If the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, what is the affect on the whole when one of the parts is lost?

Consider the global economy and the near certainity that foreign Y2K problems will impact each and everyone to varying degrees and of varying duration, is it not likely that loss of for example one in ten systems will have a gretaer impact than a 10% reduction due to interdependency?

This is what I believe gary North refers to as "the loss of the division of labor" - a situation where we are no longer interdependent but rather self-dependent.

I am looking for a good word to use in upcoming speech that describes the opposite or breakdown of synergistic structures. Any suggestions?

Dis-synergistic?

T.I.A.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), November 04, 1999

Answers

cancer? negative accretion? chaos? dissolution?

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), November 04, 1999.

"Entropy" might connote some of the things you're looking for. Look it up and see...

-- Don (whytocay@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

aggravated fractionation

The compounding of the effects noted wherein the failure of any given component part of the synergistic whole causes the loss to the entity to be greatly exacerbated in it's effect. The loss of any given particulate of the sum must necessarily result in greater loss to the whole. Such action/reaction must of necesssity be more pronounced than would be expected from the failure or loss of functionality of the article in it's singularity. Such compounding of these effects is generally found to be exponential in effect moreso than linear.

The reciprocal of synergy.

Or, little ouchie = BIG bobo.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

Discombooberated......really!

-- Charles R. (chuck_roast@trans.net), November 04, 1999.

devolution, unwinding, counter-synergism, decay, disconnect (to be in vogue)

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 04, 1999.

Tinfoil Syndrome?

-- Y2K pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

Bill, economists refer to synergy technically as increasing returns to scale or increasing returns.

I would suggest decreasing returns or diminished returns as one option.

This refers to the possibility that the marginal product of labor and other factors of production may be diminished substantially at every potential level of production. If this happens in a very short period of time, it would wreak havoc upon the economy in short order.

I just hope that it doesn't happen, and if it does, that not very many people die as a result.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

Antagonism? Antagonistic?

-- Bill23 (qwert@asdf.net), November 04, 1999.

Entropy

1. in thermodynamics, a mathematical expression of the state of randomness or energy loss in any system.

2. the natural and irreversible tendency toward randomness and disorder in any system without an external source of energy.

3. loosely, decline or degeneration.

http://www.wordsmyth.net/

-- (oneword@a.time), November 04, 1999.

Hmm...When the whole, or total effect is less than the sum of the individual parts that would be - Government or bureaucracy!

When a synergistic system reverts to a non-synergistic one you often have what is known as an "implosion." Rapid loss of cabin pressure at altitude, or spontaneous human combustion, could induce such an effect. The old Halon gas fire extinguishers would do something similar before they were pulled. Installed in a combat vehicle it would instantly smother a fire or explosion when hit, but would also instantly suck out all oxygen from the air, thereby possibly suffocating the crew if they were lucky enough to survive the first event.

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), November 04, 1999.

Y2k pro:

Are you suggesting that it is unnecessary for any system to undergo Y2K remediation?

Do you disagree that some foreign systems may not function as designed post-Y2K?

The point I am developing is that foreign system failures will likely have repurcussions domestically. If you disgree, please inform me of your reasoning.

BTW, I think I can work "Tinfoil syndrome" into my presentation. Thanks.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), November 04, 1999.

"Synergy" is commutative, in most usage. When one process is beneficiated by another, that is synergy. When one process is disadvantaged by another, the process is simply reversed. Think of 'synergy' as one process interacting with another, with whatever results.

This link is a discussion of just this question.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

"Synergy" is commutative, in most usage. When one process is beneficiated by another, that is synergy. When one process is disadvantaged by another, the process is simply reversed. Think of 'synergy' as one process interacting with another, with whatever results.

This link discusses just this question.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Actually, to destroy the unity or integrity, by breaking away into constituent elements or parts would be to "disintegrate."

On the other hand if talking to teenagers, just say synergy (NOT) and they will know precisely your meaning!

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), November 04, 1999.

The rail roads.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 04, 1999.

It all depends on what level of performance and at what margins the system is performing at when the failure occurs.

If a single tire blows out on a semi's trailer, it probably won't spin out. A single tire blowing on an Indy car, that's catastrophic.

Kook

-- Y2Kook (y2kook@usa.net), November 04, 1999.

Deterioration or turbulance?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 04, 1999.

I used to use the "synergy" modules in my training on Group processes and quality circles (Desert and Snow survival.)

I know when I first took them, I always survived better than the group. If you have leaders who are average or below average, they can pull the group down in score. Conversely, leaders that are above average can pull the group up in score. If you have high scorers who are not assertive leaders, the group does not benefit in a higher average.

