Sustainability and Innovation - INOVARSE Rio de... · Sustainability and Innovation Goran D. Putnik...

Chaordic System Thinking (CST),

Sustainability and Innovation

Goran D. Putnik (Professor)

[email protected]

University of Minho, Department of Production and Systems Engineering 4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal

RealNovelty

Goal

Known

Unknown

Known Unknown

Improvement or

Optimization

‘Renewal’

‘Renewal’

08 e 09 de agosto 2014

mailto:[email protected]

Rio de Janeiro

We claim, that the systems and organizations for the 21st Century will be characterized by:

Complexity Virtuality Meta Social

INTRODUCTION

08-09 Ago 2014 Goran D. Putnik 2

Rio de Janeiro

In this presentation we will address the issue of

COMPLEXITY

3

INTRODUCTION

08-09 Ago 2014 Goran D. Putnik

Rio de Janeiro

Chaos and complexity management in organizations is an emerging management discipline, and an emerging management paradigm, aiming to provide the organizations with capabilities such as capability for

real novelty,

“flow” organizational structures (instead of fixed ones),

higher degrees of coherence,

true learning, as well as …

4

INTRODUCTION


Rio de Janeiro

… for achieving the “traditional” objectives as

agility, permanent and “on-line” alignment with the

market, i.e. environment, etc.,

in order to deal with the 21st century environment and intrinsic conditions characterized by growing complexity leading to the “traditional” organizations’

inconsistencies,

contradictory demands,

dilemmas in decision making,

malfunctioning of systems,

and similar (Eijnatten, 2004a).

5 08-09 Ago 2014

Goran D. Putnik

INTRODUCTION

Rio de Janeiro

One of the approaches to chaos and complexity management in organizations is based on so-called

Chaordic System Thinking (CST)

as “a complexity-focused framework for seeing and interpreting organizational patterns that are often anchored in the meta-praxis of chaos” (van Eijnatten, 2004).

6 08-09 Ago 2014

Goran D. Putnik

INTRODUCTION

Rio de Janeiro

While by the actual mainstream, “traditional”, management paradigm

the complexity is seen as a problem

that have to be reduced, controlled and, if possible, eliminated, as negative phenomena,

by the new paradigm

the complexity is seen as a condition

for creating the potential and emergence of the real novelty.

7 08-09 Ago 2014

Goran D. Putnik

INTRODUCTION

Rio de Janeiro

Actually,

to create the potential and to provide the conditions for emergence

it is necessary to increase the complexity of the organization, or of the system.

8 08-09 Ago 2014

Goran D. Putnik

INTRODUCTION

Rio de Janeiro

When we talk about the “Chaos and complexity management in organizations” we, actually, talk about

the management of increasing the complexity and managing it towards “chaordic” organizations, or enterprises and a real novelty.

9 08-09 Ago 2014

Goran D. Putnik

INTRODUCTION

Rio de Janeiro

Contents:

Part I

• Some basic definitions

• Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST)

• CST / Chaos and Complexity Management in Modern Manufacturing Systems and Organizations – Chaordic Manufacturing System (CMS)

Part II

• CST and Sustainability and Innovation

10 08-09 Ago 2014

Goran D. Putnik

INTRODUCTION

11

This presentation is based on the following publications:

Eijnatten F. M., Putnik G. D. (Eds.) (2004a) Chaordic System Thinking for Learning Organizations, Special Issue of The Learning Organization – An International Journal, Publisher: Emerald, Volume: 11, Number: 6, Pages: 415-494, Month: October, Year: 2004.

Putnik G. D (Ed.) (2009) Complexity and Learning for Management and Sustainability in Turbulent Environments, Special Issue of The Learning Organization – An International Journal, Publisher: Emerald, Volume: 16, Number: 3, Year: 2009, Pages: 185-270.

