2.

“System” in this text means any part of the perceived world that can be identified and represented as one
particular set of mutually dependent events, to be – according to given criteria - distinguished from the other
innumerable and different sets of events which may be identified in the Universe. For the needs of this
analysis, any system may be thought of as a set of particular different components that interact with each other
under constraints or purposes that are proper to the system.

In the proceeding sections the word “systems” has been used rather loosely. The exact definition of a system
depends on the users, environment, and ultimate goal. Business practitioners define a system as: ‘a group of
elements, either human or nonhuman, that is organised and arranged is such a way that the elements can act as
a whole toward achieving some common goal or objective’; or a ‘system’ is an organised, unitary whole
composed of two or more interdependent parts, components, or subsystems and delineated by identifiable
boundaries from its environmental “suprasystem”.

The points of systems are:

• Client's businesses can be viewed as systems and as part of larger systems.
• The organisations set up to deliver projects can be viewed as systems and as part of larger systems.
• The finished product (a building) can be viewed as a system and also as part of a larger system.
The function of any system is to convert or process energy, information, or materials into a product or
outcome for use within the system, or outside of the system (the environment) or both. Indeed, if a system is
to survive, it must save some of the outcome or product to maintain the system.
Systems are collection of interacting subsystems that, if properly organized, can provide a synergistic
(действующий совместно) output. Systems are characterised by their boundaries or interface conditions. For
example, if the business firm system were completely isolated from the environment system, then a closed
system would exist, in which case management would have complete control over all system components. If
the business system reacts with the environment, then the system is referred to as open. All social systems, for
example, are categorised as open systems. Open systems must have permeable boundaries.

The common elements of system are: inputs, throughputs, outputs, feedback, control, environment, goal.

General systems theory: Subsystems or components

All systems are mechanical, biological and social and every system has at least two elements, and these
elements are interconnected.
Holism- Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) is the idea that all the
properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot
be determined or explained by its component parts alone.In business, holistic brand (also holistic branding) is
considering the entire brand or image of the company. For example a universal brand image across all
countries, including everything from advertising styles to the stationery the company has made, to the
company colours. However, Holism (deriv. holistic) is the opposite of elementarism, which views the total as
the sum of its individual parts.

Synergism- in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not
obtainable by any of the agents independently. In the context of organizational behavior, following the view
that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its
best individual member. In a technical context, its meaning is a construct or collection of different elements
working together to produce results not obtainable by any of the elements alone. The elements, or parts, can
include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies, documents: all things required to produce system-level
results. The value added by the system as a whole, beyond that contributed independently by the parts, is
primarily created by the relationship among the parts; that is, how they are interconnected. In essence, a
system constitutes a set of interrelated components working together with a common objective: fulfilling some
designated need. If used in a business application it means that teamwork will produce an overall better result
than if each person was working toward the same goal individually.
Organicism- is a philosophical orientation that asserts that reality is best understood as an organic whole. By
definition it is close to holism. Organicism as a doctrine rejects mechanism and reductionism (doctrines that
claim that the smallest parts by themselves explain the behavior of larger organized systems of which they are
a part). Theory that the total organization of an organization rather than the functioning of individual elements
is the
determinant of (more medical stuff!!)

Gestalt- Human beings are viewed as open systems in active interaction with their environment

Open systems
Open systems exchange information, energy, or material with their environments. Biological and social
systems are inherently are open systems. But mechanical systems may be open or closed.
Open systems can be viewed as a transformation model in a dynamic relationship with it’s environment:
receive various inputs, transform these inputs in some way and export outputs.
The classical open system is characterised by: inputs (the energy & raw material transformed by the system),
throughputs (the processes used by the system to convert raw materials or energy from the environment into
products that are usable by either the system itself or the environment), outputs (the product or service which
results from the system's throughput or processing of technical, social, financial & human input),
feedback(information about some aspect of data or energy processing that can be used to evaluate & monitor
the system & to guide it to more effective performance).

System boundaries
It follows that systems have boundaries that separate them from their environments. The concept of
boundaries helps us understand the distinction between open and closed systems.The relatively closed system
has rigid, impenetrable boundaries, the open system has ermeable boundaries between itself and a broader
suprasystem. Boundaries are relatively easily defined in physical and biological systems but are very difficult
to delineate in social systems such as organizations.

Entropy
(phys.) Measure of the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work;
measure of the degradation or disorganization of the universe.
The concept of entropy has also entered the domain of sociology, generally as a metaphor for chaos, disorder
or dissipation of energy, rather than as a direct measure of thermodynamic or information entropy:
Corporate entropy - energy waste as red tape and business team inefficiency, i.e. energy lost to waste.(This
definition is comparable to von Clausewitz's concept of friction in war.)
Economic entropy – a semi-quantitative measure of the irrevocable dissipation and degradation of natural
materials and available energy with respect to economic activity.
Entropology – the study or discussion of entropy or the name sometimes given to thermodynamics without
differential equations.
Psychological entropy - the distribution of energy in the psyche, which tends to seek equilibrium or balance
among all the structures of the psyche.
Social entropy – a measure of social system structure, having both theoretical and statistical interpretations,
i.e. society (macrosocietal variables) measured in terms of how the individual functions in society
(microsocietal variables); also related to social equilibrium.

