Posts

Acting in Complexity

/0 Comments/in , /by

What does it mean to say, ’embrace complexity!’. This is something I have been pondering about for a while.

It is the recognition of a new kind if order – something we did not have language for – we also know the grammar of that expression- sometimes it is in visible structures but more often than not the structures are invisible. This is particularly true of human enterprise. It is much like a complex elephant – the kind that six blind men in the Jataka story try to figure out.

The purposeful human enterprise is a special case. When it encounters the real world, it must figure out how to make sense of and respond to this complexity in order to still achieve its purpose.

It needs the grammar and the language so that it can construct an appropriate response. It uses this to construct a model and Cilliers says this model must correspond as closely as possible to the world, but Borges or Foucault say that’s not possible. So, we are somehow condemned to never knowing completely- and yet we must act.

But we are no longer completely ignorant – what we have learnt is rather than command the world and expect it to obey, we invite it to a dance, and through this process, it reveals the balance of its secrets- that is our path to better knowledge. We cannot impose our will but tango and jazz.

The conversation is one that can anticipate and predict how the world will respond to our enquiries and requests.

The world is already engaged in a creative process – our presence must not intervene in its poetry but become co-creative.

The challenge for those that work in the design of new (digital) experiences, is to explore the transformational potential that digitizations harbor. Rather than slap digital onto the enterprise it asks how can one reimagine the enterprise in a fundamentally new way. Maybe develop better responses to some unanswered questions or wicked challenges. What are those?

To begin the process, we must have better knowledge – of what? What are the questions we must have good answers for? What has been worrying us – irrespective of whether a particular design challenge is on our mind. Could we make a strategic difference by considering something beyond the everyday?

Understanding the world is surely necessary, but so is the conception of a response- an enterprise that is a partner in the new creative endeavor- of value, perhaps more strategic!

Design schools do not have a discipline or practice that is analogous to the challenges strategic advisors face. The response is an artifact – the making of design principles.

The world cannot be described in a single way – the creative practitioner engages in a dialog and finds many answers – in that sense the practice is open-ended, but the essence, or the pearls start to reveal and speak the language of complex order. That is something we can learn from creative practitioners – how they pursue for discovery.

You need many probes, and single dives are inadequate- you must probe from many vantages – and many dimensions – like a grid one superimposes to tesselate and construct a whole image (techniques of painting from a photograph) – but it is all in the pursuit of seeking an answer to something – the pursuit of a more important question.

It calls for a deeper persistent engagement- not a one time thing – it is like acupuncture probes, or, constructing a jigsaw puzzle. You cannot do it in one setting.

We need to see new relationships- not the visible ones alone but the invisible ones within their own spaces and across spaces. Structures and flows lead to patterns in outcomes. Both structures and flows are novel.

How do you in your own world probe the unknown? What are your practices? What language and grammar do you use for understanding complexity?

When you see a swarm or beehive – when you see congestion or segregation – what questions arise? Are there analogous situations in your world? A catalog of the wicked.

What practices can you adopt or adapt? How do you construct questions? In the story of the sampling of the elephant in the Indian Jataka fable, and the formation of a fuzzy image. What is fuzzy logic here?

What you will ultimately behold still depends – self reflection and critique will reveal what perspectives inform your pictures of the world. What metaphors are at play? Landscapes and ecosystems.

Others will too. Another conversation- a meta conversation now occurs among our pictures – for we must now together construct yet another meta synthesis – a consensus tempered and informed by our purpose and the pragmatics of its realization. Once again, either we can conquer the landscape and impose on it a path, or invite a living organism to a dance.

Strategic design is about those choices – the degrees of intimacy we want in our relationship with the world – should we continue to act in narrow interests or become custodians of the worlds we inhabit.

The context of the larger Value Creating Complex and our own Value Creating Enterprise within it matter

In the Designed world of new experiences, there is more freedom for the agents – complex phenomena are likely to occur (fluid recombination) – harvesting from those appropriately is what is strategic- to anticipate and be proactive – how does complexity additionally manifest in digital worlds?

I could have used a sub-title for this post – Weaving tapestries – the warp of creative practice and the weft of complex human social worlds

The Formal and the Informal – Together

/0 Comments/in , /by

When we engage with the world in order to better it, often we end-up primarily studying, engaging with and intervening in formal systems.

The totality however must include informal systems as well, since, depending on the context where we are situated, these informal systems might actually be the ones that predominantly shape or influence the outcomes we see and wish to address.

When, for example, we want to address challenges related to Public Health, the tendency is to look at the Public Health Value Creating Complex consisting of institutions and enterprises that provide services to the Public Health Ecosystem.