European Chaos/Complexity in Organisations Network – ECCON: http://www.chaosforum.com/nieuws/ecconstart.html

Eijnatten F., Putnik G., Sluga A. (2007) Chaordic Systems Thinking for Novelty in Contemporary Manufacturing, CIRP Annals, Vol 56, No 1, pp. 447-450

… and concerning manufacturing:

As well as from the work (and publications) of:


http://www.chaosforum.com/nieuws/ecconstart.html

Rio de Janeiro

Chaos and Complexity

Before the second half of the 1980s (vanEijnatten, 2004), “chaos in organizations” was mostly used in its common-sense meaning, i.e. “bedlam,” “Chaos theory”, a popular pseudonym for (Section 2.1) dynamical systems theory, originally was developed in mathematics, and spread into natural science, biology, and chemistry in the late 1970s and early 1980s.


SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS

chaos (note lowercase): As commonly connoted, a condition of disarray, discord, confusion, upheaval, bedlam, and utter mess arising from the complete absence of order (Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, 2002b, p. 414).

Rio de Janeiro

Liu (1999, p. 9) describes classical chaos as:

“recurrent, random-like, and a-periodic behaviour generated from deterministic non-linear equations with sensitive dependence on initial conditions of the system”.



Rio de Janeiro

Chaos theory: A mathematical equation based on the 20th century discovery that chaos and order are not as we’ve always thought them to be – opposites from which to choose.

Rather,

they are complementary aspects of a singular reality.

The chaos theory has performed flawlessly since its formulation in the late 1970s assisting scientists in describing and explaining the behaviour of the complex, dynamical, non-linear, co-creative, far-from-equilibrium systems, (. . .) which have been proven the rule and not its exception (. . .) (Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, 2002b, pp. 414-15).



Rio de Janeiro

From the 1990s onward, “complexity” instead of “chaos” is increasingly used to indicate an emerging field of study in the organization and management literature.

Maguire and McKelvey (1999) distinguish five different forms of complexity, of which “deterministic chaos” is only one of them.

(kinds of complexity: “Random complexity, probabilistic complexity, deterministic chaos, emergent complexity and newtonian dissipative structures” (Maguire and McKelvey, 1999, p. 55).)



Rio de Janeiro

Waldrop (1992, p. 11) (Section 2.1) states that

complex systems are characterized by:

(1) a great many independent agents who are interacting with each other;

(2) systemic interactions which can lead the system to spontaneous self-organization; and

(3) learning which takes place through feedback.



Rio de Janeiro

Complexity: Name given to

the emerging field of research that explores systems in which:

“a great many independent agents are interacting with each other in a great many ways, (. . .) (and in which – FVE/GP)

systemic interactions can lead (. . .) to spontaneous self-organization” (Waldrop, 1992, p. 11).



Rio de Janeiro

Chaordic Systems Thinking

Definition

The chaos metaphor recognizes that most systems are not only complex but they are also dynamical and non-linear systems, in which chaos and order seemingly co-exist in often paradoxical ways.



Rio de Janeiro

– A constitutional hallmark of the chaordic system indicative of the fact that it consists of a multiplicity of interacting components.

The greater the degree of complexity, the less the behaviour of the system is amenable to prediction.

Not the same as complicated, although the two attributes are often confused (Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, 2002b, p. 415).



Rio de Janeiro

Although chaos, used as a technical term, already implies both chaos and order, we prefer to use the term “chaordic” as a way to avoid any confusion with the common sense-notion of disorder or bedlam.

According to The Chaordic Alliance (1998) the term “chaordic” means:

(1) anything simultaneously orderly and chaotic;

(2) patterned in a way dominated neither by order nor chaos; and

(3) existing in the phase between order and chaos.

Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST)


Rio de Janeiro

Dee Hock, founder and former CEO of Visa Card International, introduced the term “chaord”, being an amalgamation of chaos and order (Hock, 1996a, 1999).

“Briefly stated, a chaord is any chaotically-ordered complex.

Loosely translated to social organizations, it would mean the harmonious blending of intellectual and experiential learning” (Hock, 1996b).



Rio de Janeiro

Chaordic systems are complex systems, and as such they are said to be able to thrive in turbulent or “Far-From-Equilibrium (FFE)” conditions.

