The Importance of Modeling – SENDSim, Part 2

By Greg Amis & Carl Hunt

From the beginnings of the SENDS Project and well before, you’ve heard it time and again: cybersecurity experts face a daunting mix of ever-changing threats and a technological landscape that grows in complexity every day. Preparing a robust plan for network defense requires not just a detailed understanding of information technology but a careful appreciation of how the actions and inactions of ordinary users can enhance or compromise security. In fact, people and how we represent them in planning and design are fundamental inputs of the Design process, as discussed in the 30 September blog, “Design and the Science of Cyberspace.”

Experience has shown that security plans may on the surface seem robust but can be circumvented by users in their quest to accomplish work tasks. Other plans may meet security and information assurance goals but inadvertently prevent legitimate operations from running effectively. Further, even the best plans and designs cannot be executed unless security experts can motivate institutional leaders and decision makers to appreciate the real threats against cybersecurity in an environment of increasingly tight budgets and conflicting priorities.

Fortunately, these are all issues that can be examined in considerable detail in an experimental environment that does not cause disruption in current plans and workforce policies. This experimentation, based on sound scientific principles within a controlled environment, falls within a technique known as agent-based modeling and simulation.

As we first introduced in the 13 September blog entry, “The Importance of Modeling – SENDSim, Part 1,” a major component of the SENDS Pilot Project is a modeling and simulation task that helps us better understand how people and information technology interact and the interdependencies that arise with the convergence of these two sources of vulnerability. We call the product output of this task SENDSim.

We are writing today about the technical nature of this task. As we get further along in the work, we will be able to describe the individual and organizational social nature of this critical component of SENDS.

In brief, SENDSim is being designed to help the cybersecurity expert face cyberspace security challenges by providing a platform for understanding threats, evaluating solutions, and communicating the benefits of a principled security plan to non-technical decision makers. Users can specify network designs, assumptions, and policy parameters. SENDSim then creates a simulated network, a simulated workforce using that network, and a simulated malware threat. The illustration of an early SENDSim screenshot below helps to visualize the components and interactions of SENDSim agent-actors (click to enlarge).

Incorporating modeling techniques from epidemiology and behavioral economics, SENDSim captures both the behaviors of the malware and the behaviors of the network users. These behaviors (based on intents and attitudes modeled on subject matter expert insights) include users’ appreciation of cyber threats, their level of technical sophistication, and their actions, such as choosing passwords, enabling and disabling features, and telling co-workers about threats and solutions.

Detailed visualizations demonstrate how malware infiltrates a network, spreads, and inflicts damage. In addition to standard cybersecurity metrics focused on technology, SENDSim adds metrics related to the workforce, such as productivity, as well as metrics related to cost.

By modeling both the behavior of malware and the behavior of non-malicious users, cybersecurity operators and experts will have a broader view of how their designs and policies impact both their security goals and the larger productivity and efficacy goals of the organization.

Cybersecurity experts are often charged with assessing the vulnerabilities of a network and recommending a course of action. SENDSim can also assist these experts make cyber threats more tangible for decision makers, helping them visualize possible threat scenarios and quantify those scenarios in terms of financial cost as well as in terms of information assurance and military readiness. Decision makers can then draw more informed conclusions that take the broader interests of the organization into account.

We are excited at the prospect SENDSim and potential follow-on modeling and simulation efforts might provide to both the near-term requirements of government and other users, as well as the likely ability to improve design over the lifespan of networks. The design functions required to implement any outputs from our Science of Cyberspace work will benefit greatly from these kinds of modeling and simulation efforts, helping us to test hypotheses and evidence gathered and generated in this endeavor.

Stay tuned for more about SENDSim and the modeling and simulation support to SENDS!

Design and the Science of Cyberspace

By Carl Hunt

During the earlier part of this week, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the Highlands Forum (HF) meeting at Newport, RI. This was HF 42, which followers of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy know this should have been a most illuminating session for the organizers and sponsors of this group (if you don’t, you have only to look it up on Wikipedia to be illuminated yourself!). Rather than repeat the background on the HF and its associate organization, the Highlands Group, you can find out more at: http://highlandsgroup.net/about.php?ID=1, and I will get on with telling you about Design and the Science of Cyberspace.

