Diversity and Complexity

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) have been identified as being hard to comprehend, composed of multiple interacting components acting interdependently with overlapping functions aimed at adapting to external/environmental forces. The current theoretical model utilized the natural functions of teams, viewing teams as a complex adaptive system, to develop the structure of the theory of complex adaptive team systems (CATS). The CATS model was formulated around the components of complexity theory (interactions, nonlinearity, interdependency, heterogeneity, complex systems, emergence, self-organizing, and adaptability) to show its utility across multiple domains (the role of leadership, organizational learning, organizational change, collective cognitive structures, innovation, cross-business-unit collaborations). In theorizing the CATS model, a new level of analysis was implemented, the interactions between agents as a move toward emergence in complex systems. The CATS model ultimately provides a model for organizations/institutions to drive knowledge creation and innovation while operating in today's complexity.

This introductory chapter provides an overview and a brief history of complexity science, which is the study of complex systems. All living systems and all intelligent systems are complex systems. Complexity science is relatively new but already indispensable. Many of the most important problems in engineering, medicine, and public policy are now addressed with the ideas and methods of complexity science. However, there is no agreement about the definition of 'complexity' or 'complex system', nor even about whether a definition is possible or needed. The conceptual foundations of complexity science are disputed, and there are many and diverging views among scientists about what complexity and complex systems are. Even the status of complexity as a discipline can be questioned given that it potentially covers almost everything. The origins of complexity science lie in cybernetics and systems theory, both of which began in the 1950s. Complexity science is related to dynamical systems theory, which matured in the 1970s, and to the study of cellular automata, which were invented at the end of the 1940s. By then computer science had become established as a new scientific discipline.

This paper will explore the concept of resilience from its roots in ecology to the application of this ecological concept of resilience to social and community resilience in the context of climate change. In this context, resilience is seen as a property of complex adaptive communities rather than of individuals. This paper will explore how this ecological concept of resilience has been taken up both by climate adaptation research and by the Transition Town movement. This ecological concept of resilience is at odds with the individualism of both psychological and economic approaches to resilience in relation to climate change.

Multiscale modeling in smart cities: A survey on applications, current trends, and challenges

Arecent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report describes a chasm in health care quality that we must cross for patients to receive better care in the 21st century. The report calls for a “systems approach,” drawing on the rapid evolution of knowledge about complex adaptive systems.1 Understanding how complex adaptive systems work can give physicians insights to develop and modify health care systems. By describing a practical application of the ideas about complex adaptive systems to newborn care, we aim to help pediatricians prepare to lead in this field. A complex adaptive system is a collection of individual agents who have the freedom to act, but because the agents are interconnected, action by any agent changes the context for other agents in the system. One familiar example is the buyers in a stock market. In the last century, it was usual to see organizations as mechanical systems: in mechanical systems, if we know what each part of a system does, we can predict perfectly how the whole will respond in a given situation. This is obviously not true of the stock market. A complex adaptive system may display sudden unpredictable shifts in behavior caused by interactions among agents. An essential first step in improving the US health care system is to recognize that its member organizations and individuals, with sublevels nested within and interconnected to each other, make up a complex adaptive system. One of the key attributes of a complex adaptive system is that orderly behavior can emerge among many agents who are acting independently but who share a common drive. For instance, ants, driven to survive, create intricate buildings and foraging systems without any planning by a chief executive ant. So do humans. The citizens of New York City share a drive to eat; with no single individual …

This study explored “how strategic improvisation (SI) enables agile and creative responsiveness in dynamic organizations recognized as complex adaptive systems.” We highlight “what” constitutes SI, “why” it is strategic and “how” it allows for agile and creative responsiveness. We advance the conceptualization of SI proposing it as “ an improvised deliberate practice that combines coupling unconventional ideas with emergency actions seeking new strategic patterns to indeterminacy. ” This is the case of firefighters, with unique features, such as operating continuously in experimental conditions, exposure to failure, risk, and unpredictability, despite strict protocols to guide operations. Furthermore, agile and creative responsiveness in a complex system is the rule rather than the exception and, therefore, requires new adaptive managerial practices. Our findings provide the SI framework based on four main dimensions such as (i) resolvability; (ii) experimentation; (iii) interactivity; and (iv) sensemaking, composing a SI mechanism. Practical implications and future perspective were proposed.