A chaordic system is “a complex and dynamical arrangement of connections between elements forming a unified whole the behaviour of which is both unpredictable (chaotic) and patterned (orderly) . . . simultaneously” (Fitzgerald, 1996a, 1997a, p. 1, 2002).



Rio de Janeiro

CST is a way of understanding and recognizing the underlying structures and forces that shape organizational performance over time.

Subsequently, it is an approach to design complex organizational systems that recognizes the enterprise not as a fixed structure, but as “flow” (van Eijnatten, 2001; van Eijnatten and Hoogerwerf, 2000; Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, 1998).



Rio de Janeiro

For example:

It offers new concepts to better understand uncontrollability, uncertainty and complexity in a “learning organization”, which is described by Senge (1990, p. 3) as an organization, structure, process or network

“where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations are set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.”



Rio de Janeiro

Some essentials of CST

In a special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management, in 2002, Chaos (with a capital C) is defined not as a theory, but as a lens (Fitzgerald and Van Eijnatten (Eds), 2002a).

It is primarily seen as a particular way of looking at reality (Fitzgerald, 2002).

In that same issue, complexity is defined neither as a theory nor as a lens, but as one – of the many – characteristics of whole systems (Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, 2002b, p. 405).



Rio de Janeiro

Some essentials of CST

So, we do not focus on chaos theory – which is a mathematical construction (Weinstein, 1998) – but

we use chaos as a systemic way of looking at reality, as a world view, as a metaphor for change which recognizes that systems are complex, dynamical, and non-linear.



(Fitzgerald and Van Eijnatten (Eds), 2002a).

27

Or, in other words: Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST) is a recent, qualitative framework in the domain of Complexity that both combines and generalizes existing ideas from various disciplines, rather than inventing new concepts [3]. Its name is derived from the technical term chaord, which is an amalgamation of the wordings chaos and order. Hock [4] suggested it in order to emphasize the both- / and character of complex systems defined as chaotically-ordered entities.



28

CST may best be characterized as a methodological lens or way of thinking that

sees an organization (e.g. MS )not as a stable structure, but as a dynamical process that is traveling an attractor- basins’ landscape.



29

An attractor basin is defined as a kind of valley in conceptual space in which an MS is directly influenced by an attractor which is delineated as a force that dictates an MS to reproduce its specific pattern of behavior, time and again. In complexity science this is a parsimonious way of saying that an MS cannot surpass design- specification boundaries.



Rio de Janeiro

In each of the states shown in Figures the chaordic system is under the influence of different “attractors”.

An attractor is a force or condition that draws a chaordic system to repeat a typical pattern of behaviour, not each time in exactly the same way, but every time within clear and specified boundaries (Marchall and Zohar, 1997, p. 580).

Although not acting as an external force, the attractor still serves as a sort of magnet.



Rio de Janeiro

Polley defines an attractor basin as the region in which the attractor is successfully able to execute its magnet function, in which any level of performance will be drawn to follow the attractor (Polley, 1997, pp. 446-7).

“Bifurcation” is defined as a qualitative change in an attractor’s structure.

• The “bifurcation point” marks the moment in time at which a holon (for a definition see later) comes under the influence of other attractor basins: coming from a relative stable state the holon is entering a relative unstable one: in this chaotic stage, it will experience all kinds of dilemmas, and will face a “window of opportunities” to choose from.



Rio de Janeiro

Chaordic development may be described as: “A dynamical process passing from one attractor basin to the next in an incessant journey toward the ‘edge’ of chaos” (van Eijnatten and Fitzgerald, 1998).

This is shown in Figure: A holon starts at 1 and eventually arrives at 4 after a long journey. So, a (new) basin of attraction represents a (new) order.

An “Attractor Landscape” is a composition of multiple attractors (and their basins) a holon can be attracted to during its travel (Figure 4).



33

In terms of the mentioned landscape metaphor we are looking for opportunities to escape the valley and to travel into unexplored territory. In this respect,

the term novelty is defined as something completely new.