The HF brings together speakers of diverse disciplines to transport ideas from the edge (and there are many edges!) to the core (DoD’s central repository of current problems, doctrines and operational pursuits: my definition, by the way). The current theme for the HF’s discussions is about shaping how “beliefs, behaviors and outcomes takes place in a massively interconnected world” (from the Agenda for HF42). If you’ve seen a SENDS briefing or read the SENDS Science of Cyberspace White Paper (available in the SENDS Substrate), you have come across that term, “massively interconnected world” more than a few times. This is a marvelous and central challenge for our nation in the age of cyberspace.

As we learned in HF42 this week, however, it’s probably best not to rely solely on the principles of pure emergence (see the 9 and 10 September discussion on emergence and exchange) to spit out “solutions” to these challenges. Rather, we should consider the contributions that principles of Design can make to a sustained progress within this new world. HF42 colleague Bruce Mau (http://www.brucemaudesign.com/) continuously challenged the participants throughout the 3-day meeting to think about how we can apply design principles to security as a “national experience.”

According to Bruce, the current problems we face in conflict and international relationships have changed what it is and what it means to have an American “national experience.” To recapture (or perhaps recreate?) an American way of life will require thoughtful design that accommodates the massive interconnectivity the HF and others are studying and assessing. The creation or adaptation of a Science of Cyberspace also requires this level of thinking in terms of Design.

In fact, we should be thinking about creating the conditions for Design and Emergence to coevolve, if you will, so that we aren’t completely surprised at the outcomes. Designs are probably akin to military planning in that no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. But the process of planning, and designing I’m sure, brings about context for the coevolutionary (ecological, if you will) consideration of problems and solutions in ways that force us to think through relationships and interdependencies that better prepare us for the unknown future.

After this week, I’m quite certain we need to think through the design of the Science of Cyberspace and SENDS, and I will be scrambling to address it! It is my sincere hope that Bruce and others in HF42 will join this pursuit of design within the Science of Cyberspace and help us get it right, not only for America but for everyone. More on Design to come…

Cyberspace's impact on our perception of time

by Craig Harm
Cyberspace has and is changing the way we look at and deal with time. I would like to open with a short overview of how cyberspace has developed to produce an environment that is making us rethink our perspectives on time. Then, as food for discussion, I am proposing a couple of specific areas where our perspective of time is changing due to cyberspace. My intent is not to compose a comprehensive research piece on time and cyberspace but instead I hope my thoughts stimulate discussion.
From the first humans counting on their fingers, we have looked for better and faster ways to help us with increasingly complex mathematics. While the early abacus and the slide rule were crucial developments in man’s calculating tools, they were still analog devices. The advent of mechanical adding machines in the 17^th Century and their offshoot, the cash register in the 19^th Century were some of the first mechanical systems to help us with faster more complex calculators. Then in 1944, Howard Aiken at Harvard University built the first electromechanical machine. While it was very slow and huge, it could be called the first computer as its function could be altered by its programming.
These first steps in development occurred over centuries. In only the half century that has followed; gears and motors were replaced with relays, the relays were replaced by electronic switches and the switches replaced with circuits. While the history may be of interest to some, it is important to note that the interest and motivation for the development of these systems all seem to have been driven by the same desire to do more and more complex problem solving faster. The rate of change cyberspace undergoes is continuing to increase at exponential rates: it was just 15 years ago that e-mail came into being—today, it is a major workflow tool.
For centuries human communications networks remained unchanged and stable. There were two ways to transfer information, by land or by sea. The key element in the time to transfer information was the geographic distance between the two parties. With the advent of the telegraph and the telephone, distance was no longer a factor; rather, volume and information retention become the more dominate factors, often restricted by human memory and note-taking. Now, the interconnection of increasingly fast high-volume computation capabilities which created cyberspace bridges all those gaps. Now, geographic location and distance have become negligible factors; the technical inhibitions against transfer and storage of information have also been largely overcome. Broadband is only now empowering the majority of society’s connectivity, and we are just the first few years into the social networking phenomena.
The former ways of knowledge accumulation and transfer were tried and true and had been in use for so long humans could not imagine alternate methods until cyberspace was discovered. Now the 21^st century is well underway and many of us have become so accustomed to the rates of change of new communications methods nothing seems to surprise us any longer. Nonetheless, human behavior introduces constant surprises. These changes and surprises, and the profound impacts on human culture and emerging societies, both physical and virtual, demand in-depth and systematic formulation of cyberspace understanding and knowledge. Connected collectivity, operating at the speed of cyberspace still presents challenges to perception and understanding, however.
So as we consider our perceptions of time and how cyberspace is changing that perception consider how business is conducted in today’s cyberspace-enabled environment and how our expectations and management of time are changing as well. Enabled through a connected network of computers we conduct almost any transaction instantaneously. Multi-task capable computers enable applications to run simultaneously. Mathematical problems too complex for the human brain to process are done in the blink-of-an-eye. Functions and capabilities are developing so fast we often are found in a dilemma to buy a system now or wait for the next generation system to be released. Communications have become so easy and so pervasive we are suffering from overload.
What has all this done to us?

