I am not so certain this question is unreasonable, but may need to be expressed differently.
We have found that some questions of say computing resolutions are well expressed in terms of computing contracting homotopies. Thus instead of killing kernels, as is traditional, we find a home for a contracting homotopy. See the paper
Brown, R. and Razak~Salleh, A. Free crossed resolutions of groups and presentations of
modules of identities among relations. LMS J. Comput. Math. 2 (1999) 28--61 (electronic),
whose techniques have been developed by Graham Ellis in his packages HAP.
The ideas for the above paper were suggested by the field of Homological Perturbation Theory, in which homotopies are crucial, and which has been expressed in computational terms, in work of Huebschmann/Kadeishvili, Gugenheim/Lambe/Stasheff and for example
Larry Lambe, Leif Johansson and Emil Skoldberg, On Constructing Resolutions Over the Polynomial Algebra, Special Issue of Homology, Homotopy and Applications in honor of Jan-Erik's Roos' 65th birthday, Homology, Homotopy and Applications, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 315-336, (2002).
and Lambe's home page at
All this suggests that if you want to compute with weak structures you will be involved with computing the fillers of the diagrams. That raises the problem of the algebra and computation of geometric diagrams. An answer was attempted in David Jones thesis
Jones, D.W., A general theory of polyhedral sets and the corresponding $T$-complexes.
Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) 266 (1988) 110.
see the ncat-lab page on ''T-complex'' for a download.
There are aspects of dealing with weak structures in one formulation of Schreier theory:
Brown, R. and Porter, T., ``On the Schreier theory of non-abelian extensions: generalisations and computations''. Proceedings Royal Irish Academy 96A (1996) 213-227.
The standard free crossed resolution of a group gives another method of handling the `weak associativity' which you get in a group extension, and is described by a factor set.