The basic idea is that both the what (the subject matter to be created) and how (the process by which the subject matter is to be created) are unknown, in advance [5]. This is what we call CST’s Subject Axiom. In MS design accomplishing novelty concerns the creation of an artefact – real or virtual – that neither duplicates nor copies any existing device.



34

RealNovelty

Goal

Known

Unknown

Known Unknown

Improvement or

Optimization

‘Renewal’

‘Renewal’



35

CST uses as its pivotal model the Sigmoid Curve of Discontinuous Growth,

which is a qualitative reading of the logistic function in Nonlinear Dynamics Theory [6]. Two basic dimensions in this model are time and complexity / coherence, not productivity, see Figure.

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

t6

Time

Complex-

ity Level 1

Complex-

ity Level 3 Complex-

ity Level 2

Complex-

ity Level 0

Complexity and Coherence

Legend:

Bifurcation Points (BPs)

Attractor-Basin Reversal Points (ABRPs)

Figure: A Qualitative Model for Dynamical Growth in Complexity and Coherence in organization.



36

Central ideas behind the model are that: 1) Systems do have life cycles;

2) They are functioning at particular complexity levels which both offer

and restrict further opportunities for growth; and

3) They go through successive periods of relative stability and instability.

We call this CST’s System’s Life- Cycle Axiom.

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

t6

Time

Complex-

ity Level 1

Complex-

ity Level 3 Complex-

ity Level 2

Complex-

ity Level 0

Complexity and Coherence

Legend:

Bifurcation Points (BPs)

Attractor-Basin Reversal Points (ABRPs)



37

The next point of attention is to see

how the transition is taking place from the lower plane to the

higher level of complexity and coherence, see Figure.



38

This unstable phase following bifurcation is characterized by chaotic changes in both thinking and doing of MS professionals. At the lower complexity- and- coherence level their behavior is typified by Old Thinking / Old Doing. The higher- plane behavior can be identified by New Thinking / New Doing. The two intermediate stages are best described by schizophrenic combinations of Old Thinking / New Doing and New Thinking / Old Doing as professionals are experiencing major dilemmas and contradictions between which they constantly alternate.



39

Old Thinking

Old Doing

Old Thinking

New Doing

Old Doing

New Thinking

New Doing

New Thinking

NT-ND

OT-OD OT-ND

NT-OD

Figure: The Transition from the Lower into the Higher Level of Complexity and Coherence.



40

MS professionals wanting to manage novelty should not strive for clarity and order in this phase. They should not pursue the dominant signals, but stimulate the weak cues instead, since those can be the forerunners of a new future. When novelty is the goal, dreams and wishes of professionals should be nurtured. In order to give novel ideas a chance to develop, CST is stressing five chaordic properties: Consciousness, Connectivity, Indeterminacy, Dissipation, and Emergence 08-09 Ago 2014 Goran D. Putnik


41

Consciousness – The cardinal ground state is mind, not matter.

Thinking more than doing is the prime engine of a chaordic system: In CST ideas come first; the internal potential is key. Design rule: Managers who are striving for novelty creation in MS design should therefore stimulate generative learning from within by taking seriously all thoughts and wishes of their professional designers, no matter how wild those thoughts might be.



42

Connectivity – Any chaordic system is considered a holon: I.e. an entity

that is autonomous with respect to one aspect and dependent with respect to another aspect. No part can exist independently of the whole, nor can any whole be sustained separately from its parts. Design rule: Executives who strive for novelty creation in MS look for the whole among the parts, and try to see the connections between parts by encouraging informal discussions and dialogues among MS professionals in order to foster common understanding and shared meaning.



43

Indeterminacy – CST acknowledges that in the highly-dynamical

complexity of today’s business life, every event is both cause and effect. Because of this complexity, the future is principally unknowable beforehand. In the here and now the past reveals itself by memory, and the future divulges as vision. Design rule:

Therefore, leaders who strive for novelty creation in MS will not deploy planning as a device for controlling the future, but rather as a means for priority setting in the present.



