Skip to main content

Managing Systems Complexity Through Congruence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to explore a new approach to systems management through an adaptive method that informs systems competency. The approach is bundled into a management tool, the CX Tool©. The CX Tool is a visual management method that measures and adapts between the reality of the current state and the desired condition of the future state for systems such as human and information. In managing these systems, the state of congruence between organizational thinking and doing is measured based on selected metrics and with consideration of the nature of systems as emergent, complex, adaptive and interrelated. Within the realms of thinking and doing, specific system elements are examined and measured for metric quality and the state of congruence in four tiers. For example, in Tier One, the CX Tool allows for visual diagramming of a system’s current and future states. It also enables analyses within, between and/or among system elements based on singular inputs. And further, in Tier Two, the CX Tool accounts for multiple inputs. In doing so, this tool informs specific points of improvement and draws also out the adaptive influences of specific changes in the system upon deployment. The CX Tool is based on the theoretical foundations of several scholars. In the following discussion of human-initiated systems, therefore, new consideration is provided in regard to management strategies for better agency to:

  1. 1.

    Grasp and then leverage system attributes to directional consequences

  2. 2.

    Interact with the system to produce organizational learning and results

  3. 3.

    Manage system congruence between thinking and doing based on system metrics of value

Theories of systems, systems management, organizational sense making and system dissonance/congruence are presented to frame the foundations of the CX Tool. In short, the CX Tool seeks to add to the body of knowledge on systems management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Glasser, W. (1994). The control theory manager. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative problem solving. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Felder, W. N., & Collopy, P. (2012). The elephant in the mist: What we don’t know about the design, development, test and management of complex systems. Journal of Aerospace Operations, 1(4), 317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Princeton Studies in Complexity.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jones, K. H., Parker, P. A., Detweiler, K. A., McGowan, A. R, Dress, D. A., & Kimmel, W. M. (2013). Analysis and perspectives from the Complex Aerospace Systems Exchange (CASE) (pp. 1–12). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drucker, P., Collins, J., Kotler, P., Kouzes, J., Rodin, J., Kasturi-Rangan, V., et al. (2008). The five most important questions you will ever ask about your organization. Leader to Leader Institute. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wheatley, M. (2002). We are all innovators. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & I. Somerville (Eds.), Leading for innovation and organizing for results (pp. 11–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, The Drucker Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burke, J. (2002). When 1 + 1 = 3. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & I. Somerville (Eds.), Leading for innovation and organizing for results (pp. 185–196). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, The Drucker Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bánáthy, B. H. (2000). Guided evolution of society: A systems view. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Madni, A. M. (2012). Elegant systems design: The fusion of simplicity and power. Systems Engineering, 15(3), 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Felder, W. N. (n.d.). Interactions among components in complex systems (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ: Stevens Institute of Technology, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

    Google Scholar 

  14. US News & World Report Health. (2014). Mayo clinic [online report]. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/mn/mayo-clinic-661MAYO

  15. Mannion, J. (2005). Essential philosophy: Everything you need to understand the world’s greatest thinkers. Avon, MA: Adams Media Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Templeton, G. F., & Dowdy, J. F. (2011). CASE-mediated organizational and deuteron learning at NASA. Information Systems Frontiers, 2012(14), 741–764.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier [ibook]. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 82668655): http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=1&ver=1&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=82668655&exp=04-09-2016&scaling=FULL&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1302576861&clientId=43939

  19. Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17: S11–S58. doi: 10.1002/1099-1743(200011). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.133.7381&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  20. Ackoff, R. (2004, May). Transforming the systems movement. Opening Speech at 3rd International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/RLAConfPaper.pdf

  21. Amen, H., Flumerfelt, S., Halada, G., & Kahlen, F. J. (2011, December). Complexity and consequence: [Crowdsourcing Project]. Mechanical Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Amen, H., Flumerfelt, S., Halada, G., & Kahlen, F. J. (2012, March). Complexity by design: [Crowdsourcing Project]. Mechanical Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education: Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34, 26–39. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down-load?doi=10.1.1.34.1082&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  24. Calvo-Amodio, J., Patterson, P. E., Smith, M. L., & Burns, J. R. (2014). A generalized system dynamics model for managing transition-phases in healthcare environments. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation, 1(1), 13–30. Retrieved from http://www.atlantis-press.com/php/download_paper.php?id=14481

  25. Calvo-Amodio, J., Flumerfelt, S., & Hoyle, C. (2014). A complementarist approach to lean systems management. 2014 International Society for the Systems Sciences Conference, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Calvo-Amodio, J., Patterson, P. E., Smith, M. L., & Burns, J. R. (2015). Application of transition-phase management model for an electronic health record system implementation: A case study. Engineering Management Journal, 27(3), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Calvo-Amodio, J. (2013). Transition-phase management model as an action research tool for healthcare managers. In Proceedings of the 2013 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vitiello, P. F., & Kalawksy, R. S. (2012). Visual analytics: A sense making framework for systems thinking in systems engineering. IEEE International Systems Conference SysCon 2012, pp. 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shewhart, W. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Washington, DC: Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the crisis. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bahill, A. T., & Gissing, B. (1998). Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics—Part C, 28(4), 516–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Snowden, D. J. (2000, July). Cynefin, a sense of time and place: An ecological approach to sense making and learning in formal and informal communities. Conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston. CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.196.3058.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Drucker, P. (1998). The coming of the new organization. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jensen, E. (1996). Brain-based learning. Del Mar, CA: Turning Point Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Arygis, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory to practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Moss-Kanter, E. (1989). When giants learn to dance (p. 21). New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Frank, M. (2000). Thinking and systems thinking. Systems Engineering, 3(3), 163–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Argyis, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational XXX. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Argyis, C., & Schon, C. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ward, D. (2010, March–April). Faster, cheaper, better revisited: Program management lessons from NASA. Defense AT&L.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can’t lead: The unconscious conspiracy continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hurwitz, J. (2012, November 20). Re: Hewlett-Packard: It only gets worse. Business week, The management blog. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-20/whyyou-still-can-t-bet-on-a-hewlett-packard-comeback