Negative entropy
Closed physical systems are subject to the force of entropy which an increase until eventually the entire
system fails.
• The tendency toward maximum entropy is a movement to disorder, complete lack of resource
transformation, and death.
• In a closed system, the change in entropy must always be positive;
• in open biological or social systems, entropy can be arrested and may even be transformed into negative
entropy
– a process of more complete organization and ability to transform resources - because the system imports
resources from its environment.

In risk management, negentropy is the force that seeks to achieve effective organizational behavior and lead to
a steady predictable state.

Steady state
The concept of steady state is closely related to that of negative entropy. If a system is in steady state, then the
recently observed behavior of the system will continue into the future.

Dynamic Equilibrium
A closed system eventually must attain an equilibrium state with maximum entropy - death or disorganization.
An open system may attain a state in which the system remains in dynamic equilibrium through the
continuous inflow of materials, energy, and information. While a dynamic equilibrium occurs when two or
more reversible processes occur at the same rate, and such a system can be said to be in steady state, a system
that is in steady state may not necessarily be in a state of dynamic equilibrium, because some of the processes
involved are not reversible.

In economics, economic equilibrium is a state of the world where economic forces are balanced and in the
absence of external influences the (equilibrium) values of economic variables will not change. It is the point at
which quantity demanded and quantities supplied are equal. Market equilibrium, for example, refers to a
condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services
sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the
equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.

Homeostasis
The property of a system, either open or closed, that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a
stable, constant condition.
All homeostatic control mechanisms have at least three interdependent components for the variable being
regulated: The receptor is the sensing component that monitors and responds to changes in the environment.
When the receptor senses a stimulus, it sends information to a control center, the component that sets the
range at which a variable is maintained. The control center determines an appropriate response to the stimulus.
In most homeostatic mechanisms the control center is the brain. The control center then sends signals to an
effector, which can be muscles, organs or other structures that receive signals from the control center. After
receiving the signal, a change occurs to correct the deviation by either enhancing it with positive feedback or
depressing it with negative feedback.

Feedback
• The concept of feedback is important in understanding how a system maintains a steady state.
• Information concerning the outputs or the process of the system is fed back as an input into the system,
– perhaps leading to changes in the transformation process and/or future outputs.
– Feedback can be both positive and negative, although the field of cybernetics is based on
negative feedback.

Negative feedback
Negative feedback is informational input which indicates that the system is deviating from a prescribed course
and should readjust to a new steady state.

Negative feedback mechanisms consist of reducing the output or activity of any organ or system back to its
normal range of functioning. A good example of this is regulating blood pressure. Blood vessels can sense
resistance of blood flow against the walls when blood pressure increases. The blood vessels act as the
receptors and they relay this message to the brain. The brain then sends a message to the heart and blood
vessels, both of which are the effectors. The heart rate would decrease as the blood vessels increase in
diameter (or vasodilation). This change would cause the blood pressure to fall back to its normal range. The
opposite would happen when blood pressure decreases, and would cause vasoconstriction.

Another important example is seen when the body is deprived of food. The body would then reset the
metabolic set point to a lower than normal value. This would allow the body to continue to function, at a
slower rate, even though the body is starving. Therefore, people who deprive themselves of food while trying
to lose weight would find it easy to shed weight initially and much harder to lose more after. This is due to the
body readjusting itself to a lower metabolic set point to allow the body to survive with its low supply of
energy. Exercise can change this effect by increasing the metabolic demand.

Another good example of negative feedback mechanism is temperature control. The hypothalamus, which
monitors the body temperature, is capable of determining even the slightest of variation of normal body
temperature (37 degrees Celsius). Response to such variation could be stimulation of glands that produces
sweat to reduce the temperature or signaling various muscles to shiver to increase body temperature.

Both feedbacks are equally important for the healthy functioning of one's body. Complications can arise if any
of the two feedbacks are affected or altered in any way.

Positive feedback
Positive feedback mechanisms are designed to accelerate or enhance the output created by a stimulus that has
already been activated.

Unlike negative feedback mechanisms that initiate to maintain or regulate physiological functions within a set
and narrow range, the positive feedback mechanisms are designed to push levels out of normal ranges. To
achieve this purpose, a series of events initiates a cascading process that builds to increase the effect of the
stimulus. This process can be beneficial but is rarely used by the body due to risks of the acceleration's
becoming uncontrollable.

One positive feedback example event in the body is blood platelet accumulation, which, in turn, causes blood
clotting in response to a break or tear in the lining of blood vessels. Another example is the release of oxytocin
to intensify the contractions that take place during childbirth.

Hierarchy
• A basic concept in systems thinking is that of hierarchical relationships between systems.
• A system is composed of subsystems of a lower order and is also part of a suprasystem.
• Thus, there is a hierarchy of the components of the system.

Internal Elaboration
• Closed systems move toward entropy and disorganization (refer to the prison example!)
• In contrast, open systems appear to move in the direction of greater differentiation, elaboration, and a higher
level of organization.

Multiple goal seeking

Biological and social systems appear to have multiple goals or purposes.
• Social organizations seek multiple goals, if for no other reason than that they are composed of individuals
and subunits with different values and objectives.