1. Our ability to send and receive communications has driven us to an expectation of immediacy. There was a lag-time expectation when letters and “snail-mail” communications were the norm, we would measure the time with a calendar in days or weeks. With omnipresent e-mail in today’s society that lag-time as dwindled to something we now measure with a watch or stop-watch in minutes or hours. Even the famous Miss Manners now says you should always respond to e-mail or find a suitable method to acknowledge receipt within one business day. This almost instantaneous response culture is forcing us into habits that make us feel disposed to focus more on e-mail response time than content.
2. If we want something now, we can get it now. Well maybe not physically, but intellectually. The connected- connectivity of cyberspace seems to make omnipotence just a search and a click away. And each search should only have to last a few minutes at most. We expect to find what we are looking for at first glance, and if we can’t we move on. We see this expectation manifested in advertising. The Netflix family “The Right-Nows” who expect and do everything “right-now. The Bing TV commercial about search overload is a satirical example of how the immediacy of information availability is changing how and when we think of things.
3. The responsiveness, agility, and volume Cyberspace provides are driving us culturally to shorter and shorter attention spans. Think of how we read and review our e-mail. With the volume, diversity and frequency of e-mail traffic we no longer have time to compose or read lengthy, explanatory notes. If something does not immediately capture our attention, we tend to disregard it and move on. We simply have to move on or we cannot get through the information. With the advancement of computer volume and speed, the diversity of topics and the ease of access to our interests we can easily become distracted away from those things that need extended, devoted time. The immediacy of news and information about any subject imaginable is driving us to move from one topic, issue or event to another with very little dwell time. As they say, old news gets boring and our propensity to look for new topics causes us to soon forget ongoing issues. Cable news may have been the first to bring this phenomenon to the forefront, cyberspace exasperates it. YouTube, FaceBook, news feeds and blogs are just a few of the cyberspace environments that experience this phenomenon of short-lived information.
4. Our willingness to wait for new technologies is becoming more and more tolerable. The time between version updates, computing advancements, and technology implementation is continuing to grow shorter and shorter. With the costs of older technology dropping as new technology comes out, there is an inclination to wait, as maybe the existing prices will drop with the release of the new technology. Or the converse is true; the old technology will soon become obsolete so we may as well wait. Think of the rush and push for the release of Windows 7. With warnings of ending support for older Windows versions coming out from Microsoft, the retail industry moving to sell new machines loaded with Windows 7 and our interest in the new capabilities promised many people withheld buying new hardware and software until Windows 7 was released.
5. Cyberspace has added a completely new element into our time management. The activities available within cyberspace, the connectivity cyberspace provides and ease of access are increasingly adding to our daily lives and tasks. Just because it is out there or available does not mean it can fit into the existing priorities of our daily lives. Complaints about the volume and management of e-mail ring from the business world, academics and our personal lives. Compound that with keeping up with news feeds, social networks and web-based entertainment and you have the makings of a true crisis in daily time management.

I am sure there is much more to this topic than what I have expressed in this blog. In fact, the availability of this blog and your interest in reading it is causing changes to your own perceptions of time. You may be thinking of time related questions about this SENDS blog. What is the frequency of postings? How often does it need to be checked? Can I set up a reminder to help me manage my reviews? Are the topics still viable or have they already been overtaken but subsequent items that compete for my interest?
I look forward to your comments and discussions.

Cyberspace as Social Science

by Jack Holt

This is a bit of a different take on Cyberspace, but I've always believed it is less about technology and more about the behavior that technology enables.