I would, therefore, associate the lack of synergistic processes with natural evolution - survival of the fitest.

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), November 04, 1999.

Agree re "entropy".

Natural tendency of systems (digital, mechanical, organic, etc.), absent external "maintenance", to become more chaotic, less organized, less energetic, less effective. Left to themselves, they begin to break down.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), November 04, 1999.

All Hail Discordia

-- Dolma Lhamo (I'm@nonymous.now), November 04, 1999.

Bill,

Actually, the problem may lie in the way the word is usually used with a positive connotation. In actuality, it carries no such value. Systems can break down in a synergistic fashion, as well as being built. Synergy simply means that two or more elements are working together to make a system develop more rapidly or with greater intensity, than anticipated. In other words, the sum of the parts, is greater than the whole.

The word has no real opposite, since the lack of synergy, merely implies that each factor is developing at it's own more or less predictable rate, unaffected (in either a positive or negative fashion) by any other element.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), November 04, 1999.

I think we've come full circle to the "what is Human Nature" thread.

AND THE SURVEY SAYS! "Human nature"

-- MoVe Immediate (MVI@yepimhere.com), November 04, 1999.

If a word doesn't jump from your mind to explain the idea, how can you expect your intended audience to absorb and understand it? Why don't you just explain the concept, Bill?

Clear thinking, analysis and communication are better than contrived words.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), November 04, 1999.

Since "Synergy" has been the slicky slime word for firing employees, you are searching for the slicky slime word for HIRING people.

-- oodles (slick@ slime.com), November 04, 1999.

The opposite of energy is anergy (if you read the book "Systemantics" which surely dates me). Therefore the opposite of Synergy is Syanergy. Syanergy is defined as the ability of one component of a system to take the whole system down. The Syanergy of a component is directly proportional to is apparent lack of significance to the system as a whole. The less important it seems the more likely it is to cause disfunction of the entire system. Thus the first law of Syanergistics:

1. If a component of the system is apparently irrelevant to the proper function of the system, when the component fails the system will fail.

The second law is like unto that:

2. If a syanergistic component of the system fails the system will fail in novel and unexpected ways.

ah, well... have fun.

-- (...@.......), November 04, 1999.

OOOPPPPSSSS.... "directly proportional should read indirectly proportional... Give the boy a failing grade.

-- (...@.......), November 04, 1999.

it looks as though you were right the first time... directly

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 05, 1999.

Murphy's Law.

-- A (A@AisA.com), November 05, 1999.

Murphy's Law. Whatever can go wrong, WILL go wrong.

-- A (A@isA.com), November 05, 1999.

I have used the term 'negative synergy' as the opposite for 'positive synergy'.

Examples of positive synergy: 1+1=5; 2+2=9; etc.

Examples of non(nil) synergy: 1+1=2; 2+2=4; etc.

Examples of negative synergy: 1+1=0; 2+2=-7; etc. (This is observable when team(s don't)work; or when organisational politics and conflict undermine individual and group performance.)

The examples for positive and negative synergy are not 'mathematically correct', but they do help to illustrate the need to go beyond maths to understand the concept. These concepts of positive/non/negative synergy have been useful to me in explain various (especially non-linear) relationships among people and situations in organisations.

"I"

-- "I" (I@think.so), November 05, 1999.

Contested Divorce With Additional Attorneys Appointed to Represent the Children's Interests.

-- SH (squirrel@hunter.com), November 05, 1999.

collapse, breakdown, disintegration, deterioration, or loss of the synergistic relationships that currently increase the level of operational efficiency within our existing system(s)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 05, 1999.

PNG

Good point. (and we need a Japan update:o)

Bill

Why don't you give us a example of the use of your meaning then it is easier to develop a answer.

Also when thinking about Y2K you may want to look at symbiotic relationships rather than synergistic actions.

Synergy always reminded me of a wishy washy hook. My Pocket Oxford doesn't list it. No history.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 05, 1999.

Y2K Pro--

Cranial rectaloctomy may be in order!

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 05, 1999.

In toxicologic usage "increased potentiation" is a better word than "synergy".

The effect of a "potentiating material" is a decrease in the dosage rate required of a pesticide by the inclusion of a second material, which in inself is relatively harmless, but increases the toxic effect of the pesticide. An example is the use of surfactants (surface active agents) i.e. soaps, which allow increased penetration of the pesticide through surface oils into the animal or plant.

The effect of inclusion of a second materal which makes the pesticide less toxic (requiring a higher dosage rate for the same effect) is referred to as "negative potentiation".

-- pho (owennos@bigfoot.com), November 05, 1999.