THE ARCHITECTURE OF COMPLEXITY

This essay is structured around two papers with the same title, The Architecture of
Complexity, written, one in 1962 by Herbert A. Simon and the other one in 2007 by
Albert-Lszl Barabsi1. Simons basic assertion is that a large portion of the
complex systems observed in nature has hierarchical structure, which has a
property, near-decomposability, that greatly simplifies understanding their behavior
and its description and, furthermore, facilitates understanding how to store the
information required to describe or reproduce the system in a relatively short
space.
From another point of view, Simons central argument is that these
hierarchical systems have common properties (in particular, near-decomposability)
that are independent of their specific content, which means that a wide diversity of
complex systems shows hierarchical structure. Thus, hierarchy is one of the crucial
structural patterns in the architecture of complexity.
On the other hand, in his paper, Barabsi proposes that, in complex
systems, interactions form networks. After exposing several ideas related to this
topic, he states that network theory is not an approximation for a theory of
complexity, but addresses the emergence and structural evolution of the frame of a
complex system, that is, of its architecture. He also notes that it is not enough to
understand the global behavior of a complex system but that, additionally, it is
imperative to understand the nature of the dynamic processes taking place in the
network and asserts that many phenomena that involve humans behave in a way
described by power law functions.
Since both authors develop their approach to the architecture of complexity
by referring to complex systems, the first section of this paper deals with this
important concept, around which a whole area of research has been building up
since the last third of the last century. In the second section, the main ideas and
conclusions raised by Simon with respect to the hierarchical structure of complex
systems are examined so that, in the third section, the same is done with

1 Quotations with no specific reference were drawn from these two articles.

1
Barabsis ideas and the network structure of this type of systems. The essay
concludes with a section of conclusions and outstanding issues.

Complex systems
Many authors agree that there is no universally accepted definition of complexity
or complex systems and so, their work is based on approximations. Simon, without
proposing a formal definition, assumes that a complex system is a set of a large
number of elements that interact in a non-simple way, in the sense that inferring
the properties of the whole is not a trivial matter.
Melanie Mitchell, in a description of complex systems that includes the
network concept used by Barabsi, considers them as "large networks of
components with no central control and simple rules of operation [that] give rise to
complex collective behavior, sophisticated information processing and adaptation
via learning or evolution "(Mitchell, 2009, 13).
Meanwhile, Alejandro Gallardo Cano (2012) describes complex reality as
"phenomena, processes or complex systems, [considering] a lot of elements linked
by dense networks of relationships, showing novel emergency phenomena, arising
from a rare combination of causal and teleological interactions and causing, in turn,
constant instability in the system they belong to. 'Clouds' [networks] of elements or
agents permanently lingering at a precarious balance between order and chaos.
Sets - many of them of a different nature - interacting with each other in multiple
ways and with divergent purposes, persisting due to internal processes of self-
information and self-organization, and that, as a consequence of all these aspects,
behave in novel and unpredictable ways and... all this cocktail is precisely the
intimate composition of complex reality".

In the previous approximations to complex systems, among others, the following

characteristics of complex systems stand out: a large number of elements,
interactions, networks, no central control, self-organization, evolution, complex
collective behavior and emergency2.

2 For further details on the different views of complexity nowadays, see Daz Mata, Alfredo (2012)

2
On the other hand, by the time Simons article was published in 1962, General
System Theory had already begun its strong presence, condensed a few years
later in 1968, in a classic text with that title, written by Ludwig von Bertalanffy,
whom Simon quotes in his articles first footnote as one of the leading exponents of
this general system theory. In this book, Bertalanffy, although not specifically
speaking of complex systems, writes about some of the features currently
associated with them - like some of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph -
or related to them: self-regulation processes, nonlinear interactions, self-guided
systems and organisms, emergency, open system theory, hierarchies of organized
wholes, law isomorphism, interdisciplinarity and network theory.

