I’ve been wrestling with a thought lately – if organizations are complex systems, and complex systems are continuously self-organizing, then why do we believe formal processes make these complex systems more efficient? Worse, when an organization is in need, why do we engage in process improvement – when what may be needed is process reduction or elimination?

This is not the first paragraph to question process improvement, this is not some original Eureka moment.  This is a personal journey, and the enormity of the mistake is beyond what I had considered previously. Friends, more erudite than I, have used similar words before – but for some reason I’m realizing, only recently, a simple truth: the implications for the baseless faith in the machine-based approach to management and the firm are global and profound.

A process-heavy enterprise isn’t cold and impersonal – because humans are still warm and social.  Instead, a process-heavy enterprise creates the need for larger social networks.  Formal processes do not capture the natural evolving paths people take to confront their tasks.  In response, people do what is natural, they use their social network to navigate the workplace – looking inward to find others who have succeeded despite the process.  We know that excessive time spent focused inward leads to burned-out employees, who must work the “second eight” to comply with organizational reporting and the like.  On a larger scale, this wasted effort presents – at the limit – an opportunity cost for the enterprise as a whole.  Perhaps the path to efficiency is to set the conditions for processes to emerge at the point of need, rather than Six Sigma-ing the (majority of) tasks that require creativity and agility.

In the famous early mistakes in business process re-engineering, managers believed once their processes were “streamlined” and “documented” (and embedded in enterprise software tools), they could realize savings by reducing the number of humans.  For routinized tasks, this may be a reasonable assumption – however, what percentage of your workday is routine?  Look to your own environment – do you rely on your social network to find the informal work-arounds for corporate process?  When faced with a challenging problem, do you find solace in the documented process?

Work to Rule. In labor relations, there is a term called “work to rule.”  Simply stated, this means that union workers have a negotiating tool that enables them to paralyze an enterprise – by merely doing only what is considered ‘by the book.’  No creativity, no work-arounds, no focus on task accomplishment – just fealty to the process.  Consider this message:  the way to crash some enterprises is to do what is expected by procedure manuals and process charts.

Business Development. In one company, I observed a set process for preparing contract proposals:  with clear roles, authorities, assignments, formats, and process steps.  Chokepoints were established along the way, when “pencils” down would precede a murder board review to assess the quality of the proposal against the procurement specifications.  These comments were returned to the writing team, who would tackle their task anew. The information technology consisted of shared folders, and the writers laboring over each section would be required to post their documents in the appropriate folder at the required hour.  The work was intense and draining, writers were often unaware of each other’s work, and the review team invariably excoriated the team for the lack of a “single voice” or “storyline.”

In another company, the proposal response was visible at all times to the entire proposal team.  In a shared online space, the sections were worked in parallel, each writer able to observe the other’s ongoing work.  The team met daily to talk through issues, but kept in touch throughout the process through instant messaging and email. There were roles and authorities, assignments and formats here as well – but the process was determined by the writing team, and emerged and adapted based on the demands of the work and the schedule.  As the storyline evolved transparently, there were fewer surprises, people were able to lend value across the work throughout – and the end product was coherent and compelling.  This without a review team’s intervention.

Software Development. In software development, Agile methods are triumphing over waterfall or other linear methods – users are happier because their approach to their work changes as they learn what is possible from the technology solution.  The human and the software evolve together.  The old approach was to gather what people thought they needed, build the software according to specifications, and then train the humans to operate the solution.  There may be a correlation between how much training is needed and how disconnected the solution is from how people work.  When software methods allow the humans and technology to co-evolve, when humans are co-designing the solution during “development” – we seem to have happier humans.

The thoughts bouncing in my head now are:  what needs to be in place to allow for emergent processes? Formal process has a small place – compliance processes dictated by, for example, government regulation come to mind.  However, value-creating processes must emerge from the interaction of the work and the humans.  They cannot be formalized absent the humans or the situational context – if they are, then humans will circumvent them, creating a more inefficient enterprise… or follow them to the letter, and destroy value.  In a real sense, process improvement should be replaced by process enablement.  Let the approach to work emerge from the situational context.