I attended a National Association of Public Adminstrators meeting yesterday morning discussing “Creating a Culture Where Employees Thrive and Agencies Succeed.” Speakers included Marlise Streitmatter, Deputy Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Transportation and Toni Dawsey, Assistant Administrator for Human Capital management and NASA’s Chief Human Capital Officer.

Focal point of the discussion was the Partnership for Public Service and American University’s Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation’s “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” 2010 survey results. DoT ranked dead last in the last survey and was voted “Most Improved” in 2010, and NASA has consistently been in the top 10 in every “Best Places to Work” survey.

This discussion was almost a reiteration of the WaPo interview with Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was ranked the #1 overall best place to work in the federal government.

Main take-aways are that listening and engageing the workforce makes all the difference. Not a new concept to be sure, but woefully under-exercised. I’m reminded of the Cherokee proverb my grandfather taught me: If you listen to whispers, you’ll not hear screams. Also points out what I’ve been saying; there is a difference between managing, directing, and leading. Rear Adm. Grace Hopper once astutely noted: “You manage things, you lead people.” A leader’s role is to strengthen and unify the workforce by managing the workflow, directing the action and meeting the needs across the spectrum of the force. One of Jesus’ leadership lessons is: “The first must be last and the last first.” A leader’s focus and effort should be toward strengthening the weak points. These three thoughts have always guided my efforts when in leadership positions.

Social media played a very large part in making the dramatic turnaround in both the DoT and NRC and is what has kept NASA at the top. Inside the firewall employee communication and engagement are essential; but the tools are of little effect without leadership. It is the engagement piece that is most important.

DoT focused on leadership and supervisory training as part of a strategic plan to address the previous survey results which placed them dead last. Yet two of their agencies rated very high in the survey, the Federal Railroads Administration and the Federal Highways Administration. Marlise Streitmatter engaged them to learn how they did it. Finding ways to stay in communication were the keys. She found that the DoT, as a whole, was experiencing the siloed effects of an isolated, dispersed workforce. Subcultures developed because of the lack of communication between the hierarchies as well as between management and employees. This gave rise to a lack of trust compounded by a question of supervisory competence. Sound familiar? The DoT Secretary and agency administrators developed a strategic plan to address the failings. With a series of townhall meetings, luncheons, and other face-to-face meetings with employees and building a communication infrastructure, dialogue opened across the DoT encouraging ideas and innovation. Lead, show action, and listen is what Ms. Streitmatter acknowledges brought the DoT the “Most Improved” award.

NASA has for some time, been working to improve employee satisfaction with a focus on recruiting and retaining a younger workforce. The average age of the NASA employee in 2001 was 48 years. The question was, to whom do we hand this mission? Where is the succession management? In 2008 NASA produced the “Gen Y Perspectives” done by Gen Y employees for the NASA leadership to understand what needed to happen in order to cultivate the next generation workforce. The influencers for NASA, and I’ve seen this in other organization as well, are:

1. The Mission – understanding the importance of the mission at all levels and how every employee contributes.
2. An engaged leadership – (you cannot lead if you are not engaged – jh)
3. Engaged employees – (as a rule they won’t be engaged if leadership is not engaged – jh)
4. Progressive programs – Strategically thinking about how you engage and address the needs of the workforce in a human capital strategy.
5. Communication – multiple venues. (Communication is a human development activity. It is the tie that binds one to another and each to the whole. – jh)

Some of the tactics of NASA’s Human Capital Strategy are:

1. Leadership benchmarking – sharing lessons learned and best practices in leadership across the enterprise. When mission changes cause confusion and uncertainty, leaders communicate with each other to help unify the needed vision of the future and openly share with the dispersed workforce to create the common direction of the organization.
2. Opening avenues and encouraging “alternate views.” Even the terminology is chosen to be inclusive. Consider “alternate views” rather than “dissenting opinions.”
3. “Skip” luncheons. Brown bag lunchs or dinners where employees meet with the next higher level in the organizations. Basically informal meetings with your bosses boss.
4. Beginning leadership training at lower levels. Cultivating the leadership you will want and need in your organization.

It is not the "network" but "people networking" that makes the difference. Facilitating the access to information for better individual situational awareness, enabling the sharing of knowledge to create and enhance corporate wisdom and leadership that leads allows for employees to self-synchronize around the ideas, topics and events as needed to contribute to the corporate mission.