Furthermore, Bertalanffy cites themes and authors, himself included, that are now
considered, among others, important contributors to the process of constructing a
theory of complex systems, which is itself still immersed in the process, such as
those mentioned by Simon and Barabsi: Norbert Wiener , with his book
Cybernetics, published in 1948, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, with the
mathematical theory of communication, formalized in a book published in 1949,
and John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern with a text on game theory which
saw the light in 1947. Additionally, the presently most common computer
architecture is named after von Neumann, an honor that comes from his
participation in the ENIAC (Electronic Numeric Integrator And Computer) project,
the first fully electronic computer, with no moving parts and the direct ancestor of
today's computers.

An interesting part of the title match of the two articles on the architecture of
complexity is that they help linking, as is done in the preceding paragraphs, various
topics included currently in complexity and complex systems theories and that
were already present in academia and science since the mid 1900s, as evidenced
by Simons article and Bertalanffy's book which, incidentally, is an important
reference when the analysis of systems is involved.

3
Herbert A. Simon and hierarchical complex systems
Simon won the 1978 Nobel Prize in Economics "for his pioneering research into
the decision-making process within economic organizations" 3. From the approach
he makes to complex systems, which is cited above, this author addresses four
issues in his paper. The first analyzes that very frequently complexity takes the
form of hierarchy. The second idea deals theoretically with the relationship between
the hierarchical structure of a complex system and the time it takes it to emerge
through evolutionary processes and, specifically, he argues that hierarchical
systems evolve much more quickly than those who are not. In the third section,
Simon explores the dynamic properties of hierarchically organized systems and the
way they can be decomposed to analyze them. Specifically, in this third part, he
explains the feature of near-decomposability of complex systems that is central to
his argument. Finally, in Part Four, he analyzes the relationship between complex
systems and their descriptions.

Hierarchies
Many complex systems are integrated by hierarchically interrelated subsystems,
until a lowest level of elementary basic subsystem is reached but this, on the other
hand, does not necessarily imply a subordinate relationship. Simon refers to social,
biological, physical and symbolic hierarchical systems, emphasizing that hierarchy
should be defined in terms of the intensity of interaction among elements, rather
than in terms of spatial proximity. In particular, he notes that social hierarchies are
described in terms of the interrelationships of individuals.

Evolving systems
When discussing the evolution of complex systems, and based on an example,
Simon states that "the time required for the evolution of a complex form from
simple elements depends critically on the numbers and distribution of potential
intermediate stable forms". This means that hierarchical systems include

3 www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1978/press.html, april 5, 2013

4
subsystems that are stable intermediate forms that facilitate (and shorten) the
process of moving from the simple to the complex, somewhat like stages in which
a reorganization takes place, in a stop in its way to another reorganization at a
higher stage of complexity. These stages allow for the condensation of forces and
inertia, a recomposition of achievements, that act as stepping stones for those that
follow.

This evolution by intermediate stages with intermediate stable forms means

increasing complexity and, simultaneously, each time a higher hierarchical level.
This evolutionary process is equivalent to the way humans solve problems: various
combinations of trial and error and selectivity, wherein selectivity "derives from
various rules of thumb, or heuristics, which suggest which paths should be tried
first and which leads are promising". The selectivity that directs problem solving, or
that directs the evolution of complex systems, can be likened to a form of
information feedback from the environment. This trial and error process, guided by
selectivity, explains the way huge and complicated problems can be solved, also
through ever higher hierarchical levels that represent intermediate solutions.

Nearly decomposable systems

Nearly decomposable systems consist of a hierarchy of components, such that, at
any level of the hierarchy, the rates of interaction within components at that level
are much higher than the rates of interaction between different components
(Simon, 2002, 587). To illustrate the idea, I propose the illustration in Figure 1: The
circles on each line represent precisely the components at that hierarchical level,
the points within each circle represent the elements of each component, which
could be called "subcomponents ", and the lines represent relationships between
components (no lines are drawn to represent the relationships among elements
within each component to simplify the figure).

