Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technical and Social Complexity

Handbook of Engineering Systems Design

Abstract

In this chapter, we will argue that identifying and analysing the key drivers of complexity – within and outside of systems – is generally more useful than trying to find universal definitions and measures. Focusing on the key drivers enables us to identify and evaluate system-level trade-offs and equip us with leverage points that can enable engineering methods to manage system complexity. We will discuss two of the main drivers of complexity: increased interconnectedness amongst systems constituents (network complexity) and multi-level decision-making (multi-agent complexity). These two forces are natural consequences of advances in information and communication technology, and artificial intelligence on the one hand, and changes in the architecture of socio-technical engineering systems that have given rise to open, multi-sided platform systems. As a natural consequence of focusing on complexity drivers, we argue for a shift in perspective, from complexity reduction to complexity management. Moreover, in most complex socio-technical engineering systems, managing complexity requires adopting a lens of system governance – as opposed to conventional engineering design lens – whose goal is to steer the emergent behaviour of the system through a combination of incentive and architecture design. We will argue that to properly manage complexity, the engineering system and its governance structures need to be designed in an integrated fashion, instead of consecutively. We will further argue that proper integration of AI into engineering systems can play a significant role in managing complexity and effective governance of such systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott R (2006) Emergence explained. ArXiv Prepr Cs0602045

    Google Scholar 

  • Abouk R, Heydari B (2021) The immediate effect of COVID-19 policies on social-distancing behavior in the United States. Public Health Rep 136(2):245–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu D, Ozdaglar A, Tahbaz-Salehi A (2015) Systemic risk and stability in financial networks. Am Econ Rev 105(2):564–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderson DL, Doyle JC (2010) Contrasting views of complexity and their implications for network-centric infrastructures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part Syst Hum 40(4):839–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby W (2013) Design for a brain: the origin of adaptive behaviour. Springer Science & Business Media

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod RM, Axelrod R, Cohen MD (2001) Harnessing complexity. Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design rules: the power of modularity, vol 1. The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin C, MacCormack A, Rusnak J (2014) Hidden structure: using network methods to map system architecture. Res Policy 43(8):1381–1397

    Google Scholar 

  • Bankes S (1993) Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper Res 41(3):435–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barber KS, Goel A, Martin CE (2000) Dynamic adaptive autonomy in multi-agent systems. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 12(2):129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/095281300409793

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam Y (2002) General features of complex systems. In: Encycl. life support syst, vol 1. EOLSS UNESCO EOLSS Publ., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam Y (2003) When systems engineering fails-toward complex systems engineering. In: SMC’03 conference proceedings. 2003 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. Conference theme-system security and assurance (Cat. No. 03CH37483), vol 2, pp 2021–2028

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann O, Schmidt J, Stieglitz N (2019) Effective search in rugged performance landscapes: a review and outlook. J Manag 45(1):285–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318808594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beale N, Rand DG, Battey H, Croxson K, May RM, Nowak MA (2011) Individual versus systemic risk and the Regulator’s dilemma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(31):12647–12652. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105882108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(suppl 3):7280–7287

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniatowski DA, Moses J (2016) Measuring flexibility, descriptive complexity, and rework potential in generic system architectures. Syst Eng 19(3):207–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks MR, Cullinane K (2006) Devolution, port governance and port performance. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni S, Marengo L, Prencipe A, Valente M (2007) The value and costs of modularity: a problem-solving perspective. Eur Manag Rev 4(2):121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke MJ, Stephens JC (2017) Energy democracy: goals and policy instruments for sociotechnical transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 33:35–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Iyengar G, Moallemi CC (2013) An axiomatic approach to systemic risk. Manag Sci 59(6):1373–1388

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Heydari B, Maier AM, Panchal JH (2018) Network-based modeling and analysis in design. Des Sci 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Q, Heydari B, Moghaddam M (2021) Levering task modularity in reinforcement learning for adaptable industry 4.0 automation. J Mech Des:1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • C. W. Churchman, “The design of inquiring systems basic concepts of systems and organization,” 1971

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements P, Garlan D, Little R, Nord R, Stafford J (2003) Documenting software architectures: views and beyond. In: 25th international conference on software engineering, 2003. Proceedings, pp 740–741

