Quantitative Complexity Management: A simple 5 step process


There are plenty of self-anointed subject matter experts happy to pontificate upon complexity. Sources, causes and their own approach to solutions but what they all (except Ontonix) lack is the means to establish a sound (verifiable) quantitative basis from which to commence the process of ‘complexity management’, monitoring and maintenance.

Check it out, for FREE, on-line!:

cid_part6_04050208_01010701ontonix.gifThe following five-step process forms the backbone of all our service engagements. It reflects our extensive experience in Quantitative Complexity Management in a multitude of applications spanning a wide variety of industrial sectors. It also illustrates the typical structure and workflow in a business simplification and ‘robustification’ project.

via Ontonix – Complex Systems Management, Business Risk Management.

Complexity, risk, uncertainty and change


image

Business management, particularly for those intent upon ‘change’ or responsible for managing exposures, needs a rigorous, objective, measurement of the endogenous properties (complexity) that enables the functionality from which (through interactions with exogenous parties) the business generates the revenues that sustain it in changing and turbulent economic times.

“Complexity increases cost and decreases flexibility — often in unforeseen ways — and also tends to decrease stability,”….

Peter Leukert, CIO of Commerzbank

It is the number, nature and integrity of dynamic, multi-scalar, interactions that are the sources of strength (enabling performance greater than the sum of the parts). The ability to distinguish and respond to ‘signals’, that maintain the variety, effectiveness and agility of the complex system, from the ‘noise’ of flawed metrics, self-serving culture, hierarchical structure (silos), skewed incentives – of an unsustainable, failed or failing, model (reliant upon  assumption, reflexive, subjective, statistical analysis and prediction) that has its foundation in flawed (linear) economic thinking.

We won’t get different or better answers while we keep on asking the same questions.

For meaningful change to occur and to be sustained requires a rigorous justification, sufficient to counter financial projections that satisfy the goals of C-level short-termism that are detrimental to the stability and long term health of the business.

Read more of this post

Business Insurance:: ISO 31000 should we believe the hype?


image

Apparently,

“…risk managers should use standards such as ISO 31000, “because standards, no matter what kind or which ones, support key tools and processes.”“Standards allow you to proactively address risks with some discipline,” he said. “Standards also relate well to the whole idea of focusing on outcomes.”

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130602/NEWS06/306029979?template=smartphoneart

Surely the focus should be upon being proactive and ‘managing’ emergent risks, NOT outcomes!?

Where, I suspect, NASA have a distinct (informational) advantage is that the multi-scalar interactions among components, processes, networks of sub-systems and systems are each rigorously tested at every point in assembly and operation…

Read more of this post

We Selected the Simple Solution. The Complex Solution Became a Worldwide Standard – Part I


David G Wilson:

A solution that has been designed in an environment with low levels of complexity can be the cause of failure when:

  • the solution is implemented in an environment with high levels of complexity;
  • the solution itself is extended and becomes too complex; or
  • the solution remains the same but the surrounding environment exceeds a certain level of complexity

Originally posted on Leading in a Complex Environment:

Does this sound familiar? You have an effective solution to a complex challenge. But when you try to get it accepted, you find that it differs too much from the way solutions are expected to look. Creating openness to the unconventional solution seems an insurmountable challenge. Here is an example that may help you.

My quest for solutions to complex challenges started around 1988 while I was working for a data centre. Management recognized that, with increasing complexity, we were losing the overview: With every change we made, and every problem we tried to solve, we were in danger of creating new problems. I was asked to investigate a solution.

At the time, we used a software tool for problem and change management. The tool worked well. It had an unused module and it looked the solution to our challenge was a matter of bringing the module in production. This…

View original 495 more words

Presentations:: Organize for Complexity


Of course it is easy to relate to a growth model, particularly when we have benefitted from classical economics but this is only true up to the point where we realise the flaws in economic theory! Now that we are, all too painfully, aware of the complex, non-linear, world of interconnected financial and business systems that make up our global economy we MUST recognise the limitations of theories based upon ‘linear-thinking’.

If nothing else this new book, A New Approach to a Theory of Management: Manage the Real Complex System, Not its Model may offer some food for thought to those people who appreciate that a ‘shift’ in thinking is required IF we are to attempt to manage organisations whose complexity has, significantly and for some time, exceeded the complexity of the systems of analytics and management we apply to them.

The whole is more than and different from the sum of its parts.

That statement has become a mantra in complexity science. (Mikulecky, 2007 a & b). It is used much more than it is understood. It has deep meaning, and that meaning is the foundation concept for relational systems theory. What does it mean for a whole, made up of material parts, atoms and molecules, to be more than its mere sum? It means a number of interrelated things: Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers