<p>It seems to me that societies frequently construct systems that may be too complicated for any individual to operate competently within.  For example, the tax system, the legal system, the medical coding system, etc.  I have intuitions about how one might detect if any given system is too complex.  For example, a lack of consensus in how to perform system specific tasks (e.g. filling out a tax return), a large error rate among system task performers, a failure of system participants to get better over time.   I am interested in reading research in this area, if any exists.  Can some one provide me with suggested readings?  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-01T06:35:33.040Z
I would classify these as systems having a high degree of ambiguity rather than calling them "overly complex".  With the right amount of experience, *professionals* in tax, law, and medical coding navigate these concepts just fine.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-01T18:22:30.843Z
I can't speak to to taxes and the legal system, but I do know quite a bit about medical coding and the research that has been done in this area.   The research has shown consistently that professionals have error rates in the range of 20 to 30 percent.   I am looking for a more general framework in which to interpret these results.  Hence the request for pointers to preexisting research.
Elliott
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-02T13:12:24.713Z
@ChuckSherrington: "overly complex" implies the potential capacity to navigate the system with the benefit of experience (which helps simplify the experience of scenario navigation by facilitating automation), whereas "high degree of ambiguity" implies a lack of clarity that might not be resolvable at any level of expertise. Then again, experts also develop more complex schema, which aid in ambiguity resolution, so...This issue is both complex and ambiguous itself...as are the terms themselves! To some extent they're even synonymous, so the semantic problem seems pretty semantic (trivial).
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-02T13:33:42.593Z
@NickStauner `a large error rate among system task performers, a failure of system participants to get better over time` doesn't imply that experience is helping to navigate the system.  I'm not sure you've really proven your point here.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-02T13:55:11.237Z
True; `With the right amount of experience, professionals in tax, law, and medical coding navigate these concepts just fine` does. ;) What you just quoted could result from a particularly steep learning curve too though, so you can't rule out complexity as the problem just because few or none have navigated it. My point is that you can't really prove your point (that your phrasing is necessarily more suitable), so it might boil down to a trivial distinction, especially if the original question applies reasonably well to both ambiguous and complex (somewhat synonymous!) systems.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-02T14:14:26.460Z
@NickStauner I think that the examples given are perhaps bogging down the question.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-02T20:40:18.143Z
Interesting point. Maybe a better example is available? I don't quite see the problem with these though, and can only think of more dubious examples myself. Statistics, for instance, is a complex enough field (and ambiguous, at least without very sophisticated knowledge) that even experts frequently make mistakes when performing and interpreting analyses (some particular mistakes are notoriously common), but this feels like a slightly less extreme example IMHO, and seems somewhat less socially constructed, arbitrary, or circumstantially based.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-03T09:23:10.220Z
I don't see this as being ambiguous at all.   Maybe because I'm so familiar with one system.   Let's characterize a system as a set of rules that govern behavior when presented with a system specific task (filling out a tax return or coding a medical chart).  It seems to me that the rules can become so complicated (defined by both the number of rules or perhaps the logical complexity of the rules) that it exceeds human capabilities for most people and that there would be behavioral indicators (such as high error rates) that would suggest this is occurring.
Elliott
<performance><task-analysis>
Identifying Overly Complex Tasks
Elliott
# Identifying Overly Complex Tasks

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-12-31)

It seems to me that societies frequently construct systems that may be too complicated for any individual to operate competently within. For example, the tax system, the legal system, the medical coding system, etc. I have intuitions about how one might detect if any given system is too complex. For example, a lack of consensus in how to perform system specific tasks (e.g. filling out a tax return), a large error rate among system task performers, a failure of system participants to get better over time. I am interested in reading research in this area, if any exists. Can some one provide me with suggested readings?

**Tags:** performance, task-analysis

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I would classify these as systems having a high degree of ambiguity rather than calling them "overly complex".  With the right amount of experience, *professionals* in tax, law, and medical coding navigate these concepts just fine.  
> **username_0**: I can't speak to to taxes and the legal system, but I do know quite a bit about medical coding and the research that has been done in this area.   The research has shown consistently that professionals have error rates in the range of 20 to 30 percent.   I am looking for a more general framework in which to interpret these results.  Hence the request for pointers to preexisting research.  
> **username_2**: @ChuckSherrington: "overly complex" implies the potential capacity to navigate the system with the benefit of experience (which helps simplify the experience of scenario navigation by facilitating automation), whereas "high degree of ambiguity" implies a lack of clarity that might not be resolvable at any level of expertise. Then again, experts also develop more complex schema, which aid in ambiguity resolution, so...This issue is both complex and ambiguous itself...as are the terms themselves! To some extent they're even synonymous, so the semantic problem seems pretty semantic (trivial).  
> **username_1**: @NickStauner `a large error rate among system task performers, a failure of system participants to get better over time` doesn't imply that experience is helping to navigate the system.  I'm not sure you've really proven your point here.  
> **username_2**: True; `With the right amount of experience, professionals in tax, law, and medical coding navigate these concepts just fine` does. ;) What you just quoted could result from a particularly steep learning curve too though, so you can't rule out complexity as the problem just because few or none have navigated it. My point is that you can't really prove your point (that your phrasing is necessarily more suitable), so it might boil down to a trivial distinction, especially if the original question applies reasonably well to both ambiguous and complex (somewhat synonymous!) systems.  
> **username_1**: @NickStauner I think that the examples given are perhaps bogging down the question.  
> **username_2**: Interesting point. Maybe a better example is available? I don't quite see the problem with these though, and can only think of more dubious examples myself. Statistics, for instance, is a complex enough field (and ambiguous, at least without very sophisticated knowledge) that even experts frequently make mistakes when performing and interpreting analyses (some particular mistakes are notoriously common), but this feels like a slightly less extreme example IMHO, and seems somewhat less socially constructed, arbitrary, or circumstantially based.  
> **username_0**: I don't see this as being ambiguous at all.   Maybe because I'm so familiar with one system.   Let's characterize a system as a set of rules that govern behavior when presented with a system specific task (filling out a tax return or coding a medical chart).  It seems to me that the rules can become so complicated (defined by both the number of rules or perhaps the logical complexity of the rules) that it exceeds human capabilities for most people and that there would be behavioral indicators (such as high error rates) that would suggest this is occurring.  

---

## 0 answers