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloutier R, Muller G, Verma D, Nilchiani R, Hole E, Bone M (2010) The concept of reference architectures. Syst Eng 13(1):14–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Clune J, Mouret J-B, Lipson H (2013) The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280(1755):20122863

    Google Scholar 

  • Colfer L, Baldwin CY (2010) The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence and exceptions. Harv Bus Sch Finance Work Pap 10–058

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort LK (1994) Self-organization in complex systems. J Public Adm Res Theory J-PART 4(3):393–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutard O (2002) The governance of large technical systems. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Crawley et al., “The influence of architecture in engineering systems (monograph),” 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley E, Cameron B, Selva D (2015) System architecture: strategy and product development for complex systems. Prentice Hall Press

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruijn H, Herder PM (2009) System and actor perspectives on sociotechnical systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern-Part Syst Hum 39(5):981–992

    Google Scholar 

  • De Weck OL, Roos D, Magee CL (2011) Engineering systems: meeting human needs in a complex technological world. Mit Press

    Google Scholar 

  • O. L. De Weck, A. M. Ross, and D. H. Rhodes, “Investigating relationships and semantic sets amongst system lifecycle properties (ilities),” 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • de Wildt TE, Chappin EJL, van de Kaa G, Herder PM, van de Poel IR (2020) Conflicted by decarbonisation: five types of conflict at the nexus of capabilities and decentralised energy systems identified with an agent-based model. Energy Res Soc Sci 64:101451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez R, Cannella S (2020) Insights on multi-agent systems applications for supply chain management. Sustainability 12(5):1935

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorri A, Kanhere SS, Jurdak R (2018) Multi-agent systems: a survey. IEEE Access 6:28573–28593. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2831228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit A, Galaz V (2008) Governance and complexity – emerging issues for governance theory. Governance 21(3):311–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehsanfar A, Heydari B (2016) An incentive-compatible scheme for electricity cooperatives: an axiomatic approach. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(2):1416–1424

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg L, Noe TH (2001) Systemic risk in financial systems. Manag Sci 47(2):236–249

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R, Reyes A (2011) Organizational systems: managing complexity with the viable system model. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Manag Sci:159–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer A (2014) Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework. Res Policy 43(7):1239–1249

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2002) Platform leadership: how Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation, vol 5. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann M (1995) The quark and the jaguar: adventures in the simple and the complex. Macmillan

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gharajedaghi J (2011) Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity: a platform for designing business architecture. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharajedaghi J, Ackoff RL (1984) Mechanisms, organisms and social systems. Strateg Manag J 5(3):289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianetto DA, Heydari B (2013) Catalysts of cooperation in system of systems: the role of diversity and network structure. IEEE Syst J 9(1):303–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianetto DA, Heydari B (2015) Network modularity is essential for evolution of cooperation under uncertainty. Sci Rep 5:9340

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianetto DA, Heydari B (2016) Sparse cliques trump scale-free networks in coordination and competition. Sci Rep 6:21870

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianetto DA, Mosleh M, Heydari B (2018) Dynamic structure of competition networks in affordable care act insurance market. IEEE Access 6:12700–12709

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick J (2011) Chaos: making a new science. Open Road Media

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthau A (2014) Rethinking the governance of energy infrastructure: scale, decentralization and polycentrism. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:134–140

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Briones A, De La Prieta F, Mohamad MS, Omatu S, Corchado JM (2018) Multi-agent systems applications in energy optimization problems: a state-of-the-art review. Energies 11(8):1928

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorwa R (2019) What is platform governance? Inf Commun Soc 22(6):854–871

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotts NM, Polhill JG, Law ANR (2003) Agent-based simulation in the study of social dilemmas. Artif Intell Rev 19(1):3–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern JY (2008) Beyond nash equilibrium: solution concepts for the 21st century. In: Proceedings of the twenty-seventh ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WH (1919) The institutional approach to economic theory. Am Econ Rev 9(1):309–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen TF (2003) Is modularity necessary for evolvability?: remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. Biosystems 69(2):83–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijnen PW, Chappin EJL, Herder PM (2020) A method for designing minimum-cost multisource multisink network layouts. Syst Eng 23(1):14–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helbing D (2007) Managing complexity: insights, concepts, applications. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing D (2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497(7447):51–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydari B, Dalili K (2013) Emergence of modularity in system of systems: complex networks in heterogeneous environments. IEEE Syst J 9(1):223–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydari B, Pennock MJ (2018) Guiding the behavior of sociotechnical systems: the role of agent-based modeling. Syst Eng 21(3):210–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydari B, Mosleh M, Dalili K (2015) Efficient network structures with separable heterogeneous connection costs. Econ Lett 134:82–85