Equifinality of Open Systems

• In mechanistic systems there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the initial conditions and the
final state.
• Biological and social systems operate differently.
– Equifinality suggests that certain results may be achieved with different initial conditions and in different
ways.
– This view suggests that social organizations can accomplish their objectives with diverse inputs and with
varying internal activities (conversion processes).

Equifinality
Equifinality is the principle that in open systems a given end state can be reached by many potential means.
The term is due to Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of General Systems Theory. He prefers this term, in
contrast to "goal", in describing complex systems' similar or convergent behavior. It emphasizes that the same
end state may be achieved via many different paths or trajectories. In closed systems, a direct cause-and-effect
relationship exists between the initial condition and the final state of the system: When a computer's 'on'
switch is pushed, the system powers up. Open systems (such as biological and social systems), however,
operate quite differently. The idea of equifinality suggests that similar results may be achieved with different
initial conditions and in many different ways.
In business, equifinality implies that firms may establish similar competitive advantages based on
substantially different competencies.

• Variability - The concept of equifinality suggests that the manager can utilize a varying bundle of inputs into
the organisation, can transform them in a variety of ways, and can achieve satisfactory output.
• Extending this, the management function is not necessarily one of seeking a precise, optimal solution but
rather one of having available a variety of satisfactory alternatives.

Systems Theory summary

• GST provides a broad macro view
• Systems thinking is concerned with organized complexity
• A system is a complex grouping of human beings and machines
• Systems can be classified as closed or open
• Closed systems tend towards disorder i.e. maximum entropy
– Entropy can be arrested in open systems

Systems Theory – Summary (2) open systems

– For an open system entropy is negative
– An open system attains a state of dynamic equilibrium
– Open systems move in a direction of greater differentiation
– Open systems move in a direction of greater organization
– Complex organizations move in a direction of greater internal differentiation and specialization
– The concept of equifinality the final state may be obtained from different initial conditions

System concepts and properties

• Conceptual foundations are:
– Emergence and Hierarchy
– Communication and Control
• Systems are hierarchical
• A system interacts with it’s environment
• Systems have sub systems
• Control, regulation and feedback
• Maintenance and Adaptive mechanisms
• A system has objectives

Emergence:
what constitutes a system?
• Basic system constituents such as:
– components, elements, parts or objects,
• may or may not be similar and possess peculiar characteristics such as attributes or behaviours.
• It is an arbitrary decision as to what constitutes a basic constituent of a hierarchical system.
– The decision is a function of an individual’s specialisation and the situation facing him/her at that moment
in time.
• Since systems thinking is holistic then the sum effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
– The characteristics of the total system will differ qualitatively and quantitatively from those of the
constituents. [De Greene (1970, 1981:86)]

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out
of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and
of complex systems.
Corning's definition of emergence:

"Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything. They serve merely to
describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and
important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But
that aside, the game of chess illustrates precisely why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are
insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict “history” — i.e., the course of any
given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the
“system” involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-
by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess
is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the
laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic,
feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, “purposeful”
activity." (Corning 2002)

The usage of the notion "emergence" may generally be subdivided into two perspectives, that of "weak
emergence" and "strong emergence". Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result
of the interactions at an elemental level. Emergence, in this case, is merely part of the language, or model that
is needed to describe a system's behaviour.

But if, on the other hand, systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but
rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its
components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are
irreducible to the system's constituent parts (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
This view of emergence is called strong emergence. Some fields in which strong emergence is more widely
used include etiology, epistemology and ontology.

Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but
supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the
micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This
not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only
heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau
1997)

However, "the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted from the properties of the parts misses
the point. Wholes produce unique combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the
context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." (Corning 2002) Along that same
thought, Arthur Koestler stated, "it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the
evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives
(strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should
work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969) Further,
"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those
laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin
difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is
not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely
more, but very different from the sum of its parts."(Anderson 1972)

An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in
an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size
scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words there is often a form
of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties. The processes from which emergent properties
result may occur in either the observed or observing system, and can commonly be identified by their patterns
of accumulating change, most generally called 'growth'. Why emergent behaviours occur include: intricate
causal relations across different scales and feedback, known as interconnectivity. The emergent property itself
may be either very predictable or unpredictable and unprecedented, and represent a new level of the system's
evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they
easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities: they are irreducible. No physical
property of an individual molecule of any gas would lead one to think that a large collection of them will
transmit sound. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds or school of fish are also good examples.

One reason why emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions between components
of a system increases combinatorially with the number of components, thus potentially allowing for many new
and subtle types of behaviour to emerge. For example, the possible interactions between groups of molecules
grows enormously with the number of molecules such that it is impossible for a computer to even count the
number of arrangements for a system as small as 20 molecules.

On the other hand, merely having a large number of interactions is not enough by itself to guarantee emergent
behaviour; many of the interactions may be negligible or irrelevant, or may cancel each other out. In some
cases, a large number of interactions can in fact work against the emergence of interesting behaviour, by
creating a lot of "noise" to drown out any emerging "signal"; the emergent behaviour may need to be
temporarily isolated from other interactions before it reaches enough critical mass to be self-supporting. Thus
it is not just the sheer number of connections between components which encourages emergence; it is also
how these connections are organised. A hierarchical organisation is one example that can generate emergent
behaviour (a bureaucracy may behave in a way quite different from that of the individual humans in that
bureaucracy); but perhaps more interestingly, emergent behaviour can also arise from more decentralized
organisational structures, such as a marketplace. In some cases, the system has to reach a combined threshold
of diversity, organisation, and connectivity before emergent behaviour appears.

