“Complex
adaptive systems”
Copyright 2017 Graham Berrisford. One of about 300 papers at
http://avancier.website. Last updated
06/01/2019 15:44
THIS PAPER IS AN OLD ANALYSIS
I DON’T REJECT IT.
BUT I NOW PREFER THE DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE IN THIS PAPER.
Some socio-cultural systems thinkers have
suggested that a system should be “adaptive, self-organising
and resilient”.
This paper explores what these terms mean, and
exposes (again) the difference between social entities and social systems.
Contents
Can an enterprise
be adaptive, self-organising and resilient?
A little
more about discrete step evolution
People talk about social entities needing to be adaptive, self-organising and resilient. What do they mean?
The table below
shows a classification of social “system” types used by some systems
thinkers.
A so-called
“complex adaptive system” is partly an ordered system and partly a chaotic one.
|
Social system type |
The behaviour of actors |
It is |
|
Ordered system |
is fully constrained to follow the given rules. |
fully describable |
|
Complex
adaptive system, or self-organising system |
is constrained by some given rules, but actors work flexibly outside those rules |
partly describable |
|
Chaotic
system |
is unconstrained; there is no system |
not describable |
An ordered system
in which the behaviour of human actors is constrained to follow roles defined by
the rules of the system, is described somewhere.
Enterprise
architecture is much about the standardisation and
integration of systemisation of orderly business
roles and processes.
A chaotic system, in which the behaviour of
human actors is unconstrained, cannot be described as a system
Though the way
actors interact and behave might be susceptible to some kind of analysis,
statistical or other.
In a so-called complex adaptive system, the system
actors are allowed or encouraged to act as system architects.
The shapes and
rules of operational structures and behaviours are
continually changing.
Only a simple
description - showing “core” roles and processes that are stable and repeatable
– is possible.
The system shows
those roles and processes, and hides what can change.
In this context, adaptive means modification of a system through what is called evolutionary change above.
A system that fits its environment well may last unchanged for years, decades or centuries.
But clearly, humans live in a rapidly changing social environment.
And a social entity may be empowered to change the roles and rules of a social system.
But to say the social system is adaptive is to confuse the social entity with the social system.
The actors in the social entity adapt the roles in the social system; the system does not change itself.
Human actors can
play a role in a system and a role its meta system at
the same time.
·
As system actors, they can perform processes in a social
system.
·
As systems architects, they can observe, redesign
and change how things are done on the fly.
This table
classifies social entities according to what system actors are allowed to
change.
|
Social entity type |
Actors can change system goals |
Actors can change processes
and/or organisation structure |
Commentary |
|
Ordered |
No |
No |
A proper system; its structure and behaviour can be described as per general system theory |
|
Goal-driven
|
No |
Yes |
See below |
|
Chaotic
|
Yes |
Yes |
Not a system; it cannot be described as a
system, because all its properties are in flux |
What about the
“goal-driven social entity”?
It has actors
and goals – you might be able to measure the achievement of the goals.
But its
roles or rules can change continually, and so there is no describable system
Actors may work in an ad hoc way, may do nothing, may not co-operate or
even undermine others’ efforts.
Actors may decide to outsource the achievement of the given goals to a different
group of actors.
However, the classification above is naïve, since
a social entity may well be a hybrid of types.
It may be partly ordered, partly goal-driven and
partly chaotic.
In
so-called “complex adaptive system”, only the ordered part is really a “system”
the rest is just actors doing things.
An oyster, a motor car, or a word processor can be described as a system of many parts with roles and rules.
These systems do not organise themselves; rather, they are organised and re-organised from without.
(An oyster by reproduction, a motor car by a manufacturer, and a word processor by software designers.)
What differentiates a complex adaptive system from those other kinds of system?
Surely, primarily, that it mutates of its own accord, from within.
And isn’t that true of every group of human actors who communicate with each other?
Every family, social club, business or other social network – whether it is describable and testable as a system or not?
A golf club has a committee that acts, as a meta system, to maintain the rules of the golf club.
One person can play two roles, in the meta system and in the operational system - as a player.
An agile software development team holds team meetings to define and modify its own methodology.
Each member can play several roles, in the meta system, and in software development as a programmer, tester or whatever.
A business has some kind of operational research/enterprise architecture/business change function(s).
They act as meta system to systems observed and envisaged in regular business operations.
The systems we observe usually appear resilient, since systems that are not resilient soon disappear from view.
But still, resilience is not a generally-required property of a system.
The fact that a system is short-lived doesn’t mean it is no good, or no use.
And what does resilient mean anyway?
Resilient can mean an object will return to shape after being pressed out of shape.
It could mean homeostatic, maintaining system state within a
range fitting to survival.
But social entities do not have to be homeostatic; they can grow, shrink or change direction.
Resilient can mean a system will withstand or recover quickly from damage,
Disaster recovery resources and processes are supposed to restore the same system that failed, not change it.
Resilient is better interpreted here as meaning a business (a legal entity) can change in response to unpredictable events.
It can respond to unpredictable changes in its environment, customers, suppliers, market or government regulations.
A biological species proves resilient when individual organisms are replaced by somewhat different, better-adapted, organisms.
An enterprise proves resilient when individual business systems are replaced by somewhat different, better-adapted, business systems.
EA is about systems that involve many different kinds of actor/component, rather than a homogeneous population of identical actors/components.
EA is about designing macro-level systems that act to achieve given goals.
EA is activity-centric rather than actor-centric.
EA is about formalised social systems rather than informal social entities.
All enterprises are adaptive (evolving), self-organising and resilient to a degree.
Their flexibility is mostly down to the informal behaviour of human as individuals and in groups.
Obviously, you can employ capable, self-aware humans, give them some goals and free reign to act as they see fit.
That is the most flexible system you can devise, but it barely counts as a “system”.
Business systems are formalised social systems with defined roles and rules.
Defining and the required roles and rules in the first place is difficult.
The challenge of testing and deploying formal business systems is substantial.
A business system realises the roles and rules set out in a system description.
Changing the roles and rules of a business system creates a different business system.
The systems share some goals and properties, but are different systems versions or generations.
Changing a business system from one generation to the next can be as challenging as building it.
And designing systems so that they can be changed (within designed bounds) is even more challenging.
A biological species or social entity evolves when individual members are replaced by somewhat different, better-adapted, members.
Members who join a social entity tend to be different from their predecessors
Changes to group members that make a social entity better adapted to its environment will be encouraged by the pressures of natural selection.
This leads to the evolution of new, different, social entities.
This kind of evolution is not continuous, it happens in discrete steps, as new members join and older members leave.
New business systems tend to be different from their predecessors.
Changes to business systems that make an enterprise better adapted to its environment will be encouraged by the pressures of natural selection.
This leads to the evolution of new, different, enterprises.
This kind of evolution is not continuous, it happens in discrete steps, as new business systems are deployed and older ones are decommissioned.
Evolution can be seen as a meta system that replaces individuals by different individuals (better suited to their environment), and so changes a social entity or species.
Enterprise architecture can be seen as a meta system that replaces business systems by different systems (better suited to their environment), and so changes an enterprise.
Note that IBM as a system today is different from IBM as a system yesterday.
The named entity has adapted to circumstances by replacing and radically changing the business systems it uses (and sells).