44

Dissipation – Chaordic systems are engaged in cycles of both creation

and destruction. When they fall apart they will grow back together again in an unprecedented new form. Design rule:

Therefore, managers might consider both active dissolving of winning design teams, and agile unlearning



45

Emergence – Chaordic systems aim at reaching higher levels of

coherence and complexity, enabled by capacities for self- organization, self- reference, and self- transcend-ence. Interaction is key. Design rule: Managers who strive for novelty creation in MS will encourage interactions among all sorts of professionals during the initial stages of MS development, because that will provide a big chance of emergent novelty creation.



46

These five properties illustrate the fact that humans taking initiatives are put central in CST. It follows that processes such as dialogue, multilogue, and emergent leadership are important mechanisms. Implementation of CST’s core features, and a careful application of CST’s processes – distinguishing

interior, exterior, individual, and collective aspects respectively – provide the organization’s and product’s solutions some holonic growth in complexity and coherence.



47

CST implementation domains

interior, exterior, individual, and collective



48

Dialogue, as the mechanism


Dialogue Discussion

Seeing the whole among the parts, Breaking issues or problems into parts,

Seeing the connections, Making distinctions,

Further inquiring into ones assumptions, Justifying / defending ones assumptions,

Creating shared meaning among many, Gaining agreement on one single meaning,

Listening deeply together without resistance, Preparing to pose better arguments,

Release of the need for specific outcomes, Aiming at conclusions or decisions,

A slower pace with silences in between, Continuous flashing battle of arguments,

Learning through inquiry and disclosure, Persuading, selling, telling,

Divergent. Converging.


49

CSR for Learning Organization:

This way, CST is considered a meta- model for accomplishing a learning organization



50

Chaos and Complexity Management in MS is about

1) the MANAGEMENT OF NOVELTY CREATION in modern

Manufacturing Systems (MS), and

2) the SUSTAINABILITY of modern Manufacturing Systems (MS).

Complexity is considered a central concept in this respect.

CST in Modern Manufacturing Syst. and Org.


51

Mainstream MS research and practice tend to consider complexity a negative phenomenon. Usually, it is regarded a problem to be reduced, controlled or – if possible – eliminated. MS research and practice are informed by the celebrated Occam’s-Razor principle which states that “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” [1]. This so-called Lex Parsimoniae propagates simplicity in scientific theories.



52

For instance, the two central propositions of Axiomatic Design theory can be regarded as a straightforward engineering interpretation of Occam’s Razor. Originally, Occam’s Razor was construed as a decision-making procedure for choosing among or evaluating competing systems of hypotheses together with their definitions and logical consequences. As such, Occam’s Razor has demonstrated validity in MS practice for both product and MS- solution evaluations.



53

However, while this known parsimony principle could be assumed to be valid for evaluation or selection of better solutions, and of systems of FRs, its application in the process of generating or creating theories proves is less obvious.

Applying Occam’s Razor for developing and designing new MS answers may be detrimental,

because it tends to result in creating more- of- the- same outcomes most of the time.



54

Our central thesis is that – in order to create novelty and sustainable organization –

complexity should not be eliminated but nurtured instead in novel MS design and development.

In this presentation, we address the problem of true- novelty creation in the design of MS, and sustainability of MS. Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST) is described, especially which features enable the management for novelty creation in MS.



55

An exploration of the potential application of CST in MS is based on a gap- identification process that was carried out by the authors through a secondary, content analysis of 17 selected papers (15 from Annals of the CIRP) which covers nine approaches, see Table 1. CST criteria for comparison were:

CST’s basic assumptions (system life cycle and subject)

1) Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Per-spective (DSP): a. Life cycle; b. Growth within / between complexity levels; c. Phases of stability /

instability; 2) Design Objective (DO):

a. Optimization / improvement (goal and path known); b. Renewal (goal or path known); c. Real Novelty Macro (goal and path unknown); d. Real Novelty Micro (goal and path unknown);