The hierarchical nature of systems

– Systems form a hierarchy of systems [Jenkins (1969, 1981:145)].
– A system as organised complexity is arranged hierarchically in levels.
– Each level has properties that do not exist at lower levels:
• emergent properties.
– these properties, possessed by each level, are meaningless to those lower down.
• furthermore, the processes operating at any one level indicate the stable existence of a new level of
complexity [Checkland 1981:32].

A System and it’s environment

• A system exists within an environment.
– The environment of a system is a function of the hierarchical level under analysis.
– There is a reciprocal relationship between the system and it’s environment
• the system will be modified by the environment
• and will modify it in return.
– It is important to determine the boundary between the system and the environment [De Greene (1970,
1981:86)].

System boundaries
• The interface between a system and it’s surrounding environment distinguishes
between inner and outer relationships.
– The inner relationships bind the system together and allow it to act on the environment
as a whole.
– The nature of the relationship between inner and outer is determined by the degree of
coherence of inner relationships.
– The interface between inner and outer relationships is elusive.[Vickers (1980, 1981:20)]

Systems and sub-systems

– Systems can be considered in a hierarchical sense in that a system is composed of sub-systems whilst
simultaneously forming part of a super system [Jenkins (1969, 1981:143) Kast & Rosenzweig (1972, 1976:22)
Vickers (1980, 1981:20]
– The boundary between sub-systems may be perceived and defined differently by different
elements in the system [Vickers (1980, 1981:20)]
– The detailed breakdown of a system into subsystems will depend on the problem and nature of the system
facing the analyst.
In engineering, system integration is the bringing together of the component subsystems into one system and
ensuring that the subsystems function together as a system. In information technology, systems integration is
the process of linking together different computing systems and software applications physically or
functionally.
A system is an aggregation of subsystems cooperating so that the system is able to deliver the over-arching
functionality. System integration involves integrating existing (often disparate) subsystems. The subsystems
will have interfaces. Integration involves joining the subsystems together by “gluing” their interfaces together.
If the interfaces don’t directly interlock, the “glue” between them can provide the required mappings. System
integration is about determining the required “glue”.

System integration is also about adding value to the system, capabilities that are possible because of
interactions between subsystems.

In today’s connected world, the role of system integration engineers is becoming more and more important:
more and more systems are designed to connect together, both within the system under construction and to
systems that are already deployed

The system integrator brings together discrete systems utilizing a variety of techniques such as computer
networking, enterprise application integration, business process management or manual programming.

Relationships between a system and it’s sub-systems

• Flows between sub-systems may refer to Money, Materials, Energy, Information and Decisions. [Jenkins
(1969, 1981:143)]
• Individual Sub-Systems interact with each other [De greene 1970, 1981:86 Jenkins 1969, 1981:143—144)]
• Since the performance of one sub-system interacts with that of another each cannot be designed in isolation.
– The output of one sub-system provides the inputs to another [Jenkins 1969, 1981:143—144)]
• Interactions will be strong between systems at the same level and at different levels in the hierarchy although
those at the top:
– will exert a greater influence on those lower down.
– are therefore the most important [Jenkins 1969, 1981:145)]

Control
– Regulation or control works through the imposition of constraints.
• These constraints operate with the laws pertaining at one level but yield activity which is meaningful at a
higher level
– Processes of control characterize hierarchies and these operate at the interfaces between
levels.
• To maintain the hierarchy in an open system – control and regulation require the communication of
information [Checkland 1981:33]

Control and feedback

– In order to maintain a dynamic equilibrium, the social system must utilise a process of feedback in terms of
information from the environment.
• Feedback allows the organisation to adjust to changes in the environment.
– Feedback can be either positive or negative » for a social system the latter is more important since it
indicates that the system is deviating from a prescribed course which requires adjustment.
» Feedback form a vital part of the organisational control function
» it is the task of management to interpret this information and provide corrective action
[Kast and Rosenzweig (1972,1976:22—23)]

Maintenance and Adaptive mechanisms

• Any system must have two mechanisms which are often in conflict:
– a maintenance mechanism
• The maintenance mechanism is conservative and ensures that the various sub-systems are in
alignment with the environment.
• The maintenance mechanisms dampen down the forces of change and ensure that sub—systems and the total
system are not out of balance.
– an adaptive mechanism.
• The adaptive mechanisms allow the system to respond to internal and environmental changes over time and
ensure the dynamic equilibrium.
• Since these forces are counteractive but are essential for effective system functioning, they will often create
conflicts and tension within the system.
– This should be viewed as natural provided it is kept within acceptable limits. [Kast and Rosenzweig (1972,
1976:23)]

Systems and Objectives

• A system should have an objective or recognised purpose [De Greene 1970, 1981:86)].
• System objectives will often be in conflict and compromise will be essential to obtain the best over all result.
• Systems must be designed to achieve their objectives [Jenkins (1969, 1981:145—146)].