A comprehensive systemic analysis of such formal systems might lead us to understand the worldviews, beliefs and values that informed them, that gave rise to the concepts on which the designs are based. These dominant worldviews and conceptual architectures, obscure other forms of value creation, often inadvertently or deliberately creating conditions that lead to their suppression or elimination.

The formal systems however do not adequately fulfill the functions that the informal systems play, for various reasons. Needs they fulfill might be invisible, or poorly understood – some of the reasons why their value is overlooked. There could be others, more pragmatic concerns of viability or feasibility.

I think, when the formal and the informal are seen together, a better integration might be possible, whereby the overall design of the health complex, recognizes the whole and the formal and the informal complement each other.

This process of reconciliation among the stakeholders is critical – so rather than just focus on addressing the conflict and differences within the formal, the perspectives of the informal should also be included in strategic design efforts.

‘Complexification’ – Defying Mortality

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Complexification isn’t a word of course, but as it seems to suggest, a tendency to make or become more complex.

All living enterprises have a need to endure, to survive and thrive, the more varied and diverse, the better. As the enterprise accomodates a larger range of variation in a given moment, or, over time, it must necessarily become more complex. In a sense, the complexity of the enterprise reflects, and to the best extent possible matches, the complexity it finds in its environment. Clearly, this complexity isn’t structural alone.

In some ways, the desire to survive and endure is an act of defiance – against mortality, and the need to become more complex then, originates in that desire.

The more successful enterprises, those that are able to manage a higher degree of such contextual complexity, endure a wider range of challenges and survive longer.

However, this effort turns out also to be a vicious loop. The increase in internal complexity also makes its own environment more complex – a positive feedback relationship ensues, which in turn drives the need for further complexity. Not only do we, the living enterprise, deteriorate the world we draw upon, the complexification is eventually malignant to our own health and well-being.

We justify our acts of increasing complexity as ones that apparently serve our well-being (a kind of aesthetic need), and a transcendent need (spiritual drive), yet, we remain fundamentally, materially bound.

The challenges we then create are often existential, which is what our current struggles have become. And the worse our existential struggles get, the less spare capacity there is for the aesthetic and the transcendental.

One aspect that has enabled us to grow this complexity, is the progress we have made in improving our productivity. The assumption has always been that the surplus capacity we create will enable us to pursue the higher goals and aspiration we have.

I wonder why that has not turned out to be the case. One way to think of it is perhaps that these surpluses we created were not directed towards collective well-being. For all of us involved in this enterprise must cross and rise above the existential thresholds and any barriers to that must be removed. That is the purpose of that surplus.

We must therefore redirect our surpluses and the corresponding coplexification efforts along pathways to better futures. Narrowly driven pursuits that create complexity, without carrying the whole forward, will make that complexity turn on the enterprise itself, savaging and sabotaging, not just the outside world, but also the inner.

Book Cover - Charting the Corporate Mind

Navigating through Complexity – grappling with dilemmas

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

In recent times there has been growing awareness of the concept of Complexity, with a corresponding increase in the number of publications that advise us on the need to embrace it, as a necessary condition of our times, and even more so going into the future.

Complexity is the very nature of the reality on which we layer aritificial and human/social systems often obscuring it in the process. At some juncture, the alienation and misalignment between reality and our constructs leads to dysfunction, often serious. Complexity also arises within the systems we construct to counter and master complexity, one of the hallmarks of our times.

This happens through all the interconnections and interdependence that we build and live with and continue to grow every passing day. I do not mean to write here about the nature of complexity, and all that is implies but just bring attention to what that realization or discovery leads us to.

On the one hand is the awakening to a certain kind of underlying beauty – a sense of awe. On the other hand is the realization that there is a reason we encounter so much intractability in our times, and that, if we accept this ’truth’, embrace it so to say, there is hope.

For all that I have read and heard, I have seen very few recommendations on how to actually deal with the many possibilities that such challenges rooted in complexity expose. We recognize that there are many possible pathways to navigate through the situations – many possible dimensions and possible points of intervention. The recommendations then have to do with experimentation, probing, and building rapid learning organizations, among others. There is more to the various approaches and I will deal with that in some other post.

One of the things that occurred to me, was that complexity posed the decision maker with dilemmas – of course in this case a multi-horned multi-lemma so to speak. That train of thought led me to thinking about dilemmas and the work that has been done in dilemma theory.

I was reminded of a book from several years ago – “Charting the Corporate Mind”, by Charles Hampden-Turner. I had referred to this book in the early 90’s when I was pivoting my career from business management to consulting. The book is certainly targeted at the Corporation and the role of the Manager. However, during my recent reading I realized that much of the book’s discussion of dilemmas and how to approach them remains relevant to our complex contexts in general.

Over the next couple of posts I will review some of the key concepts from the book and how I believe those concepts and approaches might be relevant to our need to deal with complexity in a somewhat systematic manner.