General Morphological Analysis: A general method for non-quantified modelling

INTRODUCTION

General Morphological analysis (MA) was developed by Fritz Zwicky - the Swiss astrophysicist and aerospace scientist based at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) - as a method for structuring and investigating the total set of relationships contained in multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable, problem complexes (Zwicky 1966, 1969).

Zwicky applied this method to such diverse fields as the classification of astrophysical objects, the d

'... within the final and true world image everything is related to everything, and nothing can be discarded a priori as actuality unimportant.' (Fritz Zwicky: Discovery, Invention, Research through the Morphological Approach.)

Note: The original copy contained diagrams and pictures of morphological fields, which are not on board in this text format. The original charge can be downloaded from the Swedish Morphological Society at: www.swemorph.com/ma.html.

INTRODUCTION

General Morphological ranking (MA) was developed by Fritz Zwicky - the Swiss astrophysicist and troposphere scientist based at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) - as a method for structuring and investigating the total set of relationships contained in multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable, problem complexes (Zwicky 1966, 1969).

Zwicky employed this method to such diverse fields as the place-names of galactic objects, the development of jet and rocket propulsion systems, and the legal aspects of space travel and colonization. He founded the Society for Morphological Research and mod the 'morphological approach' for some 40 years, the early 1930's until his death in 1974.

More recently, morphological open discussion has been extended and technical by a number of researchers in the U.S.A and subcontinent in the field of policy itemization and futures studies (Rhyne 1981, 1995a, 1995b; Coyle 1994, 1995, 1996; Ritchey 1997, 1998, Ritchey, Stenström & Eriksson, 2002). The method is presently experiencing somewhat of a renaissance, not the least being as how of the development of small, fast computers and flexible graphic interfaces.

This sketch will initiate with a discussion of some of the methodological problems confronting complex, non-quantified modelling, especially as to policy placement and futures studies. This is followed by a presentation of the fundamentals of the morphological method along with a recent deep study to policy analysis.

METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Analysing complex policy fields and developing futures scenarios presents us with a number of difficult methodological problems. Firstly, many, if not all of the factors involved are non- quantifiable, since they contain strong social-political dimensions and conscious self-reference among actors. This means that traditional quantitative methods, occasional modelling and simulation are relatively useless.

Secondly, the uncertainties inherent in such problem complexes are in principle non-reducible, and often cannot be fully described or delineated. This represents even a greater blow to the idea of moving modelling and simulation.

Finally, the present-age process by which conclusions are drawn in such studies is often difficult to trace - i.e. we seldom have an admissible 'audit trail' describing the process of getting from initial problem formulation to specific solutions or conclusions. Without some form of traceability we have little possibility of scientific control over results, let entirely reproducibility.

An alternate choice to formal (mathematical) methods and impulsive modelling is a form of non- quantified modelling relying on judgmental processes and internal consistency, rather than causality. impulsive modelling, when applicable, can - and should - be used as an aid to judgement. However, at a ensured level of complexity (e.g. at the social, political and pondering level), judgement must often be used -- and worked with -- more or less directly. The question is: How can judgmental processes be put on a sound methodological basis?

Historically, scientific knowledge develops through cycles of plane trigonometry and synthesis: every synthesis is sightly upon the results of a proceeding analysis, and every philosophical induction requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results (Ritchey, 1991). However, analysis and synthesis - as homogeneous scientific methods - say nothing of a problem having to be quantifiable.

Complex social-political problem fields can be analysed into any number of non-quantified variables and ranges of conditions. Similarly, sets of non-quantified conditions can be synthesised into well-defined relationships or configurations, which represent 'solution spaces'. In this context, there is no fundamental difference quantified and non- quantified modelling.

Morphological trig - extended by the technique of cross consistency tribute (CCA, see below) - is a method for rigorously structuring and investigating the internal properties of inherently non-quantifiable problem complexes, which contain any number of disparate parameters. It encourages the investigation of dovetail conditions and it virtually compels practitioners to examine numbers of contrasting configurations and policy solutions. Finally, although judgmental processes may never be fully traceable in the way, for example, a mathematician formally derives a proof, MA does go a long way in providing as good an test trail as one can hope for.

THE MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH

The term morphology comes from old as history sister (morphe) and means shape or form. The general definition of morphology is 'the study of form or pattern', i.e. the shape and arrangement of parts of an object, and how these 'conform' to create a whole or Gestalt. The 'objects' in question can be physical objects (e.g. an organism, an anatomy, a geography or an ecology) or mental objects (e.g. linguistic forms, concepts or systems of ideas).

Fritz Zwicky proposed a generalised form of morphological research:

'Attention has been titled to the fact that the term morphology has long been used in many fields of science to designate research on structural interrelations - for instance in anatomy, geology, biological science and biology. ... I have proposed to generalize and systematize the concept of morphological research and include not only the study of the shapes of geometrical, geological, biological, and generally material structures, but also to study the more clip structural interrelations in phenomena, concepts, and ideas, whatever their lines might be.' (Zwicky, 1966, p. 34)

Essentially, general morphological universal geometry is a method for identifying and investigating the total set of possible relationships or 'configurations' contained in a given problem complex. In this sense, it is carefully related to typology construction (Bailey 1994), all the same it is more generalised in form and conceptual range.

