The Consequences of Complexity on Organisational Contingency

What on earth is this Contingency thing?

The possibility, that you can deliberately do things. For example a rock. A rock has very little contingency. A dog has a little more contingency. However in resisting its instinct to run after a thrown stick and bring it back, it might badly fail. Humans on the other hand have even more contingency, most of the time, at least.

This does not overcome laziness. It just means they are deliberate in their actions, if the necessity should arise, that they act. This does also apply to organisations.

So what can we do with it?

Everything. Unless complexity hinders us.

I thought Complexity enables us to do things?

Yes, up to a certain point. In this bubble graph an organisation is simply depicted as a bubble. “Our” organisation and everything which belongs to it is painted in red. Environment gets black. Each circle means there is “one”. One means “existence”. Thus, if we have one organisation, there is one big, red bubble.

If this bubble is empty, it does not have any members. Each member is shown as bubble within this bubble. The concept is recursive. There can of course be more than one member within an organisation. Since organisations can also be members let’s just call this whole stuff entities. Finally, relationships between entities are drawn as connecting lines.

This is standard informatics. Get to the point …

At an initial stage, every organisation is built of simple structure. It starts scanning its environment for meaningful candidates for interaction. Because of the organisations low complexity, few members have to deal with a lot of things on the outside. If our internal structure is simpler than our surroundings, we perceive an abstract image, just like our eye does. So we recognize patterns, which is intelligent.

As our organisational brain develops, structure gradually refines and may interface with environment at higher level. For example whole departments can communicate with departments of foreign companies. Thus increasing complexity step by step enhances our freedom to respond deliberately to our environment.

This is nothing new. Again, so why is Complexity a bad thing?

The more complex we get, we need to develop superstructures, which observe ourselves and keep things organised within. Otherwise we would fall apart into our pieces. Or cultivate schizophrenia. So everything within our organisation is interwoven in one big mesh.

Processes urge members of our organisation into roles and rules, as well as prescribe their interconnections. Or better: all members of an organisation will entangle (we had this before), if they interact with others. This is the Dynamic Structure of an organisation. Dynamic, because entanglements never last eternally. A line then symbolizes this interaction, as long as the entanglement is still active. Practically, there is little difference between processes and entanglement except when looking for somebody to take the blame.

Now get to the point!

Contingency starts to drop rapidly, the more lines we draw between the members within our organisation. If entanglements change, the Dynamic Structure of an organisation changes. If there are more and more entanglements, decisions and actions of our organisation become less deterministic.

The more interconnections we get, the more self-defined and less contingent our organisation becomes. We can no longer move. The Dynamic Structure has become rather static. I have even seen companies end up in a state, where building structure seemed to be the main purpose of their further existence, seemingly having lost connection to the outside world. It happens, because decisions and actions are always a result of the existing Dynamic Structure of an organisation. No matter how many people speak the same warning, the organisation simply cannot hear them, or do nothing about it.

And if we then change the environment?

They will get wet. For it may take days to find out who is entitled to open an umbrella. Let alone who needs to draft new forms for it beforehand. After all, umbrellas do create desires if it rains, so they have to be given out sparsely.

If their market conditions change, there will probably be big trouble. And cake for their competitors.

Again, what does this have to do with IT processes?

Introducing IT Service Management Frameworks has multiple effects on the dynamic structure of an organisation:

• New elements increase the complexity, but also give way to new behavior.

• Abstract roles may summarize existing entities, thus decrease complexity, but also vice versa.

• New processes can do both: increase and decrease the number of durable interactions.

Changes to IT Service Management always manipulate the Dynamic Structure of an organisation. It depends on your very special situation whether the impact will do you any good.

If your structure is already tied up, and you still add new structure to it, you end up in big trouble. But at least, well structured trouble.

So what would you do?

Whatever you do, always reduce complexity to a point where you can do what is required just fine. That’s the simplest solution. The shortest way to express things. The best order. That’s enough structure you need. You don’t need to outperform yourself, even if it feels good. This keeps you from overstructuring. Overstructuring makes things complicated, lengthy and less ordered.

When introducing IT Service Management components, pick and adapt. Estimate the impact of whatever you introduce to your organisation in terms of changes to its Complexity and Contingency. From my experience, this is your best guide at making the right choice.

With every role, rule or process ask yourself whether it adds or decreases complexity, and whether it simplifies, enables, mobilizes or paralyses things.

Pick whatever suits your unique situation. Don’t forget to consider your environment.

Sure. What is my unique situation?

Have you heard about the Cynefin model?