Many important challenges facing society today involve the management of interlinked complex adaptive systems (CAS): coupled socio-economic and ecological systems composed of many interacting elements which have been created or partially created by human actions. As we explicitly wish to manage and transform these systems, engineering and design approaches have much to offer us, however they must be fundamentally modified to deal with CAS. These systems are not static artifacts, but dynamic, evolving and reflexive processes the behaviour of which is not straightforwardly predicable and which may respond in unexpected ways in response to our interventions. Additionally many of the complex systems which we would most like to influence have significant social components. Objective choices about design goals cannot be made and the integration of participatory or political processes may be required. In order to manage complex adaptive systems, we suggest a “steering” approach; an action or series of actions applied to a complex system and/or its environment for achieving a specific purpose. Steering combines tools from complexity science with whole systems design philosophy and is a continuous process which involves interacting with, monitoring and learning from the system in question. The techniques required for effective steering fall into two categories. Firstly we wish to understand, and indeed exploit, the systems’ structure and dynamics in order to intervene efficaciously with them. Hence we need techniques to uncover this structure and to choose points of intervention: system “levers” through which the system as a whole could be manipulated with system interventions designed accordingly. Secondly we frame those techniques within a participatory “adaptive management” structure (Waltner-Toews and Kay, 2005), which explicitly takes into account the adaptive nature of these systems and our limited capacity to fully model real world complex systems, by building in monitoring and feedback processes with which to modify our interventions as systems respond. We are currently applying this process to a case study aiming to facilitate regional decision making in an industrial ecosystem in the Humber region, UK. The region represents a significant proportion of UK infrastructure, energy generation capacity and CO2 production. However, there is a strong desire to develop the “Humber Gateway” as a renewable energy hub using the extensive agricultural hinterland and offshore and port facilities to support bio-based energy production and offshore wind and tidal generation. We have undertaken participatory modelling exercises in which stakeholders collaboratively constructed simple systems models of the development of their regional bio-based economy, the key factors of influence, drivers and their perceived interdependencies (Penn et al., 2013). Building on this approach we used a “control nodes” methodology from network theory (Liu et al., 2011) to determine the specific subsets of these factors which could theoretically be used to drive the system into any given state. This technique is combined with an evaluation of the practical controllability of each factor from the perspectives of the actors present to allow its use in real world contexts in which policy makers and industrial stakeholders must make decisions (Penn et al., In press.). Applying this hybrid approach in the real world context of the Humber allowed stakeholders to uncover and discuss possible novel points of intervention in their regional system, based both on its structure and their own differing abilities to influence different factors within it. This proved to be a useful starting point for debate on policy ideas and the importance of considering not just where to intervene, but who is able to intervene with a given factor. However this approach, like all network-based methods, is limited by its sensitivity to the network structure described. Additionally by the fact that once suitable control configurations are discovered, the method as yet gives us no indication of how to construct the time variable control inputs required to steer the system to a given state. Instead we must use such modelling as a “thinking tool” to provide principled starting points, to be combined with stakeholder expertise, for the participatory design of complex social systems.