56

CST criteria for comparison were (cont.):

CST as a method 3) System Properties (SP):

a. Consciousness (beyond Materialism); b. Connectivity (beyond Reductionism); c. Indeterminacy (beyond Determinism); d. Dissipation (beyond Preservationism); e. Emergence (beyond Interventionism);

4) Socio- Technical Complexity (STC):

a. Artefact world (product / market / process / system; Internal / external); b. Human world (individual / collective; Interior / exterior);



57

CST criteria for comparison were (cont.): 5) Development / Supporting Mechanism (DSM):

a. Machine algorithm; b. Individual human (un)learning, exterior (you); c. Individual human (un)learning, interior (me); d. Collective human (un)learning, exterior (they); e. Collective human (un)learning, interior (us).



58

As can be seen from the analysis (see Table), none of the approaches fully matches CST.



59

Table: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation of CST categories in selected CIRP topics and papers p = present; pp = partly present; a = absent; i = inconclusive; OR = Occam's Razor; P = Pseudo- CST; Q = Quasi- CST



60

FRAMEWORK FOR A CHAORDIC MS On the basis of the presented conceptual analysis and the evaluation of CIRP topics and papers

we propose a new concept that is addressing true- novelty creation in MS. We call this framework

Chaordic Manufacturing System (CMS).

Basically, the model is

an extension of a conventional MS, as it conscienciously integrates the CST perspective.



61

FRAMEWORK FOR A CHAORDIC MS The framework, as it is graphically presented in Figure 4 on the next page, is an

activity- based model, following IDEF0 diagramming semantics, and a careful translation of the qualitative model for dynamical growth in complexity and coherence, as depicted in Figure 1.

It shows both the linear growth process of a conventional MS, in which Old Thinking (OT) is predominant, and the nonlinear development process of a CMS, in which New Thinking (NT) is prevalent.



62

FRAMEWORK FOR A CHAORDIC MS



63

An important function of the CMS framework is its MS instantiation. For instance, the framework can be used to inform current Collaborative Design by expanding its approach into Chaordic Collaborative Design, see Figure 4.



64

Further consideration of CST might have the following, long- term implications for MS developments:

1. Constructing new ‘extended’ models for particular MS approaches and mechanisms that include as much CST aspects as possible.

2. Offering the perspective that a CMS actually is a sustainable MS

which has capabilities to survive crisis situations during its life cycle, going beyond the conventional MS end- of- life state.

3. Implementing multiple aspects of CST that might result in a

fundamentally different type of (internal) enterprise organization. Future inquiries regarding research and practice will confirm or refute this thesis.



65

Adopting the concept of CMS means introducing and nurturing complexity in MS approaches and mechanisms.

Compared with conventional MS, CST offers a richer system- conceptual space that provides opportunities for emergence.

In that sense, CST can be seen as a managerial tool for creating novelty in contemporary manufacturing.

CMS might develop into a next- generation framework for manufacturing systems that combines both robustness, flexibility and innovativeness, at the same time.

This means exactly a qualitative leap to a higher level of MS complexity.



Rio de Janeiro

• Sustainability is a new “buzzword”

66

CST and Sustainability and Innovation

• “The last and most recent topic for discussion as an academic challenge to value is the problem of sustainability.” (Ueda et al., 2009)


Rio de Janeiro

e.g.

67



Rio de Janeiro

• There is a number of Sustainability definitions

68



Rio de Janeiro

Euler diagram of sustainable development: at the confluence of three constituent parts (Adams, 2006)

69

A diagram indicating the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits (Scott Cato, 2009)



Rio de Janeiro 70

Relations among social, artificial, and natural systems for sustainability. (Ueda et al., 2009)



Rio de Janeiro

The knowledge triangle. (Jovane et al., 2008)

71



Rio de Janeiro

However …

72



Rio de Janeiro

Some paradoxes are observed …

Paradox:

“1. (logic) a statement that’s itself”

2. A statement starting with something apparently

true that leads to counterintuitive or unacceptable

conclusions

3. …

”

73



Rio de Janeiro

“Paradoxes

In other words, the different perceptions and articulations of SD lead to dilemmas and paradoxes. The cases show that dilemmas ultimately relate to socio-political choices, implicitly or explicitly.