(Part 1 is archived at http://jbordeaux.com/raising-the-dial-tone/)

Recently, Dennis McDonald offered that transparency and collaboration should be considered as efficiency measures in the Secretary of Defense’s initiatives.  A sharp comment to this post responded by detailing the dire state of the federal procurement system, offering that the system is “completely broken, not superficially but structurally and intrinsically broken.”  The response indicated that collaboration was at best an insufficient tool to address the pathology of the system:

“The problem isn’t a communication breakdown between the people issuing requirements and those implementing them. In most cases that communication is satisfactory. The problem is that most requirements issued on federal contracts are complete birdcage liner written by people who are either totally unqualified to design a product or produced by a process/workflow that is biased toward the most verbose form of mediocrity (i.e. reams of underwhelming requirements).”

In my field of KM, there are many well-intentioned professionals who seek to increase sharing and collaboration among and across their targeted workforces.  This is a good thing.  Following what we know of network science regarding loose connectors, the amplifying effect of linked networks is primarily achieved through loose connectors, also referred to as ‘weak ties.’  This is how disparate networks form ‘small worlds.’

What are these?  Consider the social or professional groups with which you primarily associate.  You may be central to the interactions within this group, helping keep the group together and moving forward.  Network scientists call this increasing network cohesion.

The problem?  You likely spend less energy meeting people with whom you have little in common.  At the edges of your group, there are these people. The folks who don’t show up at every happy hour.  The ones who are known, but not seen as core to the group’s identity.  The accountant who is also involved in community theater.  The developer who takes long weekends in the Spring to cycle across hundreds of miles with a like-minded group.  The conversations here, for the most part, do not involve their work.

But some do.  Sometimes the accountant meets a CFO while preparing for a community production – and banter leads to a greater understanding of each other’s professional perspective.  Sometimes the developer meets an entrepreneur over dinner in a small-town diner as they restoke the cycling fires.  The conversation exposes each to the challenges of the other.  Weak ties are established across two previously disconnected social networks.

Monday morning, the accountant and the developer are back at work.  During a project meeting, they sound different.  As if they’ve been reading a different manual, suddenly expressing views that are not usually heard in the tight group.  The CFO and entrepreneur likewise return to their labors with a new perspective, a new voice tucked away in their heads.  With new contacts in their smart phones.

Who knows what may come of these chance interactions?  We cannot know, but the theory and experience both tell us that diversity in a social system leads to a healthier, more sustainable system.  From a systems science perspective, open systems are more efficient – this openness is not simply a benefit resulting from increased collaboration, but a core characteristic of a healthy system.

Connecting disparate social networks is as important – I would argue more important in many cases – than connecting within the core group.  This is the reason we speak of openness of interaction, transparency of data, and collaboration across agencies and organizations.  We do not – or rather, we should not – pretend that connecting people and opening the conversation will solve thorny systemic issues (health care, national security, acquisition reform); but we should set expectations that a wider dial tone will lead to serendipitous innovation.  Establishing weak ties across disparate networks is the first step towards finding innovative solutions to these long-standing problems.

In our new march towards efficiency, let’s continue to raise the dial tone and open systems.  This is not an end state or resolution, but a necessary path towards shared goals.

Ref: Hazy, J. K., Goldstein, J. A., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (Eds.). (2007). Complex Systems Leadership Theory:  New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness (Vol. 1). Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.

Words mean things.  One of the more obnoxious statements of the obvious, and yet I find myself saying it more often these days.  The more I delve into understanding complexity theory, network science, and struggle to understand cognition and neuroscience, the more frustrated I get when people use terms in ways appear at odds with the literature.

As I was preparing this blog to address the use of ‘complex’ versus ‘complicated,’ I found that I am certainly not alone in trying to retain some clarity of language.  Paul Jansen, in particular, has a great blog post on exactly this topic.  Nevertheless, I owe the nice people who followed this exchange on Twitter this week a brief explanation of my frumiosity.