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Heydari B, Mosleh M, Dalili K (2016) From modular to distributed open architectures: a unified decision framework. Syst Eng 19(3):252–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydari B, Heydari P, Mosleh M (2019) Not all bridges connect: integration in multi-community networks. J Math Sociol:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland JH (2006) Studying complex adaptive systems. J Syst Sci Complex 19(1):1–8

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hölttä K, Suh ES, de Weck O (2005) Trade-off between modularity and performance for engineered systems and products. Accessed 1 Aug 2012. [Online]. Available: http://deweck.mit.edu/PDF_archive/3%20Refereed%20Conference/3_60_ICED-2005-Modularity.pdf

  • Horgan J (1995) From complexity to perplexity. Sci Am 272(6):104–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini S, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2016) A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 145:47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang CC, Kusiak A (1998) Modularity in design of products and systems. Syst Man Cybern Part Syst Hum IEEE Trans On 28(1):66–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S, Ferris TL (2013) Resilience principles for engineered systems. Syst Eng 16(2):152–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S, Levin S (1987) Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J Theor Biol 128(1):11–45

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ke LT, O’Brien D, Heydari B (2021) Airbnb and neighborhood crime: The incursion of tourists or the erosion of local social dynamics?. PLoS one 16(7)

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating CB, Katina PF, Bradley JM (2014) Complex system governance: concept, challenges, and emerging research. Int J Syst Syst Eng 5(3):263–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim YJ, Zhong C-B (2017) Ideas rise from chaos: information structure and creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 138:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koirala BP, Koliou E, Friege J, Hakvoort RA, Herder PM (2016) Energetic communities for community energy: a review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:722–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Koirala BP, Araghi Y, Kroesen M, Ghorbani A, Hakvoort RA, Herder PM (2018) Trust, awareness, and independence: insights from a socio-psychological factor analysis of citizen knowledge and participation in community energy systems. Energy Res Soc Sci 38:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreimeyer M, Lindemann U (2011) Complexity metrics in engineering design. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman J, Lambert J, Wiesner K (2013) What is a complex system? Eur J Philos Sci 3(1):33–67

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois RN (1992) Transaction-cost economics in real time. Ind Corp Change 1(1):99–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois RN (2002) Modularity in technology and organization. J Econ Behav Organ 49(1):19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazer D, Friedman A (2007) The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Adm Sci Q 52(4):667–694. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.4.667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manag Sci 43(7):934–950

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin R (1999) Complexity: life at the edge of chaos. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd S (2001) Measures of complexity: a nonexhaustive list. IEEE Control Syst Mag 21(4):7–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz DM, Jeng A, Deem MW (2011) The emergence of modularity in biological systems. Phys Life Rev 8(2):129–160

    Google Scholar 

  • C. L. Magee and O. L. de Weck, “An attempt at complex system classification,” 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson SM (2001) Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory. Geoforum 32(3):405–414

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden G, Reardon L (2017) Questions of governance: rethinking the study of transportation policy. Transp Res Part Policy Pract 101:238–251

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus H, Richards M, Ross A, Hastings D (2007) A framework for incorporating “ilities” in tradespace studies. In: AIAA space 2007 conference & exposition, p 6100