5
Figure 1. Figurative illustration of a hierarchy of components with subcomponents

Using any line of circles (components) in Figure 1 as an example, if the

relationship between the various components is zero, one can consider these to be
mutually independent and we have the case of a decomposable system. In a less
extreme situation, a near-decomposable systems is produced when the interaction
between the various components is not zero, but is very small as compared to the
force or intensity of interaction within the components (among their elements).

Near decomposability is a fundamental property that many complex systems seem

to share, including all multicellular organisms. "The explanation for the ubiquity of
the ND [nearly decomposable] property is that, under the usual conditions of
mutation and/or crossover and natural selection, ND systems increase in fitness,
and therefore reproduce, at a much faster rate than systems that do not possess
the ND property "(Simon, 2002, 587).

Herbert Simon summarizes the main theoretical findings obtained from his
approach to hierarchical nearly decomposable systems in two propositions:
"(a) in a nearly decomposable system, the short-run behavior of each of the
component subsystems is approximately independent of the short-run behavior of

6
the other components; (b) in the long run, the behavior of any one of the
components depends in only an aggregate way on the behavior of the other
components. "

Using as an example of a nearly decomposable system a building divided into

rooms that are, in turn, divided into cubicles and whose different walls have
different qualities of heat insulation, and starting from initial conditions of extreme
variation in temperature between cubicles and rooms, by means of the
corresponding heat flow (exchange) equations between cubicles and rooms,
Simon builds a nearly decomposable matrix. He states that it has been proven that
a dynamical system that can be described by a matrix like that has the properties
(a) and (b) listed in the previous paragraph.

From the above, it is clear that systems that can be represented by a nearly
decomposable matrix are necessarily hierarchical systems including Leontieffs
input-output matrix of the economy and various physicochemical systems.

Regarding social systems, Simon states that, in their dynamics, "where members
of a system communicate with, and influence, other members, the near
decomposability is generally very prominent." Furthermore, it appears that, as is
the case in physical systems, in social systems, the higher frequency dynamics are
associated with subsystems and low frequency dynamics with larger systems.

In summary, hierarchies have the property of near decomposability: relationships

within components are usually stronger than the relationship between components.
This has the effect of separating the high-frequency dynamic hierarchy, involving
the internal structure of the components, from the low frequency dynamics, which
involves the interaction between the components and all this has important
consequences for the description and understanding of complex systems.

7
First, it is possible to simplify the description of complex systems using the
redundancy of the original structure, which can be displayed using its hierarchical
structure. A second way to simplify the description, for the common case where the
systems are nearly decomposable, is to include only aggregate properties in the
description of the interaction between parts. A third way to simplify this description
is "recoding" the existing redundancy, through a suitable "recoding" of that
redundancy.

An example of the simplification that complex systems hierarchy allows occurs in

the field of biology, "To the extent that we can differentiate the genetic information
that governs the development of cellular metabolism of the genetic information
governing the development of differentiated cells in the multi-cellular organization,
we simplify enormouslyour task of theoretical description ".

From a different perspective, in evolving systems whose descriptions are stored in

a process language (like the genetic code of DNA), ontogeny could be expected to
partially recapitulate phylogeny, i.e., if ontogeny is the series of transformations the
individual undergoes from fertilization of the egg until it becomes a complete being
and phylogeny is the formation and connection of animal or vegetal evolutionary
lines, ontogeny recapitulates, at least partially, the stages (intermediate hierarchical
stages) that have occurred in phylogeny in its route to the current versions of live
individuals. And it can be said that, in principle, this mechanism has applications
outside the field of biology, in many entities that evolve, such as organizations or
human societies.

Thus, the complexity or simplicity of a structure depends on the way you can
describe it and, since many real complex structures are highly redundant, you can
use this redundancy to simplify the description, as long as the adequate
representation has been found. In the natural sciences, the dynamic laws,
expressed in the form of systems of differential or difference equations have

8
offered, in a very large number of cases, the key to simple dynamic description of
the complex.