This week, caught up in the holiday mood – I found myself engaging this week in an exchange with a gentleman, Roger Sessions, who has developed a method for IT architecture designed to ‘reduce complexity.’  His paper features references to “attacking complexity” and includes a method for measuring it.  He introduces the “standard complexity unit,” based on something he refers to as “Glass’s Law,” which posits that for every 25% increase of complexity in a problem space, there is a 100% increase in the complexity of the solution space. This reflects work from a 1979 paper by Scott Woodfield, who first posed this idea.  The idea is that increasing the complexity of problems tackled by software engineers does not increase the complexity of the solution in a linear sense, but on an exponential scale.  It is this problem that Sessions seeks to take on with his approach.

Now the notion of reduced complexity is attractive, if you understand complexity as a system that has developed so many connections as to become unmanageable. This is a common usage for ‘complex,’ which seems to translate to “something too hard to understand or manage or control or cost.”  The notion of ‘wicked problems‘ applies here as well.  The greater the connections you find among things, the greater are your odds of decision paralysis and “failure.”  Solution?  Easy, make things simple.  The danger, for me, comes in simplifying management behaviors in ways that deny the nature of the systems we are attempting to manage.  If you believe complex is nothing more than the ‘opposite of simple,’ you are missing some of the most promising areas of applied research in a half century.

When I engaged the gentleman on his use of the term complexity, I received what I believed was an odd response.  For someone who uses the word in titling his books and lectures, he did not appear terribly connected to the word itself.  He even invited me to suggest a different term for what he was trying to achieve. The closest I could come to his definition for complexity (admittedly, without buying his book) is an ‘exponential growth in system states with regards to information technology systems.’  To me, he is trying to help people with an architectural approach that makes overly-complicated IT systems more manageable.

For his part, Roger was comfortable with my discomfort, because in his world “complex” merely means the opposite of “simple.”  Several of us during this Twitter-fuffle suggested the use of “complicated,” which suggests a system that has known but prolific connections.  Cause and effect in complicated systems are related and knowable, but analysis by an expert will likely be needed to connect them when something goes wrong.  My example here is the ‘check engine light’ on my car – while I am at a loss to understand the cause, an expert with tools can ascertain it quickly.  Modern car engines are extremely complicated.

They are not, however, complex.  My car engine is unlikely to evolve new features anytime soon.  There is a reason medical doctors have different training regimes than auto mechanics.  The latter deal with complicated systems, the former with complex ones.

Complexity is a specific term.  Complexity, as described in the literature, is a science that seeks to explain how emergent order (often called ‘hidden order’ or ’self-organization’) is observed in systems or (most) networks. For what it’s worth, I believe those seeking to develop IT architectures could benefit from a deep understanding of complexity, as their users are sloppy humans in messy and evolving sub- and extra-organizational work networks.  Methods for complex systems management show some promise in ‘attacking’ the unmanageable IT systems that Mr. Sessions is tackling here.  It may be that observing and nourishing self-organization among human-based networks, rather than embedding and enforcing an existing or desired organization within them, will help architects develop more manageable and relevant IT systems.

As a blog post, however, this has gone on long enough.  I just wanted to explain my bristling at a usage of the term ‘complex’ in a way that conflicts with the literature. At one point, Roger reminded me that he is trying to tackle an extremely serious problem.  I respect that, of course, and was doing the same.  Given the great work that is ongoing around complexity and complex adaptive systems, we owe some respect to giants upon whose shoulders we seek to stand.

In talking about foresight, I’m reminded that this is not an attribute but a process.  No one “has” foresight, we look ahead – we envision.

In turbulent times, when we’re reminded of the Black Swan effects and the connected nature of things, we tremble at our inability to predict.  Truth is, our ability to predict only occurs when the world is relatively linear and stable – that is, anomalous.  We have built up such structures and have been the primary power for nearly a generation.  We have come to believe, until recently, that the world should be predictable. 