A system is a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole. A collection of elements comprises a complex system if open and dynamic connections and interactions exist between its components and contribute to the behavior of the collective. An open system is one that exists far from energetic equilibrium; that is, it takes in energy and expels waste. Formally, a complex system is any open system that involves a number of elements arranged in a structure and that requires many scales for adequate measurement. Such systems go through processes of change that defy description by a single rule or by reduction to a single level of explanation.Complexity is a scientific approach for studying how the interacting parts of a system produce collective behaviors more complex than the sum of the contributing parts, and how the system responds to, and interacts with, its environment. Complexity theory provides a framework and language for describing and modeling such processes.Complexity as a science studies the behavior of complex systems as a class using mathematical tools such as differential equations, graph theory, neural networks, time series analyses, and genetic algorithms as well as descriptive, predictive, and simulation modeling. Complexity theorists differ from conventional scientists in that they address unpredictable, nondeterministic processes within systems that do not decompose into simpler elements. This allows them to engage natural phenomena in natural settings more readily than their conventional science counterparts. Broadly, the complexity approach employs multi-scale descriptors to characterize dynamic systems and their phenomena. Applications include the study of economies, ecologies, weather, traffic flow, social organizations, and cultures, in addition to such physiological processes as gene and immune networks.When living organisms engaged in adaptation and survival are the systems of interest, then complexity analysis falls under the heading of complex adaptive systems (CAS) (Gell-Mann 1994; Kelso 1998; Kaneko 2006). Such systems are purposeful, pro-creative and pro-active in relationship to their environments rather than simply reactive. An insect hive exemplifies a CAS, as does the immune system. When elements of a system are of interest, for example worker ants within an ant colony or antigen-presenting cells within the immune system, then modelers may designate the CAS as individual based or agent based. CASs manifest ever-changing, self-organizing behavior in response to a variable environment, and they move toward, but never sustain, equilibrium. In a classic paper, Prigogne and Stengers (1984) termed this behavior “order through fluctuations.”

Cormac McCarthy: A Complexity Theory of Literature

Why is it that in spite of many reports that identify the limitations of current health care systems and recommend transformative solutions, change has been painfully slow and disappointingly limited? One critical factor is the influence of leaders who understand that health care is a complex adaptive system.1–3 Because of their training and experience as generalists who deal with undifferentiated illness, family physicians are particularly suited to leadership in current health care environments where evidence is often incomplete and the way forward is uncertain. These limitations are especially evident in primary care. We are challenged both to include education for values-driven leadership as a core competency and to inspire family physicians to seek out and embrace leadership opportunities. In a 2011 response paper1 to an article by Lindstrom et al2 on collaborative health policy making, Allan Best and I suggested a 6-factor framework for implementation of change in health systems, including values, governance, learning networks, innovation research, systems thinking, and leadership (Figure 1). A key principle in this framework is leadership—and not just any kind of leadership. We argue that leaders are needed who can develop working partnerships, grounded in shared values and understanding of the need for systems thinking in health care. Core values are patient and family-centered care, social responsibility, and equity; commitment to change in outcomes; and an evidence-informed approach that integrates research, theory, and practice knowledge in action. If change is to be achieved, these core values must be shared by leaders across the health professions, administration in our institutions, and relevant government departments. Figure 1 Implementation framework for change in health care. Leaders who understand complex systems know they can and must rely on facilitation and empowerment and participatory action methods, rather than on “command and control”; that they must continuously evaluate outcomes and make further changes iteratively: “Instead of attempting to impose a course of action, leaders must patiently allow the path forward to reveal itself.”4 Leaders must model openness, risk taking, and reflection, and communicate a compelling vision of what will be achieved by implementation of change. They need to provide support and advocacy to lead others to embrace the vision while appreciating diversity of opinions.5–7 They must recognize that their colleagues may be risk averse or overloaded with other demands, and that change may come slower than desired. Patience and excellent team and communication skills are essential. At the same time, the environments where leaders work need to encourage risk taking and to see unsuccessful interventions as opportunities for learning and modification, rather than personal failures. This is not the case at present. Can our health care institutions become safe and encouraging places for health care leaders and innovation, and improve the likelihood that attempted changes are both effective and sustainable? How can leaders from medicine, nursing, and other health professions advocate effectively for our health care environments, including community-based settings, to become learning organizations and networks? Meanwhile we can develop and nurture medical leaders within primary care. We can incorporate formal leadership education for medical students and family medicine residents8,9 that goes beyond traditional leadership skills training, to ensure that our graduates understand how complex systems function and how to lead within self-organizing structures. We can provide opportunities for participation in real-life change situations within hospitals, outpatient practices, health care/community partner collaborations, and other situations so learners can experience how shared leadership models work. Medical learners can appreciate that sometimes change strategies will be best led or co-led by leaders from other health professions, particularly nursing, or by managers. We can drive home the message that, by being values-driven leaders, physicians can influence contemplated solutions to health care problems so that changes result, not only in cost savings, but also in improvements in patient and family-centered care and equity. If we really want our future family physicians to become leaders, we must model leadership ourselves. Instead of complaining about the system, we can take up leadership opportunities and advocate for patients and families, for equitable care, and for healthy communities.10 By demonstrating values-driven principled leadership, we can inspire our colleagues to invest their time and energy into leading change. If enough leaders emerge who have a sophisticated appreciation of how the system operates, optimism that change is possible, and an unshakeable belief that evidence-informed change with measurement of outcomes is the only sensible way to deal with health care problems that confront us, maybe we can actually move from talk to action.

