Search results

Cost overrun is inherent to project chaos, which is one of the key drivers of project failure. The purpose of this paper is to explore the critical elements of complexity-risk interdependency for cost-chaos in the construction management domain by utilizing a multi-criteria decision model.

A total of 12 complexity and 60 risk attributes are initially identified from the literature and using expert’s judgements. For the development of a structured hierarchy of key complexity and risk drivers, a real-time Delphi process is adopted for recording and evaluating the responses from experts. Afterwards, a pair-wise comparison using analytical network processing is performed to measure complexity-risk interdependencies against cost alternatives.

The findings of the integrated priority decision index (IPDI) suggest that uncertainties related to contingency and escalation costs are the main sources of cost overrun in project drift, along with the key elements such as “the use of innovative technology,” “multiple contracts,” “low advance payment,” “change in design,” “unclear specifications” and “the lack of experience” appear to be more significant to chaos in complexity-risk interdependency network.

This study did not address the uncertainty and vulnerability exit in the judgment process, therefore, this framework can be extended using fuzzy logic to better evaluate the significance of cost-chaos drivers.

These results may assist the management of cost overrun to avoid chaos in a project. The proposed model can be applied within project risk management practices to make better-informed technical decisions in the early phases of the project life cycle where uncertainty is high.

This research addresses the importance of cost overruns as a source of project chaos in dynamic systems where projects reach the edge of chaos and progress stops. A new IPDI index contributes toward evaluating the severity of complexity and risk and their interdependencies which create cost-chaos in infrastructure transport projects.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how order‐generated rules applied to organizing form dualities can assist in creating the conditions for emergent, self‐organized behavior in organizations, thereby offering an operational deployment of complexity theory.

The paper begins by showing that the concept of dualities is consistent with complexity‐thinking. In addition, when applied to organizing forms, dualities represent a practical way of affecting an organization's balance between chaos and order. Thus, when augmented with order‐generating rules, organizing form dualities provide an access point for the practical instigation of edge of chaos conditions and the potential for emergence.

The paper maintains that many attempts to “manage” complexity have been associated with changes to organizing forms, specifically toward new forms of organizing. It is suggested that organizing form dualities provide some management guidance for encouraging the “edge of chaos” conditions advocated in complexity theory, although the details of self‐organization cannot be prescribed given the assumptions of non‐linearity associated with complexity theory perspectives. Finally, it is proposed that organizing dualities can elucidate the nature and application of order‐generating rules in non‐linear complex systems.

Dualities offer some guidance toward the practical implementation of complexity theory as they represent an accessible sub‐system where the forces for order and chaos – traditional and new forms of organizing respectively – are accessible and subject to manipulation.

The commonalities between dualities and complexity theory are intuitive, but little conceptual work has shown how the former can be employed as a guide to managing organizing forms. Moreover, this approach demonstrates that managers may be able to stimulate “edge of chaos” conditions in a practical way, without making positivistic assumptions about the causality associated with their efforts.

This paper considers supply chain management organizations with the aid of 'chaotic systems theory' developed originally in physics and mathematics. Since innovations in supply chain management are vital for organizational survival 'complex systems theory' may assist in fine-tuning managerial philosophies that provide stability in supply chain management because it is on the boundary of chaos that the greatest innovational creativity occurs. Neither 'management by rigid objectives' (MBO) nor 'management by instruction' (MBI) will be suitable for the information society of the twenty-first century because chaotic social systems will no longer be effectively managed. However, the capacity for self-organization will be derived essentially from how supply chain management members accept a shared set of values or principles for action-'management by values' (MBV). Complex systems theory deals with systems that show complex structures in time or space, often hiding simple deterministic rules. This theory holds that once these rules are found, it is possible to make effective predictions and even to control the apparent complexity. The state of chaos that self-organizes is attributable to the appearance of the 'strange attractor' and provides the ideal basis for creativity and innovation in the twenty-first century. In the self-organized state of chaos, social members are not confined to narrow roles and gradually develop their capacity for differentiation and relationships, growing progressively towards their maximum potential contribution to the efficiency of the organization. In this meaning, values act as organizers of 'attractors' of disorder, which, in the theory of chaos, are systems represented by usually regular geometric configurations that predict the long-term behavior of complex systems. In supply chain management organizations (as in all kinds of social systems) the initial principles end up as the final principles in the long term. An attractor is a model representation of the behavioral results of the system. The attractor is not a force of attraction or a goal-oriented presence in the system; it simply depicts where the system is heading based on its rules of motion. In supply chain management organizations that cultivate or shares values of autonomy, responsibility, independence, innovation, creativity, and proactivity, the risk of short-term chaos is mitigated by external complexities that organizations are currently confronting. The strategy is to alter the supply chain management's surroundings so that they can benefit from management by values (MBV).

