|
|||
Description of
complex adaptive systems CAS have a number of linked attributes or properties.
Because the attributes are all linked, it is impossible to identify the starting point for
the list of attributes. Each attribute can be seen to be both a cause and effect of the
other attributes. The attributes listed are all in stark contrast to the implicit
assumptions underlying traditional management and Newtonian science. CAS are embedded or nested in other CAS. Each
individual agent in a CAS is itself a CAS. In an ecosystem, a tree in a forest is a CAS
and is also an agent in the CAS of the forest which is an agent in the larger ecosystem of
the island and so forth. In health care, a doctor is a CAS and also an agent in the
department which is a CAS and an agent in the hospital which is a CAS and an agent in
health care which is a CAS and an agent in society. The agents co-evolve with the CAS of
which they are a part. The cause and effect is mutual rather than one-way. In the health
care system, we see how the system is co-evolving with the health care organizations and
practitioners which make up the whole. The entire system is emerging from a dense pattern
of interactions. |
|||
Tales
|
Diversity is necessary for
the sustainability of a CAS. Diversity is a source of information or novelty. As John
Holland argues, the diversity of a CAS is the result of progressive adaptations. Diversity
which is the result of adaptation also becomes the source of future adaptations. A
decrease in diversity reduces the potential for future adaptations. It is for this reason
that biologist E.O. Wilson argues that the rain forest is so critical to our planet. It
has significantly more diversity - more potential for adaptation - than any other part of
the planet. The planet needs this source of information and potential for long-term
survival. In organizations, diversity is becoming seen as a key source of sustainability.
Psychological profiles which identify individuals' dominant thinking styles have become
popular management tools to ensure there is a sufficient level of diversity, at least in
terms of thinking approaches, within teams in organizations. Diversity is seen as a key to
innovation and long term viability. Many of us were taught that biological innovation was
due in large part to genetic random mutations. When these random mutations fit the
environment better than their predecessor they had a higher chance of being retained in
the gene pool. Adaptation or innovation by random mutation of genes explains only a small
fraction of the biological diversity we experience today. Crossover of genetic material is
a million times more common than mutation in nature according to John Holland. In essence,
crossover suggests a mixing together of the same building blocks or genetic material into
different combinations. Understanding this can lead to profound insights about CAS. The
concept of genetic algorithms is paradoxical in that building blocks, genes or other raw
elements which are recombined in a wide variety of ways are the key to sustainability. Yet
the process of manipulating these blocks only occurs when they are in relationship to each
other. In genetic terms, this means the whole string on a chromosome. Holland argues that
"evolution remembers combinations of building blocks that increase fitness." It
is the relationship between the building blocks which is significant rather than the
building blocks themselves. The focus is on the inter-relationships. |
||
|
In organizational terms,
this suggests that it is not the individual that is most critical but the relationships
between individuals. We see this frequently in team sports. The team with the best
individual players can lose to a team of poorer players. The second team cannot rely on
one or two stars but instead has to focus on creating outcomes which are beyond the
talents of any one individual. They create outcomes based on the interrelationships
between the players. This is not to dismiss individual excellence. It does suggest that
individual abilities is not a complete explanation of success or failure. In management
terms, it shifts the attention to focus on the patterns of interrelationships and on the
context of the issue, individual or group. |
||
Aides Min specs Generative relationships |
CAS have distributed
control rather than centralized control. Rather than having a command center which directs
all of the agents, control is distributed throughout the system. In a school of fish,
there is no 'boss' which directs the other fishes' behavior. The independent agents (or
fish) have the capacity to learn new strategies and adaptive techniques. The coherence of
a CAS' behavior relates to the interrelationships between the agents. You cannot explain
the outcomes or behavior of a CAS from a thorough understanding of all of the individual
parts or agents. The school of fish reacts to a stimulus, for example the threat of a
predator, faster than any individual fish can react. The school has capacities and
attributes which are not explainable by the capacities and attributes of the individual
agents. There is not one fish which is smarter than the others who is directing the
school. If there was a smart 'boss' fish, this form of centralized control would result in
a school of fish reacting at least as slow as the fastest fish could respond. Centralized
control would slow down the school's capacity to react and adapt. |
||
Distributed control means that the outcomes of a
complex adaptive system emerge from a process of self-organization rather than being
designed and controlled externally or by a centralized body. The emergence is a result of
