This paper is a continuation of the antagonistic dialogue about the differences of chaordic systems thinking (CST) and socio‐technical systems design (STS). In this second part of the conversation a concrete example is used to illustrate the added value provided by CST. Whereas STS focuses on an organization's surface by designing processes and structures, CST aims at a developed mind and hence at the capability to reflect and understand. It is assumed that consciousness is the basis for the emergence of real organizational novelty, and thus, a prerequisite for viability.
CitationDownload as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2004, Emerald Group Publishing Limited