Complexity
Science and the Butterfly Effect
Complex systems exist all around
us. Complex systems “consist of many
diverse and autonomous but interrelated and interdependent components or parts
linked through many (dense) interconnections. Complex systems cannot be
described by a single rule and their characteristics are not reducible to one
level of description. They exhibit
properties that emerge from the interaction of their parts and which cannot be
predicted from the properties of the parts” (BusinessDirectory.com, 2017). These systems have existed in chemistry,
physics, biology, and anthropology, just to name a few, since those disciplines
have been studied.
Complexity in the business
environment is a relatively new development.
The business community has quickly shifted from the complicated to the
complex context primarily due to rapid advancements in military, communication,
and transportation technologies (Obolensky, 2014). These changes include the introduction of the
internet which over a short period of time made unprecedented amounts of
information available to everyone, connected the world, and added uncertainty
and unpredictability to the business environment as it began to globalize
business markets. It has grown
consistently and will not likely reverse itself.
Complexity Science seeks to
understand complex systems. Through this
understanding we can adapt our behavior and actions to more effectively operate
in a complex environment. This has
implications on leadership in and the structure of organizations. Obolensky (2014) believes a change from
oligarchy to polyarchy is necessary. The
hierarchical top-down leadership is not responsive enough, not knowledgeable
enough, and not adaptable enough to keep pace with a continuously changing
complex system. Command and control
gives way to persuade and influence and structure gives way to a more
knowledgeable, more diverse, and more accessible workforce that is encouraged
to question the status quo and provide creative ideas to problems they are more
familiar with than leadership (IBM, 2010).
It is faster and more accurate. Through
inclusion alone employees are more satisfied and more productive and the
company becomes more competitive in complex ventures (Morieux, 2011).
The butterfly effect also known
as Lorenz’ Strange Attractor is actually a product of chaos mathematics,
specifically a strange attractor. It was
discovered accidentally by Edward Lorenz.
He was inputting data into a computer to re-run a weather model. The data were lengthy numbers with numerous
digits after the decimal point. As they
were insignificant to his model, he left some of the numbers off the end of his
data. He ran the model for a few days
and the pattern took the well-known shape that resembles a butterfly. What Lorenz had discovered was “that a very
small change in a complex system can produce a very large difference to what would
have otherwise happened” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 70-71).
While I was in the Air Force, I personally
did not experience complexity on a daily basis.
There were, however, a few times where the Butterfly Effect was apparent
as a result of decisions I was involved with.
The unit was experiencing critical problems with an aircraft system that
eventually caused crew confidence issues.
The commander and I established a team of highly qualified technicians
to address, identify and resolve these problems. The team performed unbelievably well solving
numerous system stability problems. In
less than a year, they had all but completely resolved the issue. They were investigating a couple more
possible problems and their work would be complete. At the same time the organization had an
influx of supervisor-level personnel and not enough positions to put them in. I agreed to take one and placed him in with
the team the commander and I had created.
Almost instantly, the team began to break down. Within two weeks, they did nothing unless
told to do so. Over time, they had
become a high performing team (complex system).
My simple decision to add a supervisor into the mix did not merely
disrupt their operation, it destroyed it.
They were recognized for their achievements and returned to their normal
flight line duties.
Another example had to do with
delayed discrepancy numbers on aircraft.
Every aircraft has a set of forms.
As you might expect, these forms are very important. At any time you should be able to find the
current status (flyable/non-flyable) and the discrepancy causing the
status. Literally any and everything you
could possible want to know about the condition of the aircraft is at your
fingertips. In my day it was a book with
sheets of paper in it. By now they are
probably digital. In the very back of
the forms, well hidden, was our section for delayed discrepancies (DDs) which
normally are found in between major inspections and are corrected during major
inspections. They included things like
stripped screws, chipped paint, loose safety wire, and on and on. If they were awaiting maintenance, they were
delayed discrepancies. If they were
delayed, they were on one of my boss’s indicator slides that he had to brief to
the wing commander every Monday morning.
At one time the average number of DDs per aircraft was over 100. A couple aircraft had over 300. I told my boss they are harmless, but they
just happen to be on your indicator chart.
He told me every Monday his boss tells him it is an indication of poor
(my word, his was worse) maintenance. I
had to agree, but I assessed it as lazy maintenance. My boss wanted to see one day where there
were no DDs on any of the aircraft before he retired. We thought about it for a while and decided
to start a monthly competition. On the
last Friday of each month DDs were counted and the maintenance squadron with
the lowest total number won. For their
effort, they got an old maintenance professional trophy straight from the
bottom of my boss’s closet, literally beat up and falling apart. It would travel. And the losing squadrons had to put together
a cookout for the winner, paid for by the maintenance officers that allowed
their squadrons to lose. The losing
squadrons received no other negative attention.
It was amazing...most of the DDs
belong to specialist shops. Crew Chiefs
and Lieutenants were everywhere hounding specialist to tell them where this
screw was or that safety wire. They did
not ask for help. Crew Chiefs were going
to fix the DDs for the specialists. It
snowballed from there. Everyone that was
available was helping with DDs. Less
than a month later my boss got his wish. It lasted for 9 days. He got to brief the wing commander
twice. For three of those days there
were no DDs awaiting parts either. In
just over three weeks they corrected almost 2500 discrepancies. The competition continued until I
retired. After the first month, the margin between winner and
loser was often single digits. The
squadrons never let DDs accumulate like that again, but zero is simply not
sustainable. I honestly did not expect
them to get there at all. It is amazing
what a Lieutenant will do to not have to buy one of his peers a hamburger.
~Pete
References:
complex system.
BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved October 24, 2017, from BusinessDictionary.com
website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/complex-system.html
IBM
(2010). Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive
Officer Study. Retrieved from: https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?htmlfid=GBE03297USEN (Links to an external site.)Links to an
external site.
Morieux,
Y. (2011). Smart Rules: Six Ways to Get
People to Solve Problems Without You (Links to an external site.)Links to
an external site. (Links to an external
site.)Links to an external site.. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 78-86.
Obolensky, N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing
paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan
PublishingLimited.
