A633.2.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Complexity Science and the Butterfly Effect

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.