Provide minimum specifications, rather than trying
to plan every little detail.
Since the behavior of a CAS emerges from the interaction
among the agents, and since the detailed
behavior of the system is fundamentally unpredictable, it does little good to spend all the time that
most
organizations spend in detailed planning. Most organizational leaders have participated in very detailed
planning, only to find that assumptions and inputs must be changed almost immediately after the plan
is
finalized. Complexity science suggests that we would be better off with minimum specifications and general
senses of direction, and then allow appropriate autonomy for individuals to self-organize and adapt
as time
goes by. The science behind this principle traces it roots back to a computer simulation called “Boids,”
developed in 1987 by
Craig Reynolds
. The simulation consists of a collection of autonomous agents – the
boids – in a environment with obstacles. In addition to the basic laws of physics, each agent
follows three
simple rules: (1) try to maintain a minimum distance from all other boids and objects; (2) try to match
speed
with neighboring boids; and, (3) try to move toward the center of mass of the boids in your neighborhood.
Remarkably, when the simulation is run, the boids exhibit the very lifelike behavior of flying in flocks
around
the objects on the screen. They flock, a complex behavior pattern, even though there is no rule explicitly
telling them to do so. While this does not prove that birds actually use these simple rules, it does
show that
simple rules – minimum specifications – can lead to complex behaviors. These complex behaviors
emerge
from the interactions among agents, rather than being imposed upon the CAS by an outside agent or an
explicit, detailed description.
"The principle of min specs [minimum specifications]
suggests that managers should define no more than
is absolutely necessary to launch a particular initiative or activity on its way. They have to avoid
the role
of ‘grand designer’ in favor of one that focuses on facilitation, orchestration and boundary
management,
creating ‘enabling conditions’ that allow a system to find its own form."
-Morgan
In contrast, we often over-specify things when designing
or planning new activities in our organizations.
This follows from the paradigm of “organization as a machine.” If you are designing a machine,
you had
better think of everything, because the machine cannot think for itself. Of course, in some cases,
organizations do act enough like machines to justify selected use of this metaphor. For example, if
you are
having your gall bladder removed, you’d like the surgical team to operate as a precision machine;
save that
emerging, creative behavior for another time! Maximum specifications and the elimination of variation
might
be appropriate in such situations.
Most of the time, however, organizations are not machine-like;
they are complex adaptive systems. The key
learning from the simulations is that in the case of a CAS, minimum specifications and purposeful variation
are the way to go.
This principle would suggest, for example, that intricate
strategic plans be replaced by simple documents
that describe the general direction the organization is pursuing and a few basic principles for how
the
organization should get there. The rest is left to the flexibility, adaptability and creativity of the
system as
the context continually changes. This, of course, is a frightening thought for leaders classically trained
in
the machine and military metaphors. But the key questions are: Are these traditional metaphors working
for
us today? Are we able to lay out detailed plans and then just do it with a guaranteed outcome? If not,
do we
really think that planning harder will be any better?
The quintessential
organizational example of this principle of good-enough vision and minimum
specifications is the credit-card company, Visa International. Despite its $1 trillion annual sales
volume and roughly half-billion clients, few people could tell you where it is headquartered or
how it is governed. It’s founding chief executive officer, Dee Hock describes it as a nonstock,
for-profit membership corporation in which members (typically, banks that issue the Visa
cards) cooperate intensely “in a narrow band of activity essential to the success of the whole”
(for example, the graphic layout of the card and common clearinghouse operations), while
competing fiercely and innovatively in all else (including going after each other’s customers!).
This blend of minimum specifications in the essential areas of cooperation, and complete
freedom for creative energy in all else, has allowed Visa to grow 10,000 percent since 1970,
despite the incredibly complex worldwide system of different currencies, customs, legal systems
and the like. “It was beyond the power of reason to design an organization to deal with such
complexity,” Hock explained. “The organization had to be based on biological concepts to
evolve, in effect, to invent and organize itself.”
"Managers therefore cannot form a vision of some
future state toward which the business can be moved;
the futures open to the system are too many, and the links between a future and the actions leading
to it
are too obscure. Chaotic dynamics lead us to see strategy as a direction into the future that emerges
from
what managers do. In chaotic conditions, strategy cannot be driven by pure intentions. Instead, it
represents the unintentional creation of order out of chaos."
-Stacey
1. Thoughts