Albert-Lszl Barabsi and network theory

Before presenting his ideas regarding complex scale-free networks, Barabsi
outlines a schematic history of the efforts that have been made to understand and
quantify the complexity that surrounds us in the form of numerous complex
systems, "from cells made of thousands of molecules to society, a collection of
[more than seven] billions of interacting individuals", that show signs of order and
self-organization. He starts by stating that, in the late nineteenth century, the kinetic
theory of gases showed that the measurable properties of gases, such as pressure
or temperature, can be reduced to the random motion of atoms and molecules.

He recounts that systematic approaches to quantify the transition from disorder to

order in systems as magnets and liquid materials were developed in the 1960s and
1970s, while in the 1980s, chaos theory prevailed with the message that
unpredictable behavior can emerge from the nonlinear interactions of a few
components. Barabsi goes on to recall that, in the 1990s, guided by Benoit
Mandelbrot, there came fractals, "quantifying the geometry of patterns emerging in
self-organized systems".

At the end of this brief history, he suggests that, in the midst of these scientific
advances (and many others), until relatively recently there were no large maps of
networks available so all that could be done was to speculate about the structure of
real networks, until this situation changed dramatically in the late 1990s, due to the
Internet. With this large group of interconnected computers, it became possible to
obtain maps of interconnected documents on the World Wide Web (WWW),
Hollywood actors linked by movies, or metabolites linked by reactions. "These
maps not only catalyzed the emergence of network science, but forced on it a
methodology involving simultaneous data collection, model building and analytical
work." (Barabsi, 2005, 69)

9
Barabsis fundamental statement is based on the existence of many real
networks that he identifies as scale-free networks, which have the following
properties that distinguishes them from the "classical" model of random networks,
the Erds-Rnyi model:

1. Power law distribution of links. In a scale-free network with k vertices (nodes),

the probability P(k) that a vertex in the network interacts (is linked to) with k other
vertices decays as a power law with behavior approximately described by:

P ( k ) k

For example, using a robot (Web crawler) to surf the World Wide Web and collect
link data, it was found that P(k) follows a power law distribution, described by the
above expression with out 2.45 and 2.1 . Figure 2, illustrates the behavior
of this power law distribution when =2.45 . Random network theory would
predict that the probability P(k) that a WWW page selected at random has exactly
k output or input links follows a Poisson distribution and not the power law that can
be seen in Figure 2.

Citing as examples the WWW case cited above, a network of Hollywood actors
and the power grid of the West of the United States, Barabsi concludes that many
large random networks share the common feature that the distribution of their local
connectivity is not a Poisson distribution, but follows a power law, for large k, with
exponent between 2.1 and 4 (Barabsi, 1999, 510).

Figure 2. Graphical behavior of P ( k )=k , when =2.45 .

10
2. Freedom of scale. The scale of a random network is established by the average
of links for all nodes, because it is assumed that most of the nodes have
approximately the same number of links; that average characterizes the network.
For networks that follow a power law distribution, with P ( k ) k , and <3, the
second moment of the distribution (from which the variance is obtained) diverges
(goes to infinity), which means that the average is not characteristic. These
networks lack a characteristic scale, which is why they are called scale-free.
The fact that many real networks of various types are scale-free indicates
that drastically different networks share similar organizational principles, such as
those proposed by Barabsi.

3. Presence of hubs. Scale-free networks have many nodes with few links and
relatively few nodes with an extraordinarily large number of connections (few
nodes with high degree). These important nodes, called "hubs" greatly affect the
overall performance of the network, and they do make the network robust against
accidental (random) failures but vulnerable to coordinated attacks.

The topology of scale-free networks like the Internet implies that they cannot be
split into isolated pieces by removing random nodes. This great strength regarding

11
random failures is integrated into the inhomogeneous topology of scale-free
networks. However, this same inhomogeneity makes them especially vulnerable to
targeted attacks. "In fact, while the Internet is not expected to break under the
random failure of routers and links, well-informed hackers can easily handicap the
network by targeting hubs for attacks".

