Fractal Organizations Part II – Object Based Complexİty Management

FRACTAL ORGANIZATIONSPart II – OBJECT BASED COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT

FATMA ÇINAR, Mba

KUTLU MERİH,Phd

Systems as Complex Beings

Complex Systems characteristics

Complex Adaptation of Systems : CAS

Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems

Edge of Chaos

Self Orgnization & Emergence

Part I : Fundamental Concepts of Complexity Theory

Presentation Outline

FRACTAL ORGANIZATIONS PART II - OBJECT BASED COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENTMonday, December 19, 2016

The Reasons of Object Oriented Approach

Description of the Objects

Organization as a Complex of Objects

Object Oriented Business Modelling

Organizational Agents

Sycamore Tree Diagram of Organizations

Organizational Sycamore Tree Agents

The CORTEX

(CBBC) – Complexity Business Balance Card”

Presentation Outline

Part II : Object Based Complexity Management


Business Modelling of Problem Areas

Performance optimization for companies has now become more important than ever.

Therefore, companies need to measure their performance in more realistic terms to make the best decisions.

Despite improvements made based on scientific models, current techniques fail to reflect the dynamics of current business environment.

Unfortunately, these techniques are stationary and in a structure that produces lagged outputs.

Monday, December 19, 2016 FRACTAL ORGANIZATIONS PART II - OBJECT BASED COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT

Models Should Also Be Compatible With The Current Dynamic Environment

These models created for performance monitoring should also be compatible with the current dynamic environment in which the company operates.

They should also be compatible with factors which are important for competition, such as innovation and flexibility.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Since the assessment criteria differ according to the sector's structure, sector-based sensitivities should be taken into account when formulating models. In this context, we can say that these models have the advantage of providing cost and operational gains of various alternative policies that can be tested without forcing the active processes of the company.

FRACTAL ORGANIZATIONS PART II - OBJECT BASED COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT

Models Help To Save Time And Resources

In this way, the user-friendly business model considerably simplifies processes and also creates its own market.

Therefore, the success of modelling is embedded in the properties of modelling techniques.

Costly real life experiences can be reduced significantly.

Development of new techniques and changing insights based on data management (informatics) has become a necessity for organizational success rather than simply an option.

This approach is also suitable for users who are accustomed to utilizing object-based office programs.


The Reasons of Object Oriented Approach

In this study, we propose an Object-Based Modelling based on information and Informatics as the most suitable model to realize subject approach.

Business concepts and techniques, and company processes are re-interpreted using a dynamic-cybernetics cognizance.


This approach is based on

ComplexityTheory (PART I),

Informatics-software development and

Chaos Theory.

This topic has been studied in detail by

Kauffman Santa Fe Institute and many

respective scholars (Holland, 1992).

Object Based Complexity Approach evaluates companies as Object Oriented organic and

complex structures with informatics backbone, and not simply as mechanical and bureaucratic

structures.


How Complexity Management Is Different Than Systems Thinking

Less emphasis on leverage points (and other mechanical metaphors) and more on emergence from patterns of interaction among people and groups in the system

Less emphasis on the leader’s influence and more on creating the conditions for self-organization, emergence, and generative relationships

Less emphasis on articulating a clear, shared vision and more on multiple actions inspired by a good-enough vision

Less emphasis on individual knowledge and logical thinking and more on creative adaptability among people and work processes

Less emphasis on changing the formal structure of organizations and more on informal communities of practice (and other rhythms that operate among people and work processes)

Less emphasis on knowing-in-advance and more on “tuning” to the environment, sense-making and building on “what works”

Less emphasis on competency-building or gap-closing and more on noticing attractor patterns, increasing information flow, working with serendipity, and shifting organizational boundaries

Less emphasis on budgeted resources and more on making what is needed out of the materials-at-hand

Less emphasis on a system outside of yourself and more on your participation in “co-evolving” both what you want and what you should creatively destroy


New Types of Organizational Structure


VİRTUAL ORGANIZATION

LATTİCE ORGANIZATION

SPIDERS WEB ORGANIZATION

HOLONIC ORGANIZATION

KINETICS ORGANIZATION

LEAN ORGANIZATION

COMPLEX ORGANIZATION


Object-Based Business Modelling

Business Objects constitute the foundation of Object-Based Complexity Management.

Every organization is a complex consisting of people.

Even an organization which is run by a single person is considered as a complex structured organization.

This is because complexity is not related with the number of the people, but the number of the necessary business processes.

The complex structure of the organization is composed of vertically and horizontally linked relationships of Business Objects.