The idea of cities as complex systems in constant adaptive change is finally engaging urban thinking. However, we are still far from having this idea guide practice. UN-Habitat recognised this challenge in the “New Urban Agenda”, establishing the link between configuration of places and their performance in terms of prosperity, inclusiveness and equality, and environmental sustainability. However, we lag behind in understanding how urban places work from a resilience perspective, and urban planning and design are not ready to give directions for successful place-making, and design beautiful places that work for people, the environment and the economy. The need for ideas to repair the hiatus generated in the past generation of planning ideology is growing: something practical and yet advanced enough to embrace this unique challenge. In this work we propose that designing urban places that work for all should be pursued under the new framework of spatial resilience, interpreted as a preliminary condition to sustainability, where urban form is understood as a complex adaptive system per se. On these basis, we re-frame place-making under the new light of resilience and introduce an innovative approach to place-making here defined as “masterplanning for change” which, learning from the very same rules that drove the development of adaptive and successful places in history to date, calls for an urban design practice that designs places much less and much better, with implications for policy-making. Far from an ideological manifesto, our approach is: 1) evidenced based: having learned to identify the recurrent successes of resilience from the observation of cities in history up to our days, it uses them to design the city of the future. 2) practical: it advocates a reformed process of place-making, and provides the tools to deliver it, making it an essential reference for designers and policy-makers.

Complex adaptive systems are a special kind of self-organizing system with emergent properties and adaptive capacity in response to changing external conditions. In this article, we investigate the proposition that international environmental law, as a network of treaties and institutions, exhibits some key characteristics of a complex adaptive system. This proposition is premised on the scientific understanding that the Earth system displays properties of a complex adaptive system. If so, international environmental law, as a control system, may benefit from the insights gained and from being modelled in ways more appropriately aligned with the functioning of the Earth system itself. In this exploratory review, we found evidence suggesting that international environmental law is a complex system where treaties and institutions self-organize and exhibit emergent properties. Furthermore, we contend that international environmental law as a whole is adapting to exogenous changes through an institutional process akin to natural selection in biological evolution. However, the adequacy of the direction and rate of adaptation for the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of Earth’s life-support system is questioned. This paper concludes with an emphasis on the need for system-level interventions to steer the direction of self-organization while maintaining institutional diversity. This recommendation stands in contrast to the reductionist approach to institutional fragmentation and aims at embracing the existing complexity in international environmental law.

