Complexity Science and
Theory in Organizations
All organizations have a level of complexity. Some of the
different types of complexity are Imposed, Inherent, Designed, and Unnecessary (Obolensky,2014). Those types of complexity
can be broken down again into simple and complex(Obolensky,2014).
With each type of complexity, a leader can overcome these types of complexities
by “putting them in their place” (Obolensky,2014).
The imposed are the laws and regulations imposed by an
outside source (Obolensky,2014). Imposed
laws are set by the FAA and must be maintained. FAA inspection and quality
assurance have audits to check for compliance. This type of complexity is the
type that organizations can’t get away from. There will always be laws and some
form of regulation that needs to be adhered to, especially in aviation. This is
a form of simple complexity in that it can be organized and dealt with.
Inherent complexity is a type of complexity that
organizations can’t get away form (Obolensky,2014).
This type of complexity can be simple or complex. The weather is an inherent
complexity that is both simple and at times complex. There is no circumventing
weather and you can’t always manage it. Aviation also has a lot of inherent
complexity in its regulation. Regulations for aviation can range from machining
tolerances to required licenses. These tight regulations are rules and
regulations that are inherent to the aviation community. This inherent
complexity is simple.
Designed complexity are chosen changes to the organization(Obolensky,2014). These complexities are
simple. Examples of designed complexity
are integrating a new policy or changes to a menu option. This type of
complexity will happen often in growing organizations. Designed complexity
should be well thought out and planned changes. They should not disrupt flow to
the organization or at least keep it to a minimum.
The last type of complexity is, “Unnecessary complexity,
it arises from growing misalignment between the needs of the organization and
the processes supporting it” (Obolensky,2014).
For example, this type of complexity can be seen when a leader puts the needs
of sales before production. The sales team needed a way to view if the
customers part has been quoted, so a change was made in the system for sales to
quickly view the quote. This update to the system slowed production, adding
additional time going through menus to make changes to routers and necessary
repairs. The update was addressed with the organizations manager and the update
was removed. A completely new menu was made for sales to quickly and effetely
view quotes. Once focused on unnecessary complexity it can be easily dealt
with.
Butterfly Effect
The butterfly effect is when a small action has
devastating results. The theory is, “Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in
Brazil Set Off a tornado in Texas” (Obolensky,2014)?
It is not a question that is easily answered. Small actions or changes on an
individual can have a large effect on the organization. A small change was made in Yellowstone park
trying to improve the game population, to start hand feeding the elk(Sullivan,2011).
This change greatly increased the elk population but through the unforeseeable
effects, “butterfly effect”, the trout population diminished(Obolensky,2014).
Small Changes Yield Large Results
Small changes in an organization don’t always cause
cecotrophy. Small changes can have a large positive effect, more regulatory meetings
and engineering requests. In my organization, quality inspectors would have a
monthly meeting to go over changes and future plans. The meetings were a great
source of information for the inspectors, but some questions and concerns were
forgotten throughout the month waiting for the meeting. The meeting constancy
was changed to weekly, instead of monthly. With the meeting being weekly, a
problem with the inspection criteria of a rotating part issue was brought to the
meeting instead of being forgotten. The criteria of the inspection was too
intense and vague for a critical area. Inspection was determining these
rotating parts not serviceable because of surface staining. Through the use of
the weekly meeting, the inspection leaders got together with engineering and
determined a tool was needed to detect this surface damage. A digital scanner
was brought in and is now in use for this surface staining. The company can now
repair these critical rotating parts because someone was frustrated with the
inspection criteria and brought it to the weekly meeting.
Another small change was a new menu added to the system
called engineering request. This new menu came because of the need for router
modifications. The routers needed additional information and the only way to
modify them was to have an engineer go into the router and change it. The
process was that an email was sent to engineering explaining the problem and
telling them what needed to be added. The email was sometimes answered but it
could be easily forgotten or sent to the wrong engineer. So, a menu was made
that anyone in the company could make a suggestion for router modifications.
This caused such a “butter fly effect” because different shifts were processing
parts differently, and in some cases were doing it the hard way (Obolensky,2014).
New routers emerged with better direction and parts are now being processed a
lot faster.
Complexity Theory For You and Your Organization
Some
of the implications of complexity theory for me are not to making the problem
harder and more complex. Complexities are a part of leadership and can be dealt
with. Trying to resolve a complex situation by making it harder is not the
correct way to be a leader. The complexities
for my organization are inherent and unnecessary. It is hard for leaders to see
the ramifications of their actions for the future, but through swift action can
be managed.
How Can You Use This To Drive Improvements?
Leaders can use complications to grow and learn. Leaders
need to be challenged. If a leader is not challenged, they won’t get outside of
their comfort zone. Driving improvement means adapting to new situations and
over coming complexities with diversity.
Reference:
Sullivan, T. (2011). Embracing Complexity. Harvard Business
Review, 89(9), 89-92.
No comments:
Post a Comment