Company As A Complex Of Objects

Our basic model of interest will be the Company Complex.

This is the intelligent modelling of complex and dynamic presence of main problem areas within the so-called company universe.

These problem areas, which make up the organic structure of the company, will be modelled as Objects.

In other words, entity and complexity have become synonymously identical in our model space.


A sector that compromises several entities and the whole economy within the global system are also Mega Objects composed of units. An organization object can neither be detected nor interpreted irrespective of the objects independently (Habitat Effect). In other words, each object in the space of objects is the object of, or composed of their extension. Complexity Management perceives each individual of the organization as a self-governing administrator who governs, functions, time and relationships, as well as itself. In other words, a CEO and a warehouse keeper are similar objects, but whose roles and functions are different.

Industrİal Sectors Are Mega Objects


Architecture of Object: Properties and Methods


In conformity with the principles of Object-Basedsoftware; there must be parametric structure properties that define each object and a set of methods to determine their behaviour.

Thus, all business units of the organization and the people as well as their identity and roles in each position are clearly identified in advance.

Their level of success will be the Performance of Objects of the organization.

Accordingly, a business object should be considered as an active organizational unit whose job/duty definitions are well-defined and equipped with impulse and response capacity against specific reactions.

Each object is a dynamic and live organic-informatics structure, capable of receiving and recognizing impulses, and giving appropriate reactions.


Attractors (not resistance)


An attractor is a pattern of behavior that emerges from the complex interactions of

the parts of a system.

After the pattern has emerged, it constrains the future behaviors of the system's

parts.

Corporate culture is a good example of an organizational attractor.

It emerges from day-to-day interactions and ultimately determines day-to-day

actions.

Complexity managers recognize that people do not resist change.

They are attracted to other patterns of behavior.

To help an organization change, you must understand the active attractors and

work within them to move to different and more constructive patterns.


Accordingly, software objects both host data and command against external stimuli (such as mouse clicks or using touch sensitive screens) and are interactive modules that can react.

These units, as in software, may be observed in organizations or in natural habitat.

Especially, the nature exhibits the perfect examples of object origin structuring.

All living things exhibit a structure originated from the basic object.

Naturally, the most complex structured basic object is the human himself.

Objects Can Be Seen in Natural Habitat


Complex Structure in the Active Object: Agent

The active object of objects of an organization are Agents.

Basic objects are the first to be determined by the sector the company operates and their business lines.

Following this process, new objects are created and hence active / professional agent objects are formed upon this expansion. I

In conventional management science these are sections and departments.


Control and Coordination Object of Business Objects: CORTEX

The function and dynamics of organizations are executed by Cortex which indeed is an Object of Control Coordination and Balance.

It is Cortex Object that employs all objects of the organization and information systems as a backbone.

Conventional management science calls this as management. In complexity management, Cortexexecutes the functions beyond the management.

We can observe an organization formed solely of a Cortex, but we cannot observe an organization without its Cortex.

Cortex is the most basic Object of Object based modelling. Modelling in our study will take place around the Cortex.


Basic

Org

an

izati

on

al

Ob

jects

Object Based Organization Modelling starts withfour basic organizational problem areas

1. Administration

2. Procurement

3. Production

4. Marketing

These problem areas make up the organik structure of organization as basic objects

We model this structure as a Fractal StructuredFishbone diagram named as SYCAMORE TREE DIAGRAM



CORTEX

ENTRENEURSHIP

MANAGEMENT

PLANNING

CONTROL

CORDINATION

ADMINISTRATION

HUMAN RESORCES

FINANCE

ACCOUNTING

SUCURITY

TECHNOLOGY

PRODUCTION

PROCUREMENT

INVENTORY

MANUFACTURING

LOGISTICS

PRODUCT

Organization as Object of Objects

MARKETING

MARKET RESEARCH

PRODUCT

SALES

CUSTOMERS

COMPETITORS

LOGISTICS

PROCUREMENT

WAREHOUSING

SALES

CUSTOMERS

OUTSORCING


CORTEX Coordinated Relations Management Model: Sycamore Tree

Strategic business unit of the model is composed of Agents.

Two types of nested structure of business units are Agent-Objects.

All Agent-Objects are associated with Cortex and under its control.

Object relations with other agents, functional and strategic integration of operational

responsibilities, delegating integral business responsibilities (performance-project groups)

have a weighted impact on management processes of network units.

Agent-Objects integrated with informatics backbone of autonomous work groups constitute the

backbone of the system by jointly operating their own leadership to work in cooperation with

other operating business units from various levels.