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer A, Bolívar MPR (2016) Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int Rev Adm Sci 82(2):392–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkola JH, Gassmann O (2003) Managing modularity of product architectures: toward an integrated theory. Eng Manag IEEE Trans On 50(2):204–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Mina AA, Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2006) Complex engineered systems: a new paradigm. In: Braha D, Minai AA, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Complex engineered systems, vol 14. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mnih V et al (2015) Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518(7540):529–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore WL, Louviere JJ, Verma R (1999) Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms. J Prod Innov Manag Int Publ Prod Dev Manag Assoc 16(1):27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses J (2009) Architecting engineering systems. In: Philosophy and Engineering. Springer, pp 275–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosleh M, Heydari B (2017) Fair topologies: community structures and network hubs drive emergence of fairness norms. Sci Rep 7(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosleh M, Ludlow P, Heydari B (2016a) Distributed resource management in systems of systems: an architecture perspective. Syst Eng 19(4):362–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosleh M, Dalili K, Heydari B (2016b) Distributed or monolithic? A computational architecture decision framework. IEEE Syst J 12(1):125–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman ME (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(23):8577–8582

    Google Scholar 

  • North MJ, Macal CM (2007) Managing business complexity: discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak MA (2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314(5805):1560–1563

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ota J (2006) Multi-agent robot systems as distributed autonomous systems. Adv Eng Inform 20(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2005.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottino JM (2004) Engineering complex systems. Nature 427(6973):Art. no. 6973. https://doi.org/10.1038/427399a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page SE (2010) Diversity and complexity, vol 2. Princeton University Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2018) Innovation, openness, and platform control. Manag Sci 64(7):3015–3032

    Google Scholar 

  • Parraguez P, Maier A (2016) Using network science to support design research: from counting to connecting. In: Experimental design research. Springer, pp 153–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Pincus S (1995) Approximate entropy (ApEn) as a complexity measure. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci 5(1):110–117

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin JW (2000) Imitation of complex strategies. Manag Sci 46(6):824–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson D, Ulrich K (1998) Planning for product platforms. Sloan Manage Rev 39(4):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanov AM et al (2020) Modular reconfigurable robot distributed computing system for tracking multiple objects. IEEE Syst J

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombach MP, Porter MA, Fowler JH, Mucha PJ (2014) Core-periphery structure in networks. SIAM J Appl Math 74(1):167–190

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse WB (2003) Engineering complex systems: implications for research in systems engineering. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 33(2):154–156

    Google Scholar 

  • W. B. Rouse, “Health care as a complex adaptive system: implications for design and management,” BRIDGE Wash Natl Acad Eng., vol. 38, no. 1, p. 17, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhlandt RWS (2018) The governance of smart cities: a systematic literature review. Cities 81:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1(2):143–186

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MA (2000) Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad Manag Rev 25(2):312–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer F (1997) Self-organization of complex structures: from individual to collective dynamics. CRC Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sheard SA, Mostashari A (2009) Principles of complex systems for systems engineering. Syst Eng 12(4):295–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigmund K (2010) The calculus of selfishness, vol 6. Princeton University Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1962) A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Solé RV, Valverde S (2008) Spontaneous emergence of modularity in cellular networks. J R Soc Interface 5(18):129–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana A (2013) Platform ecosystems: aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Newnes

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana A, Konsynski B, Bush AA (2010) Research commentary – platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inf Syst Res 21(4):675–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich K (1994) Fundamentals of product modularity. In: Management of design. Springer, pp 219–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dam KH, Nikolic I, Lukszo Z (2012) Agent-based modelling of socio-technical systems, vol 9. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade J, Heydari B (2014) Complexity: definition and reduction techniques. In: Proceedings of the poster workshop at the 2014 complex systems design & management international conference, pp 213–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1979) Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. J Law Econ 22(2):233–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (2009) Philosophical investigations. Wiley

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler BP (1990) High autonomy systems: concepts and models. In: Proceedings [1990]. AI, Simulation and planning in high autonomy systems, pp 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIHAS.1990.93914

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zurek WH (2018) Complexity, entropy and the physics of information. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Engineering and Network Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

    Babak Heydari

  2. Faculty of Applied Sciences, TU Delft, The Netherlands

    Paulien Herder

Authors
  1. Babak Heydari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulien Herder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Babak Heydari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, DTU- Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Anja Maier

  2. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, DTU- Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Josef Oehmen

  3. Philosophy Department, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Heydari, B., Herder, P. (2021). Technical and Social Complexity. In: Maier, A., Oehmen, J., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_9-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_9-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Technical and Social Complexity
    Published:
    06 January 2023

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_9-2

  2. Original

    Technical and Social Complexity
    Published:
    23 November 2021

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_9-1

Search

Navigation