the patterns of interrelationships between the agents. Emergence suggests unpredictability
- an inability to state precisely how a system will evolve. Rather than trying to predict the specific outcome of
emergence, Stuart Kauffman suggests we think about fitness landscapes for CAS. A CAS or
population of CAS are seen to be higher on the fitness landscape when they have learned
better strategies to adapt and co-evolve with their environment. Being on a peak in a
fitness landscape indicates greater success. However, the fitness landscape itself is not
fixed - it is shifting and evolving. Hence a CAS needs to be continuously learning new
strategies. The pattern one is trying to master is the adaptive walk or capacity of a CAS
to move on fitness landscapes towards higher, more secure positions. |
|||
|
The co-evolution of a CAS
and its environment is difficult to map because it is non-linear. Linearity implies that
the size of the change is correlated with the magnitude of the input to the system. A
small input will have a small effect and a large input will have a large effect in a
linear system. A CAS is a non-linear system. The size of the outcome may not be correlated
to the size of the input. A large push to the system may not move it at all. In many
non-linear systems, you cannot accurately predict the effect of the change by the size of
the input to the system. Weather systems are often cited as examples of this
phenomenon of nonlinearity. The butterfly effect, a term coined by meteorologist Edward
Lorenz, is created, in part, by the huge number of non-linear interactions in weather. The
butterfly effect suggests that sometimes a seemingly insignificant difference can make a
huge impact. Lorenz found that in simulated weather forecasting, two almost identical
simulations could result in radically different weather patterns. A very tiny change to
the initial variables, metaphorically something as small as a butterfly flapping its
wings, can radically alter the outcome. The weather system is very sensitive to the
initial conditions or to its history. An example in an organizational setting of
non-linearity is the huge effort put into a staff retreat or strategic planning exercise
where everything stays the same after the 'big push'. In contrast, there are many examples
of one small whisper of gossip - one small push - which creates a radical and rapid change
in organizations. Non-linearity, distributed control and independent
agents create conditions for perpetual novelty and innovation. CAS learn new strategies
from experience. Their unique history helps shape the path they take. Newtonian science is
ahistorical - the resting point or attractor of the system is independent of its history.
This is the basis of neo-classical economics and is the antithesis of complexity. |
||
|
Complex adaptive systems
are history dependent. They are shaped and influenced by where they have been. This may
seem obvious and trivial. But much of our traditional science and management theory ignore
this point. What is good in one context, makes sense in all contexts. Marketers talk about
rolling out programs that were effective in one place and hence should be effective in
all. In traditional neo-classical economics, there is an assumption of equifinality - it
does not matter where the system has come from, it will head towards the equilibrium
point. Outliers or minor differences in the starting point or history of the system are
ignored. The outlier or difference from the normal pattern is assumed to be dampened and
hence a 'blip' is not important. Brian Arthur's work in economics has radically altered
this viewpoint. For example, he cites evidence of small differences fundamentally altering
the shape of an industry. The differences are not always dampened but may indeed grow to
reshape the whole. Lorenz referred to this in meteorology as sensitive dependence to
initial conditions which was discussed earlier as the butterfly effect. In economics, in
nature, in weather and in human organizations, we see many examples where understanding
history is key to understanding the current position and potential movement of a CAS. |
||
|
CAS are naturally drawn to
attractors. In Newtonian science, an attractor can be the resting point for a pendulum.
Unlike traditional attractors in Newtonian science which are a fixed point or repeated
rhythm, the attractors for a CAS may be strange because they may have an overall shape and
boundaries but one cannot predict exactly how or where the shape will form. They are
formed in part by non-linear interactions. The attractor is a pattern or area that draws
the energy of the system to it. It is a boundary of behavior for the system. The system
will operate within this boundary, but at a local level - we cannot predict where the
system will be within this overall attractor. |
||
|
A dominant theme in the
change management literature is how to overcome resistance to change. Using the concept of
attractors, the idea of change is flipped to look at sources of attraction. In other
words, to use the natural energy of the system rather than to fight against it. The
non-linearity property of a CAS means that attractors may not be the biggest most obvious
issues. Looking for the subtle attractors becomes a new challenge for managers.
CAS thrive in an area of bounded instability on the border or edge of chaos. In this region, there is not enough stability to have repetition or prediction, but not enough instability to create anarchy or to disperse the system. Life for a CAS is a dance on the border between death by equilibrium or death by dissipation. In organ- izational settings, this is a region of highly creative energy.
|
||
Next
| Previous | Return to Contents
List |