It has also become more important for companies to optimize their financial performance and to make the necessary decisions via measurements in order to maximize benefits to the business. To serve this purpose, companies need to utilize Integrated Theoretical Application to transform their approach to Object-Based Integrated Enterprise Performance Management Model with real-time risk analysis.This makes measuring the real value of the company possible within the framework of integrated theoretical applications and integrated reporting systems.

Enterprise Performance Management RequiresIntegrated Reporting System


Sycamore Tree (Complexity Business Balance Card - CBBC)

Accurate perception and interpretation of Object-Based Business Modelling in a complex business universe will constitute the base for successful management.

The parts of the body in self-similar objects or components resemble the whole body.

The fishbone illustrates the unlimited coordination of objects before and after and the control and their internal balance.

Three-dimensional Sierpinsky pyramids are typical of this structure.

Each fishbone on Sycamore Tree diagram is the object of the objects.

In other words, the organic structure of the objectsis displayed as a fractal hierarchy among objectsboth vertically and horizontally within the matrix.

Our proposed Sycamore Tree diagram augmented with communication technologies, will give in-depth perspectives to the management through our operating business units approach (Merih and Çınar, 2013).


We propose Sycamore Tree (Complexity Business Balance Card -CBBC)


CBBC Diyagram ModelBackbone of Sycamore Tree is Information Infrastructure


CORTEX

Stakeholder Relations Competitions Relations

State RelationsLAN

WANCustomer Relations

Information&CommunicationsTechnologies

Product Relations

Innovation Relations Marketing Relations

Global Environment Relations Financial Environment Relations


CBBC For Balanced Dynamical Performance

Monday, December 19, 2016FRACTAL ORGANIZATIONS PART II - OBJECT BASED COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT

We need some certain criteria to refer to corporate balance.

Criteria should be parallel with the strategies determined by the strategic

management.

To ensure that the strategy is well received, perception of change, studies

conducted under the leadership of management, the definition of concepts,

harmonizing the organization with the strategy, motivating people and all sub-

factors related should be harmonized as a whole

This can be achieved with the Complexity of Business Balance Card model and

the Financial Performance Assessment Methods.


CB

BC

Diy

ag

ram

M

od

el


“21.th CENTURY WILL BE COMPLEX SCIENCE CENTURY”

Stephen HAWKING


[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.spk.gov.tr/

http://www.riskonomi.com

@fatma_cinar_ftm

@fractalorg

@Riskonometri

@Riskonomi

@CORTEXIEN

tr.linkedin.com/pub/kutlu-merih/9b/921/25a

tr.linkedin.com/in/fatmacinar/

Contact



Allen, P. M. (2001). “A Complex Systems Approach to Learning in Adaptive Networks”, International Journal of

Innovation Management Vol. 5, No.2. pp. 149 – 180.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., and Kerr, S. (1995). “The Boundaryless Organization Breaking the Chains of

Organizational Structure”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Bak, P., Tang, C. ve Wiesenfeld, K. (1988). “Self - Organized Criticality”, Physical Review, 38, 364 - 374.

Battram, A. (1999). “Karmaşıklıkta Yol Almak”, Çev. Z. Dicleli, Türk Henkel Dergisi Yayınları, İstanbul.

Willis, R. (2001). “Personal Communication”, London.

Capra, F. (1996). “The Web of Life”, HarperCollins, London.

Dale, M. (1994). “Learning Organizations”, in Mabey, C. and Iles, P. eds. Managing Learning. Routledge in association

with the Open University.

Mabey, C., Salaman, G., Storey, J. (2001). “Organizational Structuring and Restructuring”, in Salaman, G. ed.

Understanding Business Organisations, Routledge, London, p. 157, 158, 164.

Merih, K. ve Çınar, F., (2013). “Modelling of Corporate Performance In Multi-Dimensional Complex Structured Organizations: “Cbbc”

Approach”, Submitted to the EconAnadolu 2013: Anadolu International Conference in Economics III June 19-21, 2013,

Eskişehir. http://www.econanadolu.org/en/index.php/articles2013/3683

RESOURCES


Monday, December 19, 2016FRACTAL ORGANIZATIONS PART II - OBJECT BASED COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT

Kauffman, S. A. (1996). “At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self Organization and Complexity”, Penguin Books,

London.

Kauffman, S. A. (1991). “Antichaos and Adaptation: Biological Evolution May Have Been Shaped by More Than Just Natural Selection”,

Scientific American, 265, 78-84.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, 3. Bas., University of Chicago Press, (Türkçesi için bkz. Bilimsel DevrimlerinYapısı, Alan Yayıncılık).