Let me illustrate, I beg your indulgence.

You are driving along Virginia’s Blue Ridge Parkway, Skyline Drive one evening.  You have set your sights on Staunton and plan to be there within two hours.  You hum along, thinking only of the dinner and wine that await you, dimly aware of your settings. As you drive, you are so
given to boredom that you have music to occupy your senses as you keep an even course.  Even if you experience a flat tire, you have preparations for that.  It’s the furthest thing from your mind, but the occurrence is normal enough that you have a jack and a spare.  If the spare is flat, well, you have AAA and a cell phone.  You aren’t thinking of this future, however, your mind is fixed on the evening’s upcoming Pinot Noir.

Then the tire blows.  And your daughter borrowed the jack.  Your phone has no coverage in this spot.  How big a spot, you don’t know. But now new possible futures are flooding your mind.  Someone may come by, you picture that scenario and how it would play out.  Even patting your pocket to ensure you have cash to compensate the Good Samaritan.

But no one comes.  You aren’t aware, but a freak rockslide closed the highway 45 minutes ago.  A Black Swan event, although there have been signs warning of such things on this road for years.  You are alone. You decide to walk to see if the cell coverage improves. Walking along the dark road, hugging the shoulder in case a car comes along, as night falls hard.

Unlike an hour ago, you are now much more aware of sounds.  Is that an animal?  If so, you try to guess its size and intent.  You are now
picturing personal futures that were completely unthinkable when you started your car this afternoon.  What if you trip and end up in a
ravine?

Does it hurt to die of exposure?

Then it begins to rain.

We can paint a similar picture, but this time by hearing a noise in your home at night.  Animal? Fallen object?  Intruder?  We flash to
several possible immediate futures, none of which were envisioned minutes earlier.

Implications for Policy Planning – Learn from Biology

What is common here?  We enter a period of heightened awareness as we simultaneously try to comprehend the changes in our environment and walk through possible futures.  This process cycles, as “new” futures enter our thoughts and obsolete ones are discarded.

These illustrations are my attempt to convey the following.  When we find ourselves off course:

1. We become more attuned to our environment
2. We focus mental energies as our bodies increase our capacity. ”From deep within your brain, a chemical signal speeds stress hormones through the bloodstream, priming your body to be alert and ready to escape danger. Concentration becomes more focused, reaction time faster, and strength and agility increase. When the stressful situation ends, hormonal signals switch off the stress response and the body returns to normal.” (NIH)
3. We model possible futures, thinking through steps and working out actions we may take.  (I’ll need a weapon if it’s an intruder.  I left a knife on the counter.”
4. We explore/probe the environment. (“I’ll walk just a little further in this direction, maybe the coverage comes back.”  ”I’ll open the door now, make some noise.”)
5. Based on what we experience next, we return to step 2 until we have a path that appears to resolve matters to our satisfaction (our perception of “satisfaction” changes as the crisis deepens).

In the current global climate, therefore, foresight and policy should become more fluid and iterative.  Adopt the mindset that this is a process, not a state.  As Eisenhower warned, “Plans are nothing, planning is everything.”

• Establish mechanisms to listen
• Focus our energies on learning interdependencies, weak links
• Cooperate more, trust more, with allies and the indifferent. We need others more than we realize, for the weak signals in the environment may be discernible to them.
• Establish a rigor of visioning, building on futures analysis.  I found a reference online that said in 1974, the House Committee on Committees stipulated that each Committee “shall review and study on a continuing basis undertake futures research and forecasting on matters within its jurisdiction.”  If true, this is extraordinary.  And a hook by which we can begin today.
• Explore, probe, experiment.  Is today’s economic crisis the end of Bretton Woods, or Westphalia?  Or does the surge towards nationalization of banks and industry represent a resurgence of Westphalia, perhaps its last?
• Rinse and repeat.