Two Canadian academics, Sholom Glouberman and Brenda
Zimmerman, [1] draw an important distinction between complicatedness and complexity.
Complicated systems
are things like hi-tech machines, for example, an airliner or a computer. Such
systems are not simple and often have intricate designs, sometimes involving millions
of components. They are, however, determinant. If you understand how all the
components relate and interact you can usually predict how the system will
behave.
Complicated systems are described by adjectives such as
linearity, certainty and predictability. They are deterministic, involving
simple causality. Outcomes of such systems are usually those for which the
systems was designed or intended.
In the management or development of complicated systems role
and task descriptions are tightly defined. Knowledge about what to do and how
to do it is provided by system experts or operating manuals and cascaded by top-down
management structures. A firm focus is maintained on clearly defined
objectives. Decisions are taken by considering clearly delimited options and
making the best available choice.
Complex systems,
on the other hand, involve mutual causality or interaction. They work in
non-linear ways. Outcomes are emergent and adaptive to changes in the system
and its environment. Outcomes are difficult to predict. They involve
considerable uncertainty.
In complex systems the tight structures that are
characteristic of complicated systems are usually not found. Rather than roles
and tasks being closely defined, it is necessary to build and adapt
relationships, which can remain ambiguous and ‘fuzzy’. Choices of action are
often not clear, so there is an emphasis on ‘sense-making’ and interpretation
of events and issues. Direction cannot be imposed from the top and decisions
have to be based around emergent collective understandings of what works best
and how.
Gokce Sargut and Rita Gunther McGrath [2] state that:
“ … the main difference between complicated and complex systems
is that with the former, one can usually predict outcomes by knowing the
starting conditions. In a complex system, the same starting conditions can
produce different outcomes, depending on interactions of the elements in the
system.”
A good example of a complex system is a prison. Prisoners
and staff interact in a number of different and unpredictable ways at different
times. They may forecast each other’s behaviour and act accordingly. Changes,
such as a change of regime, may result in outcomes that are difficult to
predict. There are competing agendas and antagonism and tension exist in
various relationships. Sometimes these remain suppressed, often for long
periods. Alliances between groups may be formed and then dissolved. Nobody
knows exactly what is going on or why. It is possible that one small event
results in a sudden and unexpected change. Something seemingly inconsequential can
result in a riot - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-20553604
Complicated systems and problems can be described by diagrams
or blueprints. Usually system experts have the relevant knowledge and
experience to solve a problem. Operating manuals and procedural frameworks are
usually sufficient to achieve safe and effective outcomes.
With complex systems and problems, however, there is no
blueprint. No two situations are alike and everything has to be determined on a
case-by-case basis. It is simply not possible to impose ‘by-the-book’ solutions.
Indeed to do so can result in disastrous consequences. The solution may appear
to be well designed, but the system itself is unpredictable and the impact may
be very different from that intended.
Much of the history of child protection in Britain and elsewhere,
including the history of trying to reform child protection systems and
institutions, points to a widespread failure to recognise that child protection involves complex systems. Treating the child
protection system as complicated,
rather than complex, results in
mechanistic solutions to problems that are inappropriate and often
dysfunctional.
The complexity of child protection can be seen at the level
of a case. Workers from different agencies and professions try to provide a
service to a child and her family, but they all have slightly different
perspectives and priorities. The child does not know whom to trust and the
parents may be systematically misleading some workers or trying to create
tensions and disagreements between different agencies or workers. There is
variable quality of information. Some things that appear to be true at one time
appear to be false at another. Tensions and disagreements occur between various
professionals and practitioners involved in the case. Agencies may develop
different agendas or priorities with respect to the case. Workers struggle to
make sense of what is happening and what is true. The choices facing agencies
may not be clear. Decisions can only be made as groups move towards some sort
of consensus about how to ensure the child’s safety and meet her or his needs.
The complexity of child protection can also be seen at the
levels of management and policy. “Working together’ involves different agencies
coming to shared understandings and defining a common set of tasks.
Professionals from different groups have to adjust to the practices and
cultures of those from other backgrounds. Often working practices involve
complex processes that have to be adapted to individual children’s needs, so
that nobody fully understands the processes or can predict exactly how they
will operate. Telling people to follow a particular policy or to adopt a
particular procedure often does not result in the results intended.
Attempts to improve practice by introducing procedures or structured
assessment instruments or computer systems can result in ‘work-a-rounds’ and
token compliance. Targets and performance indicators may result in displaced
activity. Myths that there is a single ‘right’ approach may lead to putative reconstructions
of practice manifesting themselves in entries to case-notes or verbal reports
to meetings. Rather than describing what has happened the worker is constrained
to repackage reality; to say what should have happened rather than what actually
did. Organisational discourse thus can become implicitly normative rather than
descriptive and, as a result, the truth about operations becomes an unspoken
secret.
The management of complicated systems can be quite
directive. Experts who understand the system’s design are in a good position to
tell others what the effects of certain interventions will be.
Managing complex systems, however, involves adapting to
changes, rather than imposing them. Conflicts and tensions are to be expected
as natural, not abnormal. The manager has to deal routinely with situations or
events which appear to be unique. Everybody should be engaged in constant
learning and adaptation. Reforms and designs that are borrowed from complicated
systems and which are imposed top-down will often be completely ineffective in
complex systems and may even be dangerous.
[1] Glouberman, S. and Zimmerman, B. Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of
Medicare Look Like? Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada,
Discussion Paper No. 8, July 2002. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP32-79-8-2002E.pdf
[2] Sargut, G. and McGrath, R. G. “Learning to Live with Complexity” Harvard Business Review Sep 01, 2011.