Küçüközmen, C. C. and Çınar F., (2014). “Modelling of Corporate Performance In Multi-Dimensional Complex Structured Organizations “CBBC” Management”, Submitted to the “2nd International Symposium on Chaos, Complexity and Leadership (ICCLS), December 17-19 at Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey.

Küçüközmen, C. C. ve Çınar F., (2014). “Finansal Karar Süreçlerinde Grafik-Datamining Analizi”, TROUGBI/DW SIG, Nisan 2014 İstanbul, http://www.troug.org/?p=684

Küçüközmen, C. C. ve Çınar F., (2014). “Görsel Veri Analizinde Devrim” Söyleşi, Ekonomik Çözüm, Temmuz 2014, http://ekonomik-cozum.com.tr/gorsel-veri-analizinde-devrim-mi.html.

Küçüközmen, C. C. and Çınar F., (2014). “Banking Sector Analysis of Izmir Province: A Graphical Data Mining Approach”, Submitted tothe 34th National Conference for Operations Research and Industrial Engineering (YAEM 2014), Görükle Campus of Uludağ University in Bursa, Turkey on 25-27 June 2014.

Küçüközmen, C. C. and Çınar F., (2014). “New Sectoral Incentive System and Credit Defaults: Graphic-Data Mining Analysis”, Submitted to the ICEF 2014

Conference, Yıldız Technical University in İstanbul, Turkey on 08-09 Sep. 2014.

RESOURCES

http://www.bilimsenligi.com/konu/middle-east-technical-university


RESOURCESLaw, A. (1998). “Open Minds”, Orion Business Books, London.

Lewin, R., and Regine, B. (1999). “The Soul at Work”, Orion Business Books, p. 105, London.

Morgan, G. (1993). “Imaginization”, Sage. Newbury Park, California.

McMaster, M. D. (1996). “The Intelligence Advantage. Organizing for Complexity”, Newton, MA, Butterworth Heinemann. Rakotobe-Joel, T. eds. University of Warwick, UK..

Mabey, C., Salaman, G., Storey, J. (2001). “Organizational Structuring and Restructuring”, in Salaman, G. ed. UnderstandingBusiness Organisations, Routledge, London.

McMillan, E. (2000). “Using Self Organising Principles to create effective projet teams as part of an organisational changeintervention: A case study of the Open University”, in Complexity and Complex Systems in Industry, McCarthy, I. And Rakotobe-Joel,T. Eds. University of Warwick, UK.

Mathew, K. M., White, M. C. ve Long, R. (1999). “Why Studying the Complexity Sciences in the Social Sciences?”, HumanRelations, 52, 439-462.

Mumford, E., and Hendricks, R. (1996). “Business Process Re-Engineering RIP”. Personnel Management. Institute of Personnel andDevelopment, May. McCarthy, I. and Rakotobe-Joel, T. eds. University of Warwick, UK.

Prigogine, L., Nicholis, O. ve Babloyantz, A. (1972, a). “Thermodynamics of Evolution: Part I”, Physics Today, 25, 23-28. - Prigogine,L., Nicholis, O. ve Babloyantz, A. (1972, b). “Thermodynamics of Evolution: Part II”, Physics Today, 25, 38-44



RESOURCES

Pedroni M., and Bertrand Meyer (2009). “Object-oriented modeling of Object-Oriented Concepts”, ‘A

Case Study in Structuring an Educational Domain’, Chair of Software Engineering, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

<fmichela.pedroni|[email protected]>

Slocum, R. K., and Frondorf, D. S. (2000). “Business Management Using a Fractally-Scaled Structure”,

Complexity and Complex Systems in Industry,

Thomas, C. C., and Coe, T. (1991). “The Flat Organisation: Philosophy and Practice”, British Institute of

Management

Wheatley, M. (1994). “ Leadership and the New Science”, Berrett- Koehler, San Francisco. - Capra, F.

(1996). “The Web of Life”, HarperCollins, London.

Wheatley, M. (1994). “Leadership and the New Science”, Berrett- Koehler, San Francisco.

Waldrop, M. M. (1994). “Complexity”, Penguin Books, New York.

Waldrop, M. M. (1997), “Karmaşıklık: Düzen ve Kaosun Eşiğinde Beliren Bilim”, (Çev.: Z. Dicleli), İstanbul.Türk Henkel Dergisi Yayınları.


Fractal Organizations Part II – Object Based Complexİty Management

Business

Transcript of Fractal Organizations Part II – Object Based Complexİty Management