For the federal government as a whole performance management has always been a problem. NASA has addressed this by constant evaluation of their processes, constant evaluation of the workforce, and constant evaluation of the leadership. It is NOT pro forma, but a focus on a consistent process of improvement. In a word, management. Consistency is paramount in expectation management. Expectation management is paramount in leadership and leadership should be exercised at every level of the organization.

There is nothing new in any of this but these are good examples of what cultivating a culture of success looks like.

– Jack

The SENDS Academic and Educational Curricula Task

By Carl Hunt


We’ll return to Wicked Problems and Complexity Science in the next post, but I wanted to focus this entry on one of the four main tasks SENDS is undertaking in the first year Pilot: the Academic Curricula Task. Enough dust has settled on other SENDS tasks (including setting up the collaboration substrate, starting on SENDSim (the modeling and simulation task) and completing more mature drafts of important SENDS papers). We are now beginning to put more effort in the other individual SENDS Pilot tasks. None of these tasks has more immediate and longer-term impact than the Academic Curricula effort.

Yesterday, Craig Harm sent out an important email recruitment letter to several SENDS Consortium members who have expressed specific interest in this task and who want to help lay the foundation for long-term success of the project.

As Craig writes in his note, we are looking for those who are willing to and can “recommend educational curricula to help foster an understanding and a development of a Science of Cyberspace.” This is just a brief way of saying what we say in other parts of SENDS: we don’t understand cyberspace nearly as well as we need to given we have practically built the modern world’s future around it. Education for all ages and walks of life will be critical to helping us comprehend and grow into this marvelous massively interconnecting environment that has evolved around us. Education will be fundamental to the exploration and exploitation of cyberspace (see the blog entry for 8 September 2010: Addendum to Mission Statement for what I mean by exploitation).

Last week, SENDS Advisor Joe Cuenco from the Science Center of Pinellas County, FL, sent me a link to a space-related project the Center was doing with its students. The project involved some 300 or so young science scholars interacting with three US astronauts, while they were flying a mission. The students had the opportunity through a video downlink to the Center to ask questions of the astronauts and learn first-hand what goes on in the International Space Station and what our nation’s space team is doing to support the effort. As Joe points out in the interviews, these students were engaged and they were learning! I have to wonder how many of those students will grow up to be astronauts based on that 60-minute exposure.

This is only representative of the kind of thinking we are looking for in helping to assess and recommend the basis for an academic curricula that will support the “understanding and a development of a Science of Cyberspace.” In yesterday’s note, Craig is challenging our Consortium to think at least as big as our national space program to develop and refine the type of academic preparation our students (of all ages, by the way) need in order to help the nation thrive in cyberspace. As we learn what it takes to build the “secure social spaces” SENDS seeks to study, it will be our education system and our new generation of students who “fly the missions” related to cyberspace exploration.

This task offers us the opportunity to help articulate and refine what education for and in cyberspace should look like next year and next decade. Please help and get engaged on this task!

SENDS and the Wicked Problem Resolution Approach

By Carl Hunt

From the earliest versions of the SENDS White Papers and the SENDS Science of Cyberspace White Papers, we have proposed the study and adoption of the concepts related to Wicked Problem Resolution (WPR) in trying to understand and tackle issues related to the phenomenon of cyberspace and cyberspace security. In fact, several in SENDS Consortium meetings have confidently asserted that cyberspace security is a wicked problem. For that reason, the major SENDS papers have discussed WP in some detail, although to date we have not talked much about how to integrate WPR and the Science of Cyberspace. We begin to do that here.

Earlier this year, Australian academics/authors Valerie Brown, John Harris and Jacqueline Russell published a volume of essays they edited and co-wrote titled Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdisciplinary Imagination (Earthscan, London, 2010). The principles embodied in the text reflect much of what is considered as complexity science: the multidisciplinary body of research that embraces challenges from diverse research perspectives (see for example: Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Touchstone, 1992; Kaufmann, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Oxford, 1996; and Miller and Page, Complex Adaptive Systems, Princeton University Press, 2007).

Transdisciplinary approaches differ from the multidisciplinary perspectives of complexity science in the following way: transdisciplinary thinking is the “collective understanding of an issue…created by including the personal, the local, and the strategic, as well as specialized contributions to knowledge,” note the co-authors in the Introduction to Tackling Wicked Problems. They go on to write that such “open” thinking includes not only the scientific disciplines, but also includes “all validated constructions of knowledge and their worldviews and methods of inquiry” (p. 4). As documented throughout the book, imaginative inquiry is at the heart of resolving WP.

