XplanaZine

Complexity is everywhere and, most agree, technology is the driving force. I was at the NECTFL conference last weekend and overheard a teacher from Maine say to her colleague, “I just got the old program figured out and now we’re switching to a new one. I guess I’ll never get to use any of this with my students.” That’s complexity in a nutshell — change that is so rapid it is difficult for individuals or communities to adapt effectively.

Complexity is everywhere and it is the enemy. But the biggest problem is not the complexity itself — it is, rather, the speed with which the complexity increases. The rapidity of change takes complexity from the realm of uncomfortable to the lofty stratosphere of impossible. Those who have managed classroom technology are all too familiar with this rapid change. They have witnessed changes in video transmission standards, conferencing standards, and hardware standards that have forced them to rip out expensive installations that still worked but that had become obsolete (and, of course, this means the teachers have to learn a new system).

Learning Management Systems, office applications, network protocols, printers, phones — the list of rapidly changing technology that can increase the complexity of education seems almost without limits. And underneath the complexity stack lie thousands of teachers crushed by the weight. Perhaps this was what Kurtz really meant. “The Horror. The Horror.”

And, as bad as rapid change and complexity seem for educators at the surface, the real threat posed to schools and universities is the incredible mess these forces create at the institutional level. It is to expensive to re-train everyone or to replace legacy hardware and old Web infrastructures, so we end up with “add-on” systems — patchwork, layered systems that add to the complexity and yet seem like the only alternative due to budgetary restraints.

There are two solutions to this type of institutional complexity. The first is to find a nifty tool for managing the complexity. This week, InfoWorld is running a good article about how chief technologists are embracing sophisticated, dynamic platforms as a better way to more easily manage their complex operations. In other words, they are fighting complexity with better complexity. Technology directors are looking for software platforms that will handle the complexity of their systems for them and allow them to create more flexible frameworks and focus on core problems.

The concern with addressing complexity in this manner is clear — are we not, perhaps, simply avoiding the real problem? Might it not be better to simply adopt a new system or technology that abandons all complexity? At some level, the complexity vs. complexity approach reminds me a bit of fighting infections with antibiotics. As a short-term solution, this isn’t so bad. But we all know what happens with the prolonged use of antibiotics — infections can mutate and become resistant. Such could be the case with the “dynamic platforms” IT managers are using to fight complexity. They seem effective but it is easy to see how the underlying complexities of the systems they manage can mutate (technological and human processes) and become resistant.

An alternative would be to build and adopt simpler solutions that can handle complexity without becoming complex themselves. George Siemens has applied this thought to the concept of standards this week, saying, “Here’s the deal: We’ll never get it perfect. It (standards) will always be a moving target. We need a simple standard…something that people can actually understand. ” It is. as Siemens argues, often the pursuit of getting it right or perfect before we actually get going that feeds much of the complexity engine.

The problem with simplicity is that it, too, requires change. Abandoning old habits is hard, even if the change means improvement. It can also be expensive. So, while I agree with George that simplicity is the best route to take, the best guess for the future is that we will continue fighting complexity with complexity.

My only hope is that enough people will resist the treatment so that when the mass epidemics rage, we’ll still have some hearty, simple code. with which we might begin anew.