ABSTRACT

Simon (1999) wrote that the evaluation of any complex system is connected with the analysis of its structure. Activity is a complex, multidimensional system requiring the use of systemic principles of its analysis and therefore the concept of structure is critically important in the study of human work activity. The system may have different organizations of its elements. There are three types of organizations: linear, logical, and hierarchical. These can be combined in different ways in the system. The organization of the elements of activity determines the structure of activity during task performance. In the study of activity as a system, particular attention should be directed to the units of analysis, to the relationship between the elements of the system, and to the stages and levels of analysis. Any specialist can represent the same activity in terms of different models describing the structure of activity from various perspectives. Consequently, we may have different representations of the same activity. There are various types of the systems. Activity is the structural system that consists of different elements that are interrelated. The element of the system cannot be understood if it is considered in isolation from the whole and, therefore, the system is more than the sum of its elements. Activity is a situational system because it is constructed and adapted to a situation according to mechanisms of self-regulation. It includes flexible reconstructive strategies (situated components) and preprogrammed or preplanned components. Finally, activity should be viewed as a functional system that mobilizes, forms, and disappears upon the achievement of the desired result. The activity system has a loop-structure organization having continual feedback about the progress of performance. The structure of activity unfolds in time as a process. Cognitive psychology ignores the concept of activity structure and considers cognition only as a process. It should also be noted that in systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT), the focus is not

only on the cognitive (informational) aspect of activity study but also on the energetic or emotional-motivational aspects of activity analysis. As will be shown further in the chapter, the consideration of activity as a structure that includes informational and energetic components is a basis of the task complexity evaluation. Some general aspects of the relationship between informational and energetic components of mental activity was also considered in Chapter 2 of this book. Morphological analysis is an important stage in the study of any complex systems. Morphological analysis has been used in many fields of science for the discovery and description of structural interrelations between elements of complex systems. Such analysis precedes quantitative evaluation of task complexity (Zwicky, 1969). The term morphological comes from the Greek morph, which means shape or form. Thus, the morphological method of study describes arrangement of different elements of a holistic object under investigation. This method describes the object being studied as a structurally organized system. The object can be physical such as anatomy of an organism, or mental such as a concept or an idea. Morphological analysis is a general method for description and analysis of diverse complex objects. This method is not quantitative but very useful for the description of an object’s structure. Analysis and synthesis are important principles of morphological analysis. Complex phenomena or social problems can be analyzed into any number of nonquantified elements. Similarly, sets of nonquantified elements can be synthesized into well-defined relationships or structures. This is a formalized method that gives possibility for the various solutions, including quantitative analysis (Ritchey, 1991). Alternating between analysis and synthesis is the fundamental scientific method that is being used in various fields of science such as mathematics, economics, psychology, etc. Analysis is defined as the procedure by which a complex whole is broken down to elements or components. Synthesis is quite the opposite procedure; it combines separate elements or components into a structurally organized system. Analysis and synthesis as scientific methods always complement one another. Analysis and synthesis are important concepts in activity theory (AT). For example, Rubinshtein (1959) suggested that the thinking process is first of all analysis and synthesis. When a subject is trying to understand a problem situation, he/she decomposes the whole situation into elements. However, it is worth noting that the features or elements do not exist in isolation. Therefore the subject tries to discover relationships between the elements-this is synthesis. Analysis and synthesis always exist in integration. This example demonstrates that analysis and synthesis methods can be applied not only for the study of material and structurally organized systems but also for the study of the systems’ functions. In the analysis of functions, a specialist breaks down the system to the identified functional processes or activities, which the system carries out in order to perform for what it was created for (Ritchey, 1991). Poorly defined parameters of the problems being studied become evident immediately when they are described as a structurally organized system. The major purpose of morphological analysis is to transfer problems that

are not clearly defined or described into clearly defined and structured ones. Morphological analysis is a general method for nonquantitative modeling of an object. In a complexity field, this method precedes quantitative evaluation procedures. This is an important stage in task analysis. This stage of task analysis is also required for the following quantitative evaluation of activity structure including the evaluation of task complexity. The original method of morphological analysis of activity was developed in SSAT. The basis of this method is an algorithmic description of an activity and the development of its time structure. This is the psychological aspect of morphological analysis.