(e.g. [GP] It is a socio-political choice to sustain a district heating system or to promote passive houses, and the difficulty of sustaining both is a dilemma.” (Mulder et al., 2011)

74



Rio de Janeiro

“The co-existence of different articulations also gives rise to dilemmas and paradoxes. When, for instance, EU guidelines translate the abstract notion of ‘sustainable use of cars’ into a requirement for cars to contain a certain percentage of recyclable material, it forces car design engineers to be more creative and responsible but, at the same time, rules out designs using lighter non-recyclable materials that translate ‘sustainable use of cars’ into ‘less fuel use’. … The concept of SD is often criticised as being vague and ill-defined. However, in our view, it is not so much vagueness as levels of analysis that are being confused: at some levels concepts can be defined and calculated. At other, more encompassing levels, this no longer holds.” (Mulder et al., 2011)

75



Rio de Janeiro

“Sustainability is not a singularity, it is plurality.” (Mulder et al., 2011)

76



Rio de Janeiro

“… The SD concept does not give us a recipe for our future: rather, it demonstrates the interconnection of problems, the importance of longer-term analysis and the need to develop joint solutions.” (Mulder et al., 2011)

77



Rio de Janeiro

The Paradox of Sustainability Definitions

Dara K. Dimitrov, Dept of Accounting, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato

“The paradox of sustainability definitions lies in the parties who create them and not in the issues of sustainability; ….”

78



Rio de Janeiro

The Paradox of Sustainability Definitions

Dara K. Dimitrov, Dept of Accounting, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato

“… What sustainability has motivated is the constant questioning and continual investigation of historical practices, customary habits and moral guides of that which has been largely presumed to be the fundamental foundations and unchallengeable aspects of human society.”

79



Rio de Janeiro 80

Following (Edwards M., 2009)

Edwards M. G. (2009) An integrative metatheory for organisational learning and sustainability in turbulent times, in The Learning Organization – An International Journal, Publisher: Emerald, Volume: 16, Number: 3, pp: 189-207, Month: October, Year: 2009



Rio de Janeiro 81

(Edwards M., 2009) 4. Metatheorising sustainability paradoxes A metatheoretical approach to sustainability that uses integrative lenses such as the ones described above has the potential to resolve fundamental paradoxes in the study of organisational sustainability.

4.1 The growth paradox 4.2 The learning paradox 4.3 The sustainability paradox

…



Rio de Janeiro 82

(Edwards M., 2009) Each form of organisational sustainability is associated with certain kinds of internal qualities and environmental conditions. These are as follows:

• Subsistence organisation. Sustainability is seen in terms of survival. The values base is one of working hard and getting by without doing obvious damage to individuals or environments. Survival and maximisation of profit are regarded as the sole purpose of organisational activities.

• Avoidant organisation. Sustainability is seen as an attack by oppositional groups. There is a general ignorance of ethical standards and legal responsibilities. Disinterest is the prevailing attitude towards the impact of organisational activities on the workforce and community (at least until profits are affected).

• Compliant organisation. Sustainability is regarded as an impost. The compliant organisation supports industry regulation as a way of circumventing more demanding regulations regarding sustainability. Reactively responds to regulatory requirements as they arise.



Rio de Janeiro 83

(Edwards M., 2009) • Efficient organisation. Here, sustainability is valued as a source of cost saving, i.e.

the “business case” for sustainability. This stage sees broader sustainability demands as imposing on an individual’s freedom to do business. Sustainability is defined in terms of helping the organisation to continue trading.

• Committed organisation. The organisation is committed in principle to economic, environmental and social sustainability and goes beyond legal compliance.