Building on the contributions of chaos and complexity theories, this paper aims to conceptualize how the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were able to transform chaos (randomness) into order (integration). More specifically, it aims to identify the qualities by which such leadership worked in the context of conflict and cultural confrontations, which is, leading at the edge of chaos.

This research follows a qualitative approach in data collection and analysis; it narrates and analyses biographic data as well as literature about these three prominent leaders. Common qualities of these leaders are explored in-depth, discussed and linked.

Success in leading at the edge of chaos was attributed to the following leadership qualities: vision, non-violence and tolerance. This paper conceptualizes Gandhi, King and Mandela's embodiment of these qualities in transforming difference and disagreement to unity and how they inspired and developed their societies at home and all over the world. This paper concludes with the following results: Dr King, Gandhi and Mandela were visionary leaders; the three leaders had a vision about the future of freedom, equality and peace. More importantly, they were able to hearts and minds, and convey their visions to followers and to society at large. They struggled to achieve their goals non-violently, but knew that violence could destroy society due to unbalanced power structures. In the fight for their people's emancipation/freedom, they avoided ethnic, racial and religious discrimination. The three leaders were politically, culturally and socially tolerant.

By identifying their leadership qualities and analyzing their leadership mechanisms, this paper stresses the necessity of the emergence and preservation of leadership as exhibited by King, Gandhi, Mandela and many other influential leaders. Leaders, committed to enrichment and sustainability of cultural diversity and nurturing of tolerance, can play a role in unifying nations. Practically put, today’s leaders need to rethink their strategies, by taking into consideration what Gandhi, King and Mandela have contributed to leadership in dealing with cultural diversity and conflict. Furthermore, leaders must extend the applicability of such leadership to include the ending of violence in every facet of people's lives, and work publicly to overcome the challenges encountering human kind such as nuclear weapons, war, poverty, racism, global warming, drugs, religious bigotry and violence of any kind. That is, today's leaders need to lead at the edge of chaos due to the ongoing conflicts around the globe.

This paper uniquely conceptualizes leadership qualities by analyzing and comparing literature and biographical data of the above-mentioned leaders. The study also contributes to the existing literature on leadership using an interdisciplinary approach by proving the mechanisms by which leadership transforms chaos into order within the context of cultural diversity and confrontation, where studies are rare. This research contributes to the theory of leaderships at three levels. First, it offers an interdisciplinary theory on leadership qualities by linking these qualities with chaos and complexity theories. Second, unlike the majority of literature which views leadership from a business or public leadership perspective, this research provides a new perspective of leadership for cultural diversity. Third, it highlights the role models of three exemplary leaders for each of whom previous literature is lacking.

In 1996 Hubert Saint‐Onge and Smith published an article (“The evolutionary organization: avoiding a Titanic fate”, in The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 4), based on their experience at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC). It was established at CIBC that change could be successfully facilitated through blended application of theory such as system dynamics, and the then emerging notions of “chaos and complexity”. The resulting enterprise was termed an evolutionary organization (EVO), and CIBC has continued since to re‐invent itself with great success. Although the all‐embracing nature of chaos and complexity was understood, in retrospect the impact of non‐rational people‐factors, e.g. emotion, trust, openness, spirituality were underestimated. Introduces the six papers included in this special issue, which illustrate how much more sophisticated chaos and complexity have become in the decade since Hubert Saint‐Onge and Smith first began to apply the notions at CIBC. However, although the papers in this issue present some evidence of managerial “take‐up” of chaos and complexity, whether “take‐off” will ever ensue is questionable. It is proposed that, just as in the 1990s, if there is one thing that more than any other stands in the way of exploration and adoption of these ideas, it is management mindsets.