4. Evolution through growth and preferential attachment. The three previous

properties (power law distribution of links, emergency of scale-free structures and
the presence of hubs) can be attributed to two mechanisms: first, the growth of the
network by addition of new nodes and, second, the presence of what is known as
"preferential attachment ", which means that the new nodes that are added to the
network bind preferentially to existing nodes with high number of connections. In
other words, preferential attachment means that the probability that a new node
links to a hub is much higher than the probability of connection to nodes with only a
few links. "The probability (k ) that a new node connects to a node with k links
follows a preferential attachment rule such as:

k
( k )=
i k i

where the sum is over all nodes in the network".

The discovery and classification of these growth mechanisms not only led to
detailed models of specific networks but also to the development of techniques to
predict large-scale topology of a wide range of real networks, to the reproduction of
observations and to allow accurate predictions for the scale exponents (the ones
that measure the number of connections of the nodes) and its dependence on
microscopic parameters (growth rate of the network, attachment rule). (Barabsi,
2005, 69)

12
5. Self-organization. The results of numerous studies indicate that large networks
self-organize into a scale-free state, a feature that none of the existing models
predict. (Barabsi, 1999, 510). "Stationary scale-free distributions... indicate that
the development of large networks is governed by robust self-organizing
phenomena that go beyond the particulars of the individual systems." (Barabsi,
1999, 509)

6. Small world property. Long-term connections generated by the evolution process

of scale-free networks decrease the distance between the vertices, which leads to
a small world phenomenon often referred to as "six degrees of separation", a term
coined by Stanley Milgram in a research project conducted in 1967, which proved
empirically that any two persons are typically five to six handshakes away from
each other. Comparable results obtained for the WWW indicate that it also
represents a small world with a typical number of clicks between two web pages of
about 19, despite the current number of more than a billion pages online.

7. Epidemics-like spreading in scale-free networks. The structure of scale-free

networks can help explain the spreading of computer viruses, diseases and
fashions. Theories proposed by epidemiologists and marketing experts predict the
presence of a critical threshold for the successful spread in a population or
network. A virus that is less virulent or a fashion that is less contagious than the
critical threshold will inevitably disappear, while those that exceed it multiply
exponentially, eventually penetrating the entire network. However, the critical
threshold for scale-free networks is zero so that all viruses, diseases and fashions,
including those that are only slightly contagious, eventually spread and persist in
the network.

Ricard Sol (2009, 48), makes an interesting observation regarding this matter:
"Thus, unwanted phenomena such as the spread of a pandemic or the
amplification of economic instabilities will easily make its way through social or
trading networks... On the other hand, this ability to propagate modifications also

13
tells us that our actions, even if only at a small scale, can reach the whole system.
Our networked society makes it increasingly possible for small changes to trigger
large effects. Each of us, properly using what networks offer, can participate in
history and its course." This may explain, at least partially, the sudden success of
movements like Occupy Wall Street.

The universality of various topological features (power law distribution of links,

freedom of scale, presence of hubs, growth and evolution through preferential
attachment, self-organization and epidemics-like propagation) is used as a platform
to study various phenomena and to make predictions. Although there is still no
universally accepted definition of complexity, the role of networks in this area is
clear, just as the usefulness of including network topology when analyzing complex
systems is now evident. (Barabsi, 2009, 413).

Topology and dynamics of networks

The previous sections on Barabsis ideas addressed only the issue of complex
network topology. After this, he goes on to state that it is still necessary to analyze
the advances made in the study of the dynamic processes taking place in these
networks in order to understand the interactions between topology and dynamics of
networks.

Barabsi uses networks involving human beings, such as social, technological and
economic networks, to describe recent advances in the quantitative understanding
of human dynamics, which is driven by the collective dynamics (interactions) of
individual human actions. This author presents empirical evidence to show that the
timing of many human activities, which are patterns ranging from communication to
entertainment and work, show statistics that follow a power law distribution and not
the Poisson distribution, as is traditionally assumed for random networks. Those
statistics are characterized by rapidly occurring bursts of events separated by long
periods of inactivity. According to Barabsi, this bursty nature of human behavior
is due to a decision based, waiting line type of process. He mentions two human

14
activity patterns that provide evidence of power law distribution: the email
communication from a data set that captures the sender, receiver, time and the
size of each post, and the pattern of Einstein communication based on his letters,
which follow approximately a power law4.