Human inference in Systems: The degree of mannedness (обитаемый)

• The important considerations in thinking about the human roles in a system:
– the degree of real-time and non-realtime human involvement and participation (mannedness)
– the psychological factors involved. [De Greene 1970, 1981:102]

Systems theory and application to project management

Projects as systems…key features

• PM is about integrating the total system
• Problems of permanence but also flexibility
• Project evaluation and the planning function is vital
• Objectives (client) as a catalyst
• Inter disciplinary effort required

PM is about integrating the total system

– Communication requirements in complex projects are overwhelming
• Limitations of programmes and computers – routine
• Myth of technical solutions to everything
• Need for interaction and negotiation (people skills)
– Regularisation, systematisation and routinisation are at the heart of traditional management practice.
• BUT in large one off projects there can be no perfection of routine
• organisational upheavals, temporary organisations
– Projects are problem-oriented and require interdisciplinary efforts – problems of specialisation.

Permanence and flexibility

• Complex projects highlight the tension between
– the needs of the project,
– constituent organisational needs,
– narrow disciplinary approaches and
– the problem orientation of the project
• Project teams are temporary in nature as we know
• Management style:
– Inter- and intra-organisational, boundary spanning
• Distinguishing what is ‘organisation’ and what is ‘environment’ is complex – may be viewed as semantics

Objectives as a catalyst
– Planning function needs flexibility to allow for • changes in sentiments, new information and unforeseen
problems and opportunities.
– Objectives, relatively fixed and highly specific • they become the emotional symbols or visible targets that
attract and hold political support.
– Objectives • = catalyst that will mobilise resources and encourage commitment and support from those
individuals that are involved in project work.
• But, leads to demands for well designed advanced planning for operational methods, costings and schedules.
– Problem still of attaining these objectives. • But provides a rallying point for effort and prevent floundering

Objectives and interdisciplinary effort

• A well chosen and appealing objective
– can act to break down inter-disciplinary boundaries.
• Mutual adaption to common objectives requires the opportunity for frequent and easy interaction.
– The existence of common goals alone without this interaction will not facilitate the easy attainment of
objectives.
• Also, a clearly stated objective or target prevents or inhibits sniping by critics.
• However, large unambiguous objectives also have shortcomings
– they deter continuous, incremental planning in which goals emerge gradually over time due to the coming
together of a number of smaller activities [Sayles and Chandler, 1971: 23—24].

Planning
– Planning has a number of misconceptions surrounding it. These particularly relate to
• its presumed separation from ongoing organisational processes
• the operational validity of planning as a series of rigid projections and interpolations.
– Planning is bound up with the various interested groups that have any input into a project.
• Plans therefore need to be constantly modified in the light of unanticipated realities.
• Planning also gains strength from the interactive and negotiated aspects of organisational functioning.
• Organisational adaptability and flexibility is essential to be able to cope with this dynamic form of planning
[Sayles and Chandler, 1971: 38]
Planning
– not synonymous with forecasting
– a dynamic process by which inside (perhaps the client and project manager) and outside interests (the other
consultants) arrive at a new balance of power
• to set a structure for executive decision making on a project [Sayles and Chandler, 1971: 42].

The Skills Required Of A Project Manager

• The project manager has to concentrate on getting work done through outsiders.
• This will require different skills and a different “theory of management” than traditional supervisors.
• The emphasis will be on MONITORING and INFLUENCING DECISIONS rather than order giving and
decision making in the usual meaning of these terms.
• The project manager has overwhelmingly more responsibility than authority
– [Sayles and Chandler, 1971: 205].
• Furthermore, the project manager is primarily dealing with rates of time and organisational processes, not
technical variables – [Sayles and Chandler, 1971: 208]

Project Manager behaviour

• Research data on the work of project managers indicates their behaviour falls into the categories of:
– Bargaining
– Coaching or cajoling
– Confrontation
– Intervention
– Order giving

Bargaining
• Project managers prefer to spend a great deal of time negotiating.
• In part, this is due to the emergence of unanticipated problems or opportunities.
• Furthermore, the nature of organizational life means that there is not a precise, rational solution to most
problems, rather the answer emerges by flexible use of give and take.

Bargaining or haggling is a type of negotiation in which the buyer and seller of a good or service dispute the
price which will be paid and the exact nature of the transaction that will take place, and eventually come to an
agreement. Bargaining is an alternative pricing strategy to fixed prices. Optimally, if it costs the retailer
nothing to engage and allow bargaining, he can divine the buyer's willingness to spend. It allows for capturing
more consumer surplus as it allows price discrimination, a process whereby a seller can charge a higher price
to one buyer who is more eager (by being richer or more desperate). Haggling has largely disappeared in parts
of the world where the cost to haggle exceeds the gain to retailers for most common retail items. However, for
expensive goods sold to uninformed buyers such as automobiles, bargaining can remain commonplace.

Coaching or cajoling
• Project managers are more in tune with using influence and either overt or covert pressure to counteract the
various tensions and frictions that may put a project off track.

Confrontation
• Project managers use the techniques of raising questions, confronting and challenging to maintain progress.
• This process forces people to face up to the realities of a situation through constant reminders and potentially
embarrassing questions.
• The project manager will use frequent telephone calls, unscheduled and scheduled meetings for this purpose.