In order to set the stage for this special issue, the prime concepts are defined: i.e. “chaos,” “complexity,” “learning” (individual and organizational), “learning organization,” and “chaordic enterprise”. Also, several chaos‐and‐complexity‐related definitions of learning and learning organizations are provided. Next, the guest editors' main thesis is presented, namely that the “chaordic enterprise” might be the goal state towards which a company – seen as a learning organization – might evolve, and that the framework of “chaordic systems thinking” could be used as a meta‐model to inform a learning organization which is capable of self‐organization and transformative change under hyper‐turbulent conditions. Finally, in order to illustrate the contours of a chaordic enterprise, the case of a dynamically reconfigurable, globally integrated, networked enterprise is presented.

The scientific world has for a long time worked with linear tools to explain complex non‐linear phenomena. Also non‐linear relationships were transformed to linear in order to be handled. This was so despite the fact that nature has been giving us examples showing that the real world was complex, dynamic and non‐linear. This was so until developments in computer science provided the calculating means to the theory of complexity. Today, the theory of complexity is applied to many sciences and to disaster management as well. The application of complexity theory is attempted from a disaster management point of view. As the first attempt to incorporate management science into marine disaster prevention was the so‐called International Safety Management Code of the International Maritime Organization in 1998, we will attempt to connect the theory of complexity to the ISM code. The ISM code, being a safety standard, has been based on good management and organization rulesl. However, ISM code was accused of increasing the bureaucracy of the system with a result that no substance work could be done at the end. Moreover, a need has now emerged, i.e. to establish a “particular ISM code man” among the crewmen on board all ships. On the other hand, modern complexity management suggests more flat hierarchies where information travels faster, and this is something needed in a marine disaster.

This paper seeks to make an assessment of the value and veracity that complexity theory makes as a “new” approach to futures thinking, and the implications that the approach holds for futures studies.

There are three sections. In the first, the notion of complexity theory is explained and its robustness considered, leading to a commentary on its status as a theory. In the second section, the applications of complexity approaches to change and futures thinking are examined, including its perspective on forecasting and scenario analysis. The final section comments on the compatibility of complexity theory and the relevance of conventional analytical forecasting techniques.

Complexity thinking implies that the causes of events cannot be known and that forecasting and scenario planning are doomed to failure. However, this perspective assumes that complexity has achieved status as a theory, a possibility which is rejected in this analysis.

It is proposed that complexity theory offers a neat metaphor for considering aspects of change, but that there is insufficient evidence to impel managers to dispose of forecasting techniques based on the flawed assumption that all change will be emergent and fundamentally unpredictable. In fact, complexity and analytical scenario techniques might be more compatible than is suggested by complexity advocates, and might be helpful in conceptualising alternative scenarios, as it encourages an awareness of emerging patterns.

This paper makes an assessment of the contribution that complexity theory may make to futures thinking, provides some practical guidance concerning its application, comments on the utility of conventional futures analysis methods and offers a view on the relevance of analytical forecasting techniques.

In this concluding article the guest editors take a reflective stand with respect to this special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management dedicated to exploring the ways in which Chaos is made applicable to and actionable in organizations. This summation chronicles a search for common ground as well as differences between the individual contributions. In addition, we respond to a number of issues we believe to be pertinent to the advancement of Chaos as a metapraxis of organizational change, concluding with a few suggestions for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to: give a brief history of the development of complexity science for people unfamiliar with the details of complexity science; describe the different types of complexity; discuss examples of the types of complexity, and introduce some ideas about how complexity could be introduced into education.

This paper summarizes other work in the field of complexity science, and organizes the results in a new way with the intent of making a difficult subject easier for the reader to understand.

Two different types of complexity are described – organized and unorganized. The focus of the paper is on organized complexity of which three categories are described – complicated, chaotic and critical. Examples, descriptions and characteristics of each category are given.

Suggestions are given as to how this transformational science could be integrated into education.

The paper summarizes other work in the field of complexity science, and organizes the results in a new way with the intent of making a difficult subject easier for the reader to understand.