
By explicitly mapping the “White” space, Blockley removes the stigma or “fear of being wrong” among experts, allowing organizations to actively manage their epistemic ignorance rather than pretending they have absolute certainty.