It’s also important to note that we don’t try to “solve” WP, but rather to resolve them due to their complex and dynamic nature. Resolving problems is a different tactic than solving them: "resolving" speaks to an iterative process in which there is a recognition that there is no final or "right" solution, whereas problem "solving" looks for the "right" or ultimate answer. Leveraging the power of cyberspace to accomplish resolution will be a powerful contribution that our budding Science of Cyberspace can make.

There’s much more to discuss when it comes to WPR and the Science of Cyberspace, and we will continue to present those observations right here in this blog. At this point, it’s important to set the stage and seek the beauty of convergence and synergy by identifying imaginative ways to proceed in dealing with wicked problems, harnessing the connectivity of cyberspace.

It’s not about being wrong or right, either, as the academic definitions of the WP literature tell us: “Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong, simply ‘better,’ ‘worse,’ ‘good enough,’ or ‘not good enough.’” (Rittel, Horst and Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4, Elsevier, 1973 (this is the ground-breaking paper that began to formalize thinking about WP)).

The convergence of WPR literature, creative and imaginative inquiry, complexity science and a better understanding of cyberspace are all at the root of harnessing the power of mass interconnectivity to identify and better deal with the very hard problems we face now and in the future. Humanity is only beginning to see the benefits and the pitfalls of globalization and the connective power that is emerging from new technologies and social science-based understanding of these environments.

Here’s the closing point: the study of WP in the light of Complexity Science tells us that humans can be simply right or that we can be simply wrong, but we can’t be complexly right or complexly wrong. To appreciate this assertion, it helps to know how complexity science works (including exchange, self-organization and emergence), and it really helps to understand cyberspace theories (which we are only now exploring). The bottom line, however, is that WP are real and they’re tough to tackle because they are complex by their very nature, and the power of cyberspace (and cyberspace sciences) may present the best way to approach WPR.

The Importance of Modeling – SENDSim, Part 1

By Carl Hunt

In the previous blog of 10 September, I offered to provide a graphic to better explain exchange and emergence as these concepts apply to our study of cyberspace and the development of a Science of Cyberspace. Below is that graphic and narrative explanation. This addition also serves as a bridge between discussing the concepts of exchange, self-organization and emergence and the importance of modeling to better understand cyberspace.


We will have a lot to say about modeling and simulation in coming blog entries, and we will hear from the real experts such as Dr. Eric Bonabeau (Icosystem), Dr. David Davis (VGO Associates) and Dr. Greg Amis (Icosystem, and the modeling project lead on SENDS for Eric and Icosystem). All of these experts are significant contributors to SENDS and we will be delighted to hear from them.

Without further adieu, I present our first graphic depiction of exchange, self-organization and emergence as empowered by cyberspace (click image to enlarge).

As shown in the figure, interactions (or exchanges), self-organizing criticality and emergence thus offer us insightful clues as to what we should seek to explain and predict in this new science. If thought of in the sense of some sort of vehicle that moves us from processes to a “final” product, we can visualize the relationship of these components of behavior in cyberspace. Exchange takes place in any environment, of course, but cyberspace as a supporting infrastructure brings the process of exchange to many more people and information transactions around the world.

From this infrastructure, the participants of the exchanges (people, systems and information) self-select and self-organize, again greatly facilitated though the network-based interactions cyberspace empowers. This self-organization process is the transmission that moves exchange into emergence. Absent the unifying body of discipline we propose in the Science of Cyberspace, we are only beginning to visualize the outcome, or product of emergence.

As Morowitz and others have noted, we can only see the emergence after it has happened, but advanced models such as agent-based modeling and simulation, accompanied by evolutionary algorithms, allow us to observe and deduce these potential behaviors through visual interfaces the models provide. These models will likely be the key to better “predicting” emergence in the future. We will be discussing the application of these modeling capabilities to SENDS in much greater detail in future blogs.

While the above figure appears to be a linear movement of information from exchange to emergence, only the beginning and the “end” (the emergence) have relatively fixed points, considering the highly dynamic nature of emergence. As the bottom arrow indicates, the continuous dynamic feedback that is inherent in cyberspace almost ensures nonlinearity will permeate the flow of information. Emergence will lead to more exchange and the process will coevolve and continue.