School‐improvement initiatives are implemented with admirable goals, often requiring substantial human and material resources. However, many fail to be sustainable beyond short‐term funding cycles or the enthusiasm of local initiators. Typically, implementation and improvement are viewed linearly and as static end‐products that fail to consider that schools are complex adaptive systems (CAS) that are continuously and recursively challenged with change. To investigate sustainable school‐improvement within CAS, we used PRISMA‐SR guidelines to conduct a scoping review of peer‐reviewed journal articles extracted from six databases using keywords synonymous with ‘ complex or adaptive system ’ , ‘ sustain ’ , ‘ school ’ and ‘ initiative ’ . The search process yielded 1146 articles but only 16 of those articles met our inclusion/exclusion criteria that specified that authors present an integrated view of sustainable implementation in schools conceptualised as CAS. Within the selected 16 articles, key components for sustainability in schools described as CAS included access to adequate funding and resources, engagement and involvement of stakeholders, the ability of stakeholders to adapt to change, formation of collaborative partnerships, and the development of supportive policies and procedures. Some important issues arose, such as the tendency of the ‘whole school approach’ to be reduced to information dissemination activities that do not adequately deal with components of complex systems, and the increasing recognition that older implementation models that seek ‘institutionalisation’ fail to appreciate that sustainability is a process, not an end goal. This scoping review highlights the need to recognise the complexity and adaptivity of school systems for successful and sustained implementation of school‐improvement initiatives.

The complexity of problems facing society continues to grow, and decision-makers and problem-solvers are finding many of today's emerging problems to be beyond their capability to adequately address. There is agreement in the literature that problems of this nature are complex system problems, inextricably linked to some highly complex system of systems. Establishing a clear understanding of the specific complex system context is fundamental to the process of understanding and analyzing complex systems and complex system problems across all of the different systems-based disciplines. While complex system context is widely referred to in systems literature, there is no clear characterization of exactly what system context is, making this foundational system concept ambiguous. This research addressed this gap in the systems body of knowledge by providing the needed detail and clarity to the concept of complex system context. A rigorous research methodology, employing the grounded theory method, was used to analyze data collected through a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with individuals reflecting a wide range of systems education and practical experience. Two research questions were identified as integral to increasing the understanding of context within complex systems. (1) What are the constituent elements of complex system context, and what attributes and dimensions characterize these elements? (2) What systems-based framework can be developed for constructing and articulating complex system context? Using the grounded theory method, a theory of system context was constructed, adding to the systems body of knowledge and substantiating a comprehensive and unambiguous theoretical construct for system context within complex systems. Then, based on this theory, a conceptual model to articulate and capture system-specific complex system context was developed---the Complex System Contextual Framework (CSCF). The CSCF shows significant promise for contribution to systems practitioners by supporting the future development of tools to help practitioners capture system context as a part of complex system problem formulation. The research also made a contribution in the area of research methodologies by furthering the use of the grounded theory method in the engineering management and systems engineering domain, an area where its application has been very limited.

Bioeconomy is a complex economic system, the functioning of which leads to the emergence of a synergy effect due to the effective combination of natural resources and technologies along with the market-based, social, and political components. In a bioeconomic system, established links are formed between traditional industries based on the use of fossil natural resources and modern ones that have not previously intersected. As a result, one industry uses by-products of another industry as raw materials, thus forming a closed production cycle. The purpose of the article is to develop an author’s vision of the conceptual foundations to substantiate the sustainability of the bioeconomic system, taking into account its specific characteristics, modern challenges and potential of the country. The article reveals the features of transformations of socioeconomic systems into a complex adaptive bioeconomic system in a dynamic perspective. The complexity and complicacy of transformation management lies in the relationship and interaction of the elements of the system, as well as between the very system and its environment. A theoretical analysis of the evolution of the concept of «bioeconomy» is carried out and its basic properties are determined. The interpretation of the bioeconomy as a complex adaptive system that ensures the achievement of sustainable development goals is substantiated. Based on empirical data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine and the European Commission, potential sectors of the bioeconomic sector of Ukraine have been identified, and the dynamics of the contribution of potential sectors of Ukraine’s economy to the national economy has been analyzed according to the main indicators: generation of value added and creation of jobs. Based on the theoretical and analytical research, it is proved that bioeconomy, as a complex system combining several sectors of the economy, can adapt to changes occurring in the environment.