The wide range of human activity patterns following power law statistics suggest
that the bursty nature observed in these patterns reflects a fundamental and
potentially generic characteristic of human dynamics.

Barabsis suggestion that this phenomenon is a consequence of a waiting line

process led by human decision making can be anticipated given that the Poisson
distribution occupies a relevant position in queuing theory and given that Poisson
and power law distributions are related, as is described below.

The function for the Poisson distribution is as follows:

x
e
P (x )=
x!
And, when x = 0

e 0
P ( 0 )= =e
0!

P ( 0 )=e

This last function is plotted in Figure 3, and it has the same form of the power law
expression considered earlier,

P ( k ) k
So it is no surprise that the graphs of both expressions are practically identical .

4 Barabsi provides more examples of this behavior in his 2009 paper, on page 413.

15

Figure 3. Plot of P ( 0 )=e
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
0.5000
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
1 6 1 1 16 2 1 26 3 1 36 4 1 46 5 1 5 6 61 6 6 71 7 6 81 8 6 91 96

In summary, Barabsi proposes that an important dynamic in complex networks

involving human beings can be described by a power law, which is related to the
Poisson distribution, and the latter in particular is of paramount importance in
queuing theory.

Conclusions and outstanding issues

The most important conclusion that can be derived is that the presence of
hierarchical relationships that Herbert A. Simon analyzed in 1962 is also present in
the network architecture of the complex systems analyzed by Barabsi in 2007,

16
and that both approaches (and both authors) are important contributors to the
construction of a theory of complex systems - still in process - that "Over the last
decade have sparked a stampede... of complex systems researchers to create
what has been called the "new science of networks'" (Mitchell, 2009, 229).
And, from Simons and Barabsis approaches to the architecture of
complexity, hierarchical networks emerge from the fact that many real and
drastically different networks of various types share similar organizational
principles: freedom of scale-free, hierarchical structure and near decomposability,
among others.
Also, the self-organizing process of many hierarchical networks that makes
them scale free appears to be related to their sel
It is also easy to visualize that scale-free networks are very hierarchical in the
sense that hubs belong to the highest hierarchical level of nodes, if hierarchy in
terms of the amount of links is considered. One has yet to explore ways in which it
may be possible to use Simons properties of hierarchy, particularly near-
decomposability, to simplify the analysis of hierarchical scale-free networks.

Also, considering complex systems as networks, Barabsi emphasizes the

interactions, or contacts, between nodes, while Simon does the same when he
notes that hierarchy should be defined by the intensity of interaction among
elements, rather than by their spatial proximity. In this regard, it is worth mentioning
network thinking, which "means focusing on relationships between entities rather
than the entities themselves" (Mitchell, 2009, 233).

Regarding the evolution of complex systems, in the section dedicated to Topology

and dynamics of networks, Barabsi, shows that the timing of many human
activities show statistics characterized by bursts of rapidly occurring events,
separated by long periods of inactivity, which are the result of a decision-based
queuing process. And this behavior is also observed in what some authors such as
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have called "punctuated equilibrium", in
relation to changes in the morphology of organisms: "long periods of no change in

17
the morphology of organisms (and no new species emerging) punctuated by
(relatively) short periods of large change in morphology, resulting in the emergence
of new species "(Mitchell, 2009, 84-85). And Bertalanffy (1968/1976, 71) reports
intermediate hierarchies that facilitate the evolution of complex systems: "The
reason for the predominance of segregation in living nature appears to be due to
the fact that segregation into subordinate partial subsystems implies an increase in
the systems complexity".

