Nature - Intertwingled: Information Changes Everything - page 9

Uber isn't alone in this argument. They have competition. For instance, there's Lyft, a peer-to-
peer rideshare whose drivers don't charge “fares” but receive “donations” from passengers who
are encouraged to sit in the front seat and give the driver a fistbump. Their tagline is “your
friend with a car.” Do we need any more evidence that a Lyft is not a taxi?
Meanwhile, taxis aren't standing still. They're adopting e-hail apps that enable passengers to
topic regular taxis with their mobile device. In short, from lawsuits to competition, Uber has
plenty of problems. This is to be expected. Disruptive innovation inevitably provokes a re-
sponse.
Or, in the words of John Gall, “the system always kicks back.” In Systemantics, a witty, irrever-
ent topic published in 1975, Gall uses the example of garbage collection to explain that when we
create a system to accomplish a goal, a new entity comes into being: the system itself.
After setting up a garbage-collection system, we find ourselves faced with a new universe of problems.
These include questions of collective bargaining with the garbage collectors' union, rates and hours, col-
lection on very cold or rainy days, purchase and maintenance of garbage trucks, millage and bond issues,
voter apathy, regulations regarding the separation of garbage from trash…if the collectors bargain for
more restrictive definitions of garbage, refusing to pick up twigs, trash, old lamps, and even leaving be-
hind properly wrapped garbage if it is not placed within a regulation can, so that taxpayers resort to
clandestine dumping along the highway, this exemplifies the Principle of Le Chatelier: the system tends
to oppose its own proper function. vii
This is why we need disruptive innovation within our society. Systems that have grown unre-
sponsive must be shaken up. But, like garbage, change is messy. Disruptors such as Uber pro-
voke counterattacks, and they build new systems that create new problems. All of this change
results in unintended consequences that are hard to predict or control.
While we'll never be perfect at change, we can be better. One path to progress runs through the
field of systems thinking, an approach that aims to understand how the parts relate to the
whole. Think about it. We're all familiar with Aristotle's aphorism: “the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts.” But how often do we put this into practice? How often do we take time to
understand the whole before doing our part?