Intervention
• The project manager is, in the main, seeking to avoid or solve problems.
• However, he has a more immediate, real time role in wanting to maintain a forward momentum and avoid
stalemates, polarisation on issues and entrenchment on vested interests.
• Accommodation, compromise and problem solving are more important than apportioning blame.
• Through the judicial use of influence and pressure he attempts to force choices.
• However, direct intervention may be necessary in order for the project manager to remain familiar with what
is going on and keeping in touch with technical realities.
Order giving
• There will be little order giving between the project manager and outside groups.
• Direct orders from the project manager may raise issues about his task scope. [Sayles and Chandler, 1971:
214—218]

In summary
The management of complex projects requires a highly fluid, interactive and imprecise series of activities
requiring a high degree of personal interaction. This occurs for two reasons.
• First, there is an inability in project management to define unambiguously what constitutes satisfactory
progress and performance in design and construction.
• The project manager operates, therefore, from a wide ranging and continuous series of inquiries and
assessments together with the need for pooled judgements.
• Second, the extent of interdependency in complex projects is such that the correction of problems and
instabilities may require a number of re-adjustments.
• To work through these re-adjustments effectively requires considerable unprogrammed interchanges and
negotiations [Sayles and Chandler, 1971: 225—226].

System theory

Systems theory is the transdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that
can be applied to all types of systems in all fields of research. The term does not yet have a well-established,
precise meaning, but systems theory can reasonably be considered a specialization of systems thinking and a
generalization of systems science.

Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole. In nature,
systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement,
plants, and animals work together to survive or perish. In organizations, systems consist of people, structures,
and processes that work together to make an organization healthy or unhealthy.

Systems Thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an
overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further
development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices [1]
within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in
the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking
focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.

How can systems thinking help us on a practical level?

• Network analysis
• Stakeholder mapping
• Value Management (although this is arguably a part of risk management)
• In understanding stakeholder value
• Defining funcKon
• Risk Management – risk is complex and Pervasive

Problems of RM in practice
• Project Management is dominated by a “reductionist agenda”
• The tools that we use in common practice are often simplification and based on “closed
systems” thinking
• Projects are OPEN SYSTEMS – impacts??
• Is/are PERT, GANTT CHARTS, EVA, PRINCE2 etc. really helpful to us in managing risk in complex
environments?
This article largely discusses complex systems as a subject of mathematics and the attempts to emulate
physical complex systems with emergent properties. For other scientific and professional disciplines
addressing complexity in their fields see the complex systems article and references.

A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more
properties (behavior among the possible properties) not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.
A system’s complexity may be of one of two forms: disorganized complexity and organized complexity. In
essence, disorganized complexity is a matter of a very large number of parts, and organized complexity is a
matter of the subject system (quite possibly with only a limited number of parts) exhibiting emergent
properties.

Complexity theory has been used extensively in the field of strategic management and organizational studies.
Broadly speaking, complexity theory is used in these domains to understand how organizations or firms adapt
to their environments. The theory treats organizations and firms as collections of strategies and structures.
When the organization or firm shares the properties of other complex adaptive systems - which is often
defined as consisting of a small number of relatively simple and partially connected structures - they are more
likely to adapt to their environment and, thus, survive. Complexity-theoretic thinking has been present in
strategy and organizational studies since their inception as academic disciplines.

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are contrasted with ordered and chaotic systems by the relationship that
exists between the system and the agents which act within it. In an ordered system the level of constraint
means that all agent behaviour is limited to the rules of the system. In a chaotic system the agents are
unconstrained and susceptible to statistical and other analysis. In a CAS, the system and the agents co-evolve;
the system lightly constrains agent behaviour, but the agents modify the system by their interaction with it.

CAS approaches to strategy seek to understand the nature of system constraints and agent interaction and
generally takes an evolutionary or naturalistic approach to strategy.

Emergence
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out
of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and
of complex systems.

Complex adaptive systems

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are special cases of complex systems. They are complex in that they are
diverse and made up of multiple interconnected elements and adaptive in that they have the capacity to change
and learn from experience. Examples of complex adaptive systems include the stock market, social insect and
ant colonies, the biosphere and the ecosystem, the brain and the immune system, the cell and the developing
embryo, manufacturing businesses and any human social group-based endeavor in a cultural and social system
such as political parties or communities. This includes some large-scale online systems, such as collaborative
tagging or social bookmarking systems.

A CAS is a complex, self-similar collection of interacting adaptive agents. The study of CAS focuses on
complex, emergent and macroscopic properties of the system. A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is a
dynamic network of many agents (which may represent cells, species, individuals, firms, nations) acting in
parallel, constantly acting and reacting to what the other agents are doing. The control of a CAS tends to be
highly dispersed and decentralized. If there is to be any coherent behavior in the system, it has to arise from
competition and cooperation among the agents themselves. The overall behavior of the system is the result of
a huge number of decisions made every moment by many individual agents.
A CAS behaves/evolves according to three key principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined (c.f.
Neural Networks), the system's history is irreversible, and the system's future is often unpredictable. The basic
building blocks of the CAS are agents. Agents scan their environment and develop schema representing
interpretive and action rules. These schema are subject to change and evolution. Macroscopic collections of
simple (and typically nonlinear) interacting units that are endowed with the ability to evolve and adapt to a
changing environment.

