Monthly Archives: August 2010


Conversion of Administrative Systems into Adaptive Systems

Adaptive systems require being used to achieve results and dealing with the feedback from reality in order to make it possible. The integration of administrative systems using interactive adaptive interfaces allows giving administrative systems adaptive functions.

There are several paradigmatic examples of adaptive interfaces. Two of them will illustrate this approach: Windows and the I-phone.

The conversion of administrative systems into adaptive systems requires developing interfaces that need to integrate both the ontological logic of the processes included, in order to allow an intuitive approach to the operation, and the aesthetics of the activity in order to make the use of the system desirable.

The first interface to convert administrative systems into results driven adaptive systems was developed at Renault in 1985.

The intuitive use of interfaces of IT systems implies that they are designed following their natural functionality and the aesthetics of their category.

The ontological logic makes the functional reasoning process of the use of the IT system natural. It requires having used the unicist logic to integrate the different aspect of the functionality of the system.

This demands emulating the mental process of the user of the system following the nature of these processes and not a rational analytical approach.
The use of a predicate logic in the design allows installing the active function to drive the use of the system.

This predicate logical approach has to represent the natural metaphors individuals consider when they use the system. It represents simplification and not sophistication.

The intuitive approach needs to be fostered using an adequate fuzzy logic in order to allow intuition to work. The fuzzy logic is what allows dealing with the feedback of the system. Intuition can only be used when a design is based on a fuzzy logic.

Aesthetics is what sustains the minimum strategy of adaptive interfaces. It requires completing the needs of what the user demands when using the system. The completing of needs requires having a real knowledge of what the different segments of users need and the semiotics of these needs.

Adaptive interfaces make the system be part of the user. They generate belonging. A tennis racket can only be properly used if it is part of the body of the player. An interactive system belongs to its user. It can be said that it generates addiction, but in fact what it generates is the integration with the user.

To do so aesthetics needs to generate the desire to “own” the system. This implies that the individual will tend to avoid sharing it.

Systems interfaces need to have a harmonic design following their implicit intercommunication process. It requires understanding the “harmony and melody” of a system when designing it.

Only being a tennis player allows designing tennis rackets. The Unicist Extreme Design technology was developed to solve this design process integrating IT technology with the knowledge of the work processes.

A functional adaptive system interface is a unique piece of art.

Learn more: https://www.unicist.net/it/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/unicist_xd_abstract_en.pdf

Request more information: n.i.brown@unicist.org

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,000 researches in complexity science applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Theory of Evolution.

Follow us on twitter


Knowledge Businesses: Unicist Adaptive Systems IT

Adaptive systems development requires dealing with the ambiguity of reality in order to produce results. Knowledge is the key in this business.

There are cultures that promote knowledge and there are cultures that prevent knowledge from existing. Where transparency is needed to operate, knowledge is a natural element and is therefore encouraged. In transparent cultures, the person with knowledge is admired, as it is he who gives value to the environment.

In cultures where it is necessary to avoid transparency, knowledge is a countercultural element, and he who has it is envied, as it is feared that he may take advantage of it.

The culture of countries and institutions has areas that are transparent and areas that are dark. In transparent areas, knowledge is developed naturally and in dark areas, any knowledge that appears is annulled.

Consequently, cultures which are mainly marginal or underdeveloped avoid all knowledge whatsoever of their own situation so as to continue in it, while they say the contrary. Knowledge components are reduced to those fields where these cultures act as developed or emerging.

Fostering knowledge is basic in businesses that deal with adaptive systems.

Access more information at GoogleBooks

Request more information: n.i.brown@unicist.org

Diego Belohlavek
Expert System Manager

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute is the major research organization in the world in its specialty based on more than 3,000 researches in complexity science applied to individual, institutional and social evolution. The applicative researches are based on the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the consequent Unicist Theory of Evolution.

Follow us on twitter