The come up begins by identifying and defining the parameters (or dimensions) of the problem complex to be investigated, and assigning each parameter a range of relevant 'values' or conditions. A morphological box - also fittingly known as a 'Zwicky box' - is constructed by setting the parameters toward each other in an n-dimensional matrix (see Figure 1, below). Each cell of the n-dimensional box contains one particular 'value' or condition from each of the parameters, and thus marks out a particular state or configuration of the problem complex.

Ideally, one would examine all of the configurations in the field, in order to establish which of them are possible, viable, practical, interesting, etc., and which are not. In doing so, we mark out in the field a relevant 'solution space'. The solution space of a Zwickian morphological field consists of the subset of configurations, which satisfy some criteria - one of which is internal consistency.

However, a typical morphological field of 6-10 variables can contain needle 50,000 and 5,000,000 formal configurations, far too many to inspect by hand. Thus, the next step in the analysis-synthesis process is to examine the internal relationships the field parameters and reduce the field by identifying, and weeding out, all mutually contradictory conditions.

This is by a process of cross-consistency weighing (CCA). All of the parameter values in the morphological field are compared with one another, pair-wise, in the manner of a cross-impact matrix. As each pair of conditions is examined, a judgment is made as to whether - or to what extent - the pair can coexist, i.e. represent a consistent relationship. To the extent that a particular pair of conditions is a uproarious contradiction, then all those configurations containing this pair of conditions would also be internally inconsistent. Using this technique, a typical morphological field can be reduced by up to 90 or even 99%, depending on the problem structure.

There are three types of inconsistencies involved here: purely logical contradictions (i.e. those based on the nature of the concepts involved); empirical constraints (i.e. relationships judged be highly improbable or implausible on empirical grounds), and normative constraints (e.g. relationships ruled out on e.g. ethical or political grounds). Normative constraints must be used with great care, and incontestably designated as such. We must first discover what we judge as possible, in the forefront we make judgements at close quarters what is desirable.

The reduction of the field to a solution space allows us to concentrate on a manageable number of internally consistent configurations. These can then be examined as elements of scenarios or specific solutions in a complex policy space. With computer support, the morphological field can be treated as an inference model. (For this purpose, FOA has developed a Windows-based software package which supports the entire analysis-synthesis process which General Morphology entails. The program is MA/Casper: Computer Aided Scenario and Problem Evaluation Routine.)

The morphological call has several advantages over less structured approaches. Zwicky calls MA 'totality research' which, in an 'unbiased way attempts to derive all the solutions of any given problem'. It may help us to discover new relationships or configurations, which may not be so evident, or which we might have overlooked by other - less structured - methods. Importantly, it encourages the identification and investigation of wall conditions, i.e. the limits and extremes of different contexts and factors.

It also has definite advantages for scientific merger and - notably - for group work. As a process, the method demands that parameters, conditions and the issues underlying these be noticeably defined. Poorly defined parameters open into immediately (and embarrassingly) evident when they are cross-referenced and prized for internal consistency.

REFERENCES

Bailey, K.: Typologies and Taxonomies - An Introduction to order Techniques, Sage University Papers: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994).

Coyle, R. G., Crawshay, R. and Sutton, L.: 'Futures Assessments by Field mannerism Relaxation', Futures 26(1), 25-43 (1994).

Coyle, R. G., McGlone, G. R.: 'Projection Scenarios for south-west Asia and the South-west Pacific', Futures 27(1), 65-79 (1995).

Coyle, R.G. and Yong, Y. C.: 'A Scenario Projection for the South crock Sea', Futures 28 (3), 269-283 (1996).

Doty, D. H. & Glick, W. 'Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building', grammar school of Management Review, Vol. 19, No.2 (1994)

Rhyne, R.: 'Whole-Pattern Futures Projection, Using Field peculiarity Relaxation', Technological Forecasting and Social vicissitude 19, 331-360 (1981).

Rhyne, R.: 'Field deviancy Relaxation - The Arts of Usage', Futures 27 (6), 657-674 (1995a).

Rhyne, R.: 'Evaluating third string Indonesian Sea-Sovereignty Systems', Informs: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (1995b).

Ritchey, T.: 'Analysis and Synthesis - On Scientific Method based on a Study by Bernhard Riemann' Systems Research 8(4), 21-41 (1991). (Available as REPRINT at: www.swemorph.com/downloads.html.)

Ritchey, T.: 'Scenario Development and Risk Management using Morphological Field Analysis', Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Information Systems (Cork: Cork Publishing Company) Vol. 3:1053-1059 (1997).

Ritchey, T. 'Fritz Zwicky, 'Morphologie' and Policy Analysis', Presented at the 16th Euro Conference on Operational Analysis, Brussels (1998)

Ritchey, T, Stenström, M. & Eriksson, H., 'Using Morphological higher arithmetic to Evaluate Preparedness for Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials', Proceedings of the 4th LACDE Conference, Shanghai (2002). (Available as REPRINT at: www.swemorph.com/downloads.html.)

Zwicky, F., Discovery, Invention, Research - Through the Morphological Approach, Toronto: The Macmillan participation (1969).

Zwicky, F. & Wilson A. (eds.), New Methods of Thought and Procedure: Contributions to the Symposium on Methodologies, Berlin: Springer (1967).


Anxiety And Panic Attacks. - Cure Panic Attacks instantly with the Panic Away method.
Write An Article-A-Day, The Easy Way! - Write a professional-quality article for fame, fortune or web traffic in one day. Fail-safe method that any one can use!


Article Index: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30