Chaos theory parallels
In relation to the whole order/disorder conflict, I was reading up on chaos theory and found many parallels (without getting too mathematical) that we might be able to draw from in coming discussions.
In particular, some interesting points to take note of are:
One defining characteristic of chaotic systems is that they are sensitive to initial conditions. Again there are a number of levels for viewing this. Mutational effects on basic DNA conditions are the fundamental reason for the diversity we see in nature. A new leaf that falls on the forest floor has multiple consequences on the system (it covers other items under it, provides a refuge for new growth etc), instigating a change in the micro-ecology of that area that may result in a macro-effect on the entire forest. This is likened to the "butterfly effect".
When we link chaos theory to organisational development, say in the evolution of entities like Wikipedia, Google or other open source bottom-up systems, we think about an "organization where system changes are made by recalculating, re-inventing and modifying its structure in order to adapt, survive, grow, and develop." Imagine organisations "that allows self-organization, rather than attempting to control the bifurcation (the splitting point of changes) through planned change." (Dooley, 1995)", which is in contrast to top-down approaches which create planning authorities and attempt to control every aspect of an inherently chaotic system. The result is likely to succeed in the short term, but fail in the long.
A crucial line from the Wikipedia article worth digesting is this: "While maintaining an equilibrial state seems to be an intuitively rational method for enabling an organization to gain a sense of consistency and solidarity, existing on the edge of a chaotic state remains the most beneficial environment for systems to flourish develop and grow."
To do so requires the careful injection of timed interventions (read: on the part of the architect) that do not dictate directions but shape them in a constant flux. The key lies in a "developing system that changes shape but retains the same familiar face." Think about how Google's company philosophy works and we start to see how such systems function. The 'core values' (for want of a better term) become very important. The approach, attitudes and principles, crucial. We can also once again link back to the idea of a leaf with an undefinable 'familiar face'.
In particular, some interesting points to take note of are:
One defining characteristic of chaotic systems is that they are sensitive to initial conditions. Again there are a number of levels for viewing this. Mutational effects on basic DNA conditions are the fundamental reason for the diversity we see in nature. A new leaf that falls on the forest floor has multiple consequences on the system (it covers other items under it, provides a refuge for new growth etc), instigating a change in the micro-ecology of that area that may result in a macro-effect on the entire forest. This is likened to the "butterfly effect".
When we link chaos theory to organisational development, say in the evolution of entities like Wikipedia, Google or other open source bottom-up systems, we think about an "organization where system changes are made by recalculating, re-inventing and modifying its structure in order to adapt, survive, grow, and develop." Imagine organisations "that allows self-organization, rather than attempting to control the bifurcation (the splitting point of changes) through planned change." (Dooley, 1995)", which is in contrast to top-down approaches which create planning authorities and attempt to control every aspect of an inherently chaotic system. The result is likely to succeed in the short term, but fail in the long.
A crucial line from the Wikipedia article worth digesting is this: "While maintaining an equilibrial state seems to be an intuitively rational method for enabling an organization to gain a sense of consistency and solidarity, existing on the edge of a chaotic state remains the most beneficial environment for systems to flourish develop and grow."
To do so requires the careful injection of timed interventions (read: on the part of the architect) that do not dictate directions but shape them in a constant flux. The key lies in a "developing system that changes shape but retains the same familiar face." Think about how Google's company philosophy works and we start to see how such systems function. The 'core values' (for want of a better term) become very important. The approach, attitudes and principles, crucial. We can also once again link back to the idea of a leaf with an undefinable 'familiar face'.
posted by jedchan at 4:35 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home