Rio de Janeiro 84

(Edwards M., 2009) • Sustaining organisation I (local). Sustainability is valued as a way of developing

the organisation and its stakeholders on all fronts. Transformational strategies are enacted for moving the organisation towards triple bottom line goals that support local communities whatever the regulatory environment.

• Sustaining organisation II (global and local). Sustainability is embedded within all aspects of organisation and is seen in global and intergenerational terms. Promotes and actively creates sustainable communities of organisations. Sustainability refers to numerous layers of purpose including physical, economic, environmental, emotional, social and spiritual/deep meaning.



Rio de Janeiro 85

(Edwards M., 2009)



Rio de Janeiro

.

86

(Edwards M., 2009) Holonic principle, systemic

relations, Non-Linear / Non-Newtonian systems, Collaborativeness, … Sustainable [GP]

Cartesian principle, low level holons at the best, systematic relations, Linear / Newtonian systems, Competitiveness/Concurrency, … Non-sustainable [GP]



Rio de Janeiro 87

(Edwards M., 2009)



Rio de Janeiro

.

88

(Edwards M., 2009)



Rio de Janeiro 89

The new, semiotic based, paradigm provides us with a different perspective on, and capability for development of, organizations, MS and MSI. For example, Saludadez & Taylor (2006) write:

“In the communication perspective …, by contrast, organization is conceptualized as grounded in a social process of interpretation (). Organization is created and recreated (..) in and through the everyday sensemaking activities of its members (). From this perspective, organizational structure is conceived to be multiple () rather than monolithic (); fluid or even fragmented (), rather than fixed; socially constructed (..) rather than static (..); context-sensitive () and historical (..) rather than acontextual or ahistorical; emergent () rather than consciously designed. According to this view, communication and organization are coconstructing (..). In other words, it is through the process of communication that organizational forms emerge. And communication is in turn framed and informed by organization. …



Rio de Janeiro

.

90

Indeed, a semiotics based Integrated Manufacturing System is a set of semiotic based MSI models, i.e. a set of communication models, i.e. a set of “fields of observation” or “information fields”, in continuous change, Figure 6.



Rio de Janeiro

.

91

Promoting space for the individual and community based generation and

interpretations of signs, the Semiotics based MSI could be seen as – paraphrasing Guiraud (1975) – the generator of the creative power in MSI

systems, as the ‘maker’ and ‘inventor’ of new integration instruments, providing higher levels of coherence with the environment, and

social reality.

Figuratively, semiotics is the poiéte (‘maker’) of MSI.



Rio de Janeiro

.

92

SEMIOTIC FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT and OPERATION

Framework


Rio de Janeiro

Innovation Models (Romero F., 2014)

• Innovation and technological change is seen as a process that includes activities, actors and interactions, which results in new products or processes.

93



Rio de Janeiro

Innovation Models (Romero F., 2014)

• Historical development of the paradigms.

94

• Black Box

1st Generation

• Linear models

2nd Generation • Interactive

models

3rd Generation

• Sistemic models

4th Generation • Innovative

millieux

5th Generation



Rio de Janeiro

Innovation models and CST

95

• Black Box

1st Generation

• Linear models

2nd Generation • Interactive

models

3rd Generation

• Sistemic models

4th Generation • Innovative

millieux

5th Generation


Holonic principle, systemic relations, Non-Linear / Non-Newtonian systems, Collaborativeness, … Sustainable [GP]

Cartesian principle, low level holons at the best, systematic relations, Linear / Newtonian systems, Competitiveness/Concurrency, … Non-sustainable [GP]


Rio de Janeiro

Innovation models and CST

96


CST: the term novelty is defined as something completely new


Rio de Janeiro

CONCLUSIONS

CST is the poiéte (‘maker’) of Sustainability and Innovation

CST Sustainability and Innovation

97



Rio de Janeiro

THANK YOU

OBRIGADO


Sustainability and Innovation - INOVARSE Rio de... · Sustainability and Innovation Goran D. Putnik...

Documents

Transcript of Sustainability and Innovation - INOVARSE Rio de... · Sustainability and Innovation Goran D. Putnik...