Meanwhile, referring to the article by Herbert Simon 5, Rolando Garcia (2006, 80-
81) points out two principles that are characteristic of complex systems:
"arrangement of its elements by levels of organization [hierarchy] with their own
dynamics but interacting with each other; and an evolution that does no progress
via continuous development but by means of successive reorganizations". In this
last quotation, Garcia, to begin with, refers to the two propositions in which Simon
summarizes the theoretical findings that emerge from his analysis of nearly
decomposable hierarchical systems6, related to the different dynamics at different
hierarchical levels. Moreover, Garcia also favors the theory of evolution by
successive reorganizations, which Gould and Eldredge called "punctuated
equilibrium".

Given its potential usefulness for analyzing organizational or social issues, it is

relevant to recall here Sols remark that "the amplification of economic instabilities
will easily make its way through social or trading networks" 7 and Simons ideas on
the possible application of the basic principle, illustrated with ontogeny and
phylogeny, that organizations or human societies evolve in stages forming
intermediate stages on their way to growing complexity 8.

5 It should be noted that Rolando Garca writes about decomposable and non decomposable
systems and makes no reference to Simons nearly decomposable systems.
6 Page 7 of this paper.
7 Page 14 of this paper.
8 Page 8 of this paper.

18
Finally, it is worth mentioning another outstanding issue raised by Tesson (2006,
chap. 6), who says that traditional network theory, including the scale-free
networks analyzed by Barabsi, addresses networks as "nodal" entities,
emphasizing the relationships among nodes and excluding the flow that occurs in
these relationships ("flow management in tubular networks" as opposed to "nodal
networks as constructs"), as well as the environment in which these networks
operate: "there is no way to represent context inherent in a nodal network."

References
Barabsi, Albert-Lszl (1999), Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks,
Science, vol. 286, October 15, p. 509-512.
Barabsi, Albert-Lszl (2005), Taming complexity, Nature Physics, Vol. 1, p. 68-
70.
Barabsi, Albert-Lszl (2007), The Architecture of Complexity, IEEE Control
Systems Magazine, August, p. 33-42.
Barabsi, Albert-Lszl (2009), Scale-Free Networks: A Decade and Beyond,
Science, vol. 325, July 24, p. 412-413.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1968/1976), Teora general de sistemas, Fondo de Cultura
Econmica, Mexico, DF
DAZ MATA, Alfredo (2012), Tres aproximaciones a la complejidad, Contadura y
Administracin, FCA, UNAM, vol. 57, num. 1, january-march, pp. 241-264.
GALLARDO CANO, Alejandro (2012) Para comprender la complejidad, in Daz
Mata, Alfredo (Coord.) El enfoque de la complejidad, diversas perspectivas,
UNAM, Mxico D.F.
GARCA, Rolando (2006), Sistemas complejos, Gedisa, Barcelona.
MITCHELL, Melanie (2009), Complexity, A Guided Tour, Oxford University Press,
New York.
RICHMOND, Samuel B. (1968), Operations Research for Management Decisions,
The Ronald Press Company, New York.
SIMON, Herbert A. (1962), The Architecture of Complexity, Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, vol. 106, num. 6, December, p. 467-482.

19
SIMON, Herbert A. (2002), "Near decomposability and the Speed of Evolution",
Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 11, num. 3.
SOL, Ricard (2009), Redes complejas, Tusquets, Barcelona.
TESSON, Karen Jane (2006), Dynamic Networks. An interdisciplinary study of
network organization in biological and human social systems, thesis presented for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Bath, Department of Psychology,
June 2006, www.jackwhitehead.com/teesonphd/006c5.pdf , April 12 , 2013.

near-decomposability, that greatly simplifies understanding their behavior and its

description and, furthermore, facilitates understanding how to store the information
required to describe or reproduce the system in a relatively short space

hierarchical systems have common properties (in particular, near-decomposability)

that are independent of their specific content, which means that a wide diversity of
complex systems shows hierarchical structure

hierarchy is one of the crucial structural patterns in the architecture of complexity

