James Drogan

In many of my classes we take up the issue of complexity in systems.  For example, in supply chains,what are the conditions that would lead one to prefer a system comprising multiple simplex systems versus a single complex system?  Or the converse?

Today's New York Times brings an excellent op-ed piece by David Brooks on this matter of complexity (Brooks, D. (2010, May 28). Drilling for Certainty. The New York Times, A23. New York) set within the context of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.  Brooks writes:

Over the past decades, we’ve come to depend on an ever-expanding array of intricate high-tech systems. These hardware and software systems are the guts of financial markets, energy exploration, space exploration, air travel, defense programs and modern production plants.

These systems, which allow us to live as well as we do, are too complex for any single person to understand. Yet every day, individuals are asked to monitor the health of these networks, weigh the risks of a system failure and take appropriate measures to reduce those risks.

Systems spawned by the latest in technology in the minds and hands of innovators often draws a veil over the complexity of the system.

In this graphic (Drogan, J. (2007). Managing the Business. fig. 21) the veil is represented by the vertical line through the oval representing the business system.  Technological progress tends to move the veil to the right, concealing more of the system.  Yet, technology can only be applied if we can write rules for how it should behave in certain circumstances.

However, as has been made evident by the Deepwater Horizon, when one is operating on the frontier, the rules are not always known.  Complexity of situations and the speed at which they develop increasingly depend on the knowledge, skills, and experience in the human mind for resolution.  To do that, the veil must be pushed back to the left.  What's required is a fine balance between man and machine.

This matter of trusting too much in technology has long been on my mind since the early 1970s when I was involved in discussions of how to automate crew calling in the railways.  It is an issue that finds its way into much of my teaching and writing.  It's not clear to me that the rise in complexity can be stopped by anything short of catastrophe.  Nor do I think it can be substantially slowed.  Indeed, it may well be that to continue to sail on Spaceship Earth we must develop increasingly complex systems to make better use of the resources available to us.  We can, however, pay more attention to what, how, and why of what it is we do.

For an interesting read on this subject of complexity see Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.