Complex adaptive systems are characterised as follows[5] and the most important are:
-The number of elements is sufficiently large that conventional descriptions (e.g. a system of differential
equations) are not only impractical, but cease to assist in understanding the system, the elements also have to
interact and the interaction must be dynamic. Interactions can be physical or involve the exchange of
information.
-Such interactions are rich, i.e. any element in the system is affected and affects several other systems.
-The interactions are non-linear which means that small causes can have large results.
-Interactions are primarily but not exclusively with immediate neighbours and the nature of the influence is
modulated.
-Any interaction can feed back onto itself directly or after a number of intervening stages, such feedback can
vary in quality. This is known as recurrency.
-Such systems are open and it may be difficult or impossible to define system boundaries
-Complex systems operate under far from equilibrium conditions, there has to be a constant flow of energy to
maintain the organisation of the system
-All complex systems have a history, they evolve and their past is co-responsible for their present behaviour
-Elements in the system are ignorant of the behaviour of the system as a whole responding only to what is
available to it locally

• The long‐run behaviour of CAS are verydifficult to predict

• You have to “let it run”
• The implicaKon is that we:‐
• Focus less on method
• Focus more on managing emergence
• Non‐linearity implies that convenKonal PRM techniques may be inappropriate

Features of a complex adaptive system

• Non‐linearity - Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, physicists and mathematicians because
most physical systems are inherently nonlinear in nature. Nonlinear equations are difficult to solve and give
rise to interesting phenomena such as chaos. The weather is famously chaotic, where simple changes in one
part of the system produce complex effects throughout.
• Interdependence - Interdependence is a dynamic of being mutually and physically responsible to, and
sharing a common set of principles with others. This concept differs distinctly from "dependence" in that an
interdependent relationship implies that all participants are emotionally, economically, ecologically and or
morally "interdependent." Some people advocate freedom or independence as a sort of ultimate good; others
do the same with devotion to one's family, community, or society. Interdependence recognizes the truth in
each position and weaves them together. Two states that cooperate with each other are said to be
interdependent. It can also be defined as the reliance on one another socially, economically, environmentally
and politically.
• Underlying order (complexity is bodom‐up)
• Holicism (emergent properties not possible to detect by analysis should be possible to define by a holistic
approach)
• Gestalt, Descartes and Hobbes
• Emergence
• Equifinality(alternative ways of attaining the same objectives (convergence)) and multifinality(attaining
alternative objectives from the same inputs (divergence))
• Self‐organisation- is the process where a structure or pattern appears in a system without a central authority
or external element imposing it through planning. This globally coherent pattern appears from the local
interaction of the elements that make up the system, thus the organization is achieved in a way that is parallel
(all the elements act at the same time) and distributed (no element is a coordinator).

Knowledge management

“We learn from experience that men never learn anything from experience” – George Bernard Shaw.
• “An effective means of ‘learning from experience from projects, that combines explicit knowledge with tacit
knowledge in a way that encourages people to learn and embed that learning into con;nuous improvement”
Deep Smarts (Leonard and Swap 2004)
• Leonard and Swap argue that “deep smarts are the engine of any organization as well as the essential value
that individuals build throughout their careers”. The focus of “deep smarts” lies in practical wisdom,
accumulated knowledge, know‐how, and intuiKon gained through extensive experience.
• In their work, the authors pose 3 fundamental questions
– How do such smarts develop?
– What happens when people with deep smarts change function or leave the organization?
– Can deep smarts be transferred? Should they be?

Knowledge Management
Knowledge may be explicit or tacit:
• Explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been or can be articulated, codified and stored in certain media
and which can be readily transmided to others. The most common forms of explicit knowledge are manuals,
documents, procedures, and how-to videos. Knowledge also can be audio-visual. Works of art and product
design can be seen as other forms of explicit knowledge where human skills, motives and knowledge are
externalized.
• Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. Tacit knowledge consists often of habits and culture that we do not
recognize in ourselves. Tacit knowledge has been described as “know‐how” as opposed to “know‐what”
(facts), “know‐why” (science), or “knowwho” (networking). It involves learning and skill but not in a way
that can be easily articulated.
Knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. For
example, stating to someone that Tooting is in London is a piece of explicit knowledge that can be written
down, transmitted, and understood by a recipient. However, the ability to speak a language, use algebra, or
design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge that is not always known explicitly, even
by expert practitioners, and which is difficult to explicitly transfer to users.
While tacit knowledge appears to be simple, it has far reaching consequences and is not widely understood.
With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to
others. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust. Another
example of tacit knowledge is the ability to ride a bicycle, where the formal knowledge is, that to balance, if
the bike falls to the left, one steers to the left; and to turn right, the rider first steers to the left, and then when
the bike falls, steer to the right; but knowing this formally is no help in riding a bicycle, and few riders are in
fact aware of this.

Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. It involves learning and skill, but not in a way that can be written down.
Tacit knowledge consists often of habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves. In the field of
knowledge management, the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge possessed only by an
individual and difficult to communicate to others via words and symbols. Knowledge that is easy to
communicate is called explicit knowledge.
Some common examples in Project Management
• Tacit Knowledge
• “Lessons learned”, “project close‐out debriefing” and “after‐action” review
• The emergence of new thinking when project teams are formed
• Anecdotal information
• Explicit Knowledge
• Cost/Performance data
• Benchmarking Data
• Databases and intranets (e.g. ETP. e‐projects etc.)
Knowledge Management System (KM System) refers to a (generally IT based) system for managing
knowledge in organizations for supporting creation, capture, storage and dissemination of information. It can
comprise a part (neither necessary nor sufficient) of a Knowledge Management initiative.

The idea of a KM system is to enable employees to have ready access to the organization's documented base
of facts, sources of information, and solutions. For example a typical claim justifying the creation of a KM
system might run something like this: an engineer could know the metallurgical composition of an alloy that
reduces sound in gear systems. Sharing this information organization wide can lead to more effective engine
design and it could also lead to ideas for new or improved equipment.

KMS systems deal with information (although Knowledge Management as a discipline may extend beyond
the information centric aspect of any system) so they are a class of information system and may build on, or
utilize other information sources. Distinguishing features of a KMS can include:
Purpose: a KMS will have an explicit Knowledge Management objective of some type such as collaboration,
sharing good practice or the like.
Context: One perspective on KMS would see knowledge is information that is meaningfully organized,
accumulated and embedded in a context of creation and application.
Processes: KMS are developed to support and enhance knowledge-intensive processes, tasks or projects of
e.g., creation, construction, identification, capturing, acquisition, selection, valuation, organization, linking,
structuring, formalization, visualization, transfer, distribution, retention, maintenance, refinement, revision,
evolution, accessing, retrieval and last but not least the application of knowledge, also called the knowledge
life cycle.
Participants: Users can play the roles of active, involved participants in knowledge networks and communities
fostered by KMS, although this is not necessarily the case. KMS designs are held to reflect that knowledge is
developed collectively and that the “distribution” of knowledge leads to its continuous change, reconstruction
and application in different contexts, by different participants with differing backgrounds and experiences.
Instruments: KMS support KM instruments, e.g., the capture, creation and sharing of the codifiable aspects of
experience, the creation of corporate knowledge directories, taxonomies or ontologies, expertise locators, skill
management systems, collaborative filtering and handling of interests used to connect people, the creation and
fostering of communities or knowledge networks.

A KMS offers integrated services to deploy KM instruments for networks of participants, i.e. active
knowledge workers, in knowledge-intensive business processes along the entire knowledge life cycle. KMS
can be used for a wide range of cooperative, collaborative, adhocracy and hierarchy communities, virtual
organizations, societies and other virtual networks, to manage media contents; activities, interactions and
work-flows purposes; projects; works, networks, departments, privileges, roles, participants and other active
users in order to extract and generate new knowledge and to enhance, leverage and transfer in new outcomes
of knowledge providing new services using new formats and interfaces and different communication
channels.

Some of the advantages claimed for KM systems are:

Sharing of valuable organizational information throughout organisational hierarchy.
Can avoid re-inventing the wheel, reducing redundant work.
May reduce training time for new employees
Retention of Intellectual Property after the employee leaves if such knowledge can be codified.
Barriers to the use of Knowledge Management:
• Lack of user friendliness, software instability and poor response time and imposition of IT
(of an electronic information system).
• Inadequate user support and training
• Shortfall in delivery and absence of added value
• Cultural, policy and practice issues
• Need a positive orientation to knowledge, with an absence of knowledge inhibitors in the
culture
• Systems Thinking – a lack or inabaility to manage complex knowledge creation in projects
and programmes

Reasons for project amnesia (i.e. not eliciting and documenting lessons learnt):
• Time – completion pressure and new tasks
• Motivation – unwillingness and “what’s in it for me?”
• Discipline – missing communication of the experiences and lack of enforcement
• Skill – lack of knowledge of debriefing methods and integration of experience
Even where lesson gathering takes place there is a threat that the results are not well
documented or archived, are described too generically or are not accepted by the supposed
beneficiary.

Holistic management
A term that describes systems thinking approach to managing land resources that builds
biodiversity, improves production, generates financial strength, and improves the quality of
life for those who use it. Developed by Allan Savory, Holistic Management offers a new
decision-making framework that managers in a variety of enterprises, cultures, and countries
are using to help ensure that the decisions they take are economically, socially, and
environmentally sound, simultaneously—both short and long term.
At its core, the Holistic Management Framework uses a concept known as a holisticgoal to
guide decision making. The holisticgoal ties people's desired way of life, based on what they
value most deeply (materially and spiritually), to the ecosystems and resources that support
their vision. All actions and decisions are tested to determine whether or not they will help
reach the established holisticgoal. Testing and management guidelines, planning procedures
and a feedback loop assure constant monitoring of the success of decisions.

The Holistic Management Framework also considers the key role that animals play in
renewing the land, and recognizes the nature and importance of four basic ecosystem
processes: the water cycle, the mineral cycle, energy flow, and community dynamics (the
relationship between organisms in an ecosystem). The Framework identifies eight tools for
managing these ecosystem processes: human creativity, technology, rest, fire, grazing, animal
impact, living organisms, and money and labor.

Reductionism
Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things
by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or
(b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that
an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of
objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.