Barabsi proposes that, in complex systems, interactions form networks

He also notes that it is not enough to understand the global behavior of a complex
system but that, additionally, it is imperative to understand the nature of the
dynamic processes taking place in the network and asserts that many phenomena
that involve humans behave in a way described by power law functions

hierarchical systems evolve much more quickly than those who are not

Simon refers to social, biological, physical and symbolic hierarchical systems,

emphasizing that hierarchy should be defined in terms of the intensity of interaction
among elements, rather than in terms of spatial proximity

20
This means that hierarchical systems include subsystems that are stable
intermediate forms that facilitate (and shorten) the process of moving from the
simple to the complex, somewhat like stages in which a reorganization takes place,
in a stop in its way to another reorganization at a higher stage of complexity. These
stages allow for the condensation of forces and inertia, a recomposition of
achievements, that act as stepping stones for those that follow.

This evolution by intermediate stages with intermediate stable forms means

increasing complexity and, simultaneously, each time a higher hierarchical level.

This trial and error process, guided by selectivity, explains the way huge and
complicated problems can be solved, also through ever higher hierarchical levels
that represent intermediate solutions.

Nearly decomposable systems consist of a hierarchy of components, such that, at

any level of the hierarchy, the rates of interaction within components at that level
are much higher than the rates of interaction between different components

"The explanation for the ubiquity of the ND [nearly decomposable] property is that,
under the usual conditions of mutation and/or crossover and natural selection, ND
systems increase in fitness, and therefore reproduce, at a much faster rate than
systems that do not possess the ND property "

From a different perspective, in evolving systems whose descriptions are stored in

a process language (like the genetic code of DNA), ontogeny could be expected to
partially recapitulate phylogeny, i.e., if ontogeny is the series of transformations the
individual undergoes from fertilization of the egg until it becomes a complete being
and phylogeny is the formation and connection of animal or vegetal evolutionary
lines, ontogeny recapitulates, at least partially, the stages (intermediate hierarchical
stages) that have occurred in phylogeny in its route to the current versions of live

21
individuals. And it can be said that, in principle, this mechanism has applications
outside the field of biology, in many entities that evolve, such as organizations or
human societies.

Barabsis fundamental statement is based on the existence of many real networks

that he identifies as scale-free networks, which have the following properties that
distinguishes them from the "classical" model of random networks, the Erds-Rnyi
model
1. Power law distribution of links
2. Freedom of scale. The fact that many real networks of various types are scale-
free indicates that drastically different networks share similar organizational
principles
3. Presence of hubs. make the network robust against accidental (random) failures
but vulnerable to coordinated attacks
4. Evolution through growth and preferential attachment
5. Self-organization. The results of numerous studies indicate that large networks
self-organize into a scale-free state.
the development of large networks is governed by robust self-organizing
phenomena that go beyond the particulars of the individual systems
6. Small world property. Long-term connections generated by the evolution process
of scale-free networks decrease the distance between the vertices
7. Epidemics-like spreading in scale-free networks. Our networked society makes it
increasingly possible for small changes to trigger large effects. Each of us, properly
using what networks offer, can participate in history and its course."

The universality of various topological features (power law distribution of links,

freedom of scale, presence of hubs, growth and evolution through preferential
attachment, self-organization and epidemics-like propagation) is used as a platform
to study various phenomena and to make predictions

22
it is still necessary to analyze the advances made in the study of the dynamic
processes taking place in these networks in order to understand the interactions
between topology and dynamics of networks.

This author presents empirical evidence to show that the timing of many human
activities, which are patterns ranging from communication to entertainment and
work, show statistics that follow a power law distribution and not the Poisson
distribution, as is traditionally assumed for random networks. Those statistics are
characterized by rapidly occurring bursts of events separated by long periods of
inactivity. According to Barabsi, this bursty nature of human behavior is due to a
decision based, waiting line type of process

The wide range of human activity patterns following power law statistics suggest
that the bursty nature observed in these patterns reflects a fundamental and
potentially generic characteristic of human dynamics.

23