  48. Taylor, W. C. (2011, September 11). How Hewlett Packard lost the HP Way. Business week: The management blog. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/management/how-hewlettpackard-lost-the-hp-way-09232011.html

  49. Associated Press. (2005, May 31). Enron’s auditors edict reversed: Supreme Court rules June ’02 obstruction decision flawed. Corporate Scandals on NBC News.com. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8046535/ns/business-corporate_scandals/t/enron-auditors-verdict-reversed/#.VJjMBJ0FwA

  50. Rapoport, M. (2014, September 2). Tax firm to revive Arthur Andersen name: Enron scandal brought down firm; consultant is buying rights to use name. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-firm-to-revive-arthur-andersen-name1409626508

  51. Markman, A. (2012). Smart thinking: Three essential keys to solve problems, innovate, and get things done. Toronto: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Flumerfelt, S., Kahlen, F.-J., Alves, A. C., Calvo-Amodio, J., & Hoyle, C. (2014, November 14–20). Systems competency for engineering practice. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE2014), Montreal, PQ.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Geiger, N. (2012, July). On tying Medicare reimbursement to patient satisfaction surveys [online]. American Journal of Nursing, 112(7), 11. Retrieved from LWW Journals: http://journals.lww.com/ajnonline

  55. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Calvo-Amodio, J., & Flumerfelt, S. (2015). Sense-making between and across stakeholder perspectives. 2015 International Society for the Systems Sciences Conference, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon Flumerfelt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: The CX Tool

Appendix: The CX Tool

1.1 Description of the CX Tool

The CX Tool is a mental model “test kit” that can be used for analysis of any current or new system, process or project. “C” in the name stands for “congruence” or “equal state” and “X” stands for the myriad of ways that congruence can be developed or improved in a system, resulting in up to 21 points of congruence. This tool fully employs the Plan-DoCheck-Adjust organizational learning loop, a foundational concept of Lean.

The CX Tool identifies two Areas, Organizational Intelligence and Performance Management, with three Elements each. The three Elements for Organizational Intelligence are Essential Ideas, Essential Processes/Protocols/Structures/Taxonomies and Essential Assessments/Audits. The three Elements for Performance Management are Essential Actions, Essential Standards, and Essential Deliverables. The interrelationships between the six Elements represent points of Congruence.

When using this CX Lean Tool, a visual depiction of the current state of a system or process is created for an easier examination and prioritization of points of improvement needed in a system. By improving a system to include all six Elements, to place all Six Elements in the appropriate Area and to create Congruence between Elements, immediate benefits can be realized. The CX Tool helps managers test for three states in a system. First, the model tests for the presence of six essential Elements. Second, the model tests for the placement of six Elements into Organizational Intelligence activities and Performance Management activities. Third, the model tests for the Congruence of these Elements within and between using three Metrics, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Relevance.

The CX Tool has been used in organizations to improve systems and processes that include strategic planning, core service programming, leadership development, technology systems, budgeting processes, support services, employee evaluation systems, and professional development/training. Directions for using the CX Tool and definitions of the Areas, Elements and Metrics follow.

1.2 Directions for the CX Tool

  1. 1.

    Consider any process, system or initiative in your organization and read the attached definitions of the two Areas, six Elements and three Metrics to understand the scope of the CX Lean Tool.

  2. 2.

    Identify a specific system, process or initiative, whether strategic or tactical, in your organization for analysis in its Current State.

  3. 3.

    Beginning with any of the six system Elements, identify one that is present in your system and enter a short description of it in the boxed space provided.

  4. 4.

    Then consider which, if any, of the other five system Elements are present in your current system and write short descriptions of those in the boxed spaces provided. You may decide there are some missing system Elements, so leave those spaces blank. The absence of any of the six Elements is a point of improvement.

  5. 5.

    Last, consider the three Metrics of Congruence both vertically and horizontally between present Elements. Circle those ratings numbers for Efficiency, Effectiveness, Relevance and then Congruence. Given the presence of all six Elements, it is possible to identify the state of Congruence between three horizontal pairs (Essential Ideas to Essential Actions, Essential PPSTs to Essential Standards and Essential Assessments/Audits to Essential Deliverables) and among two vertical quadruplets (Essential Ideas to Essential PPSTs to Essential Assessments/Audits to Essential Ideas and Essential Actions to Essential Standards to Essential Deliverables to Essential Actions). In the end, there may be Congruence between all Elements, a possible 21 states of Congruence. For beginners, it is most helpful to examine the horizontal pairs and vertical quadruplets first.

  6. 6.

    Based on the absence of an Element or based on the worst Congruence rating, identify areas for improvement. Develop a description of the Future State and reassess that state after initiating improvements using this CX Lean Tool.

1.3 Definitions for the CX Tool

1.3.1 Two System Areas

Organizational Intelligence is the “shared smarts” or “IQ” of a corporate group based on its capacity to create and manage knowledge well.

Performance Management is the “shared work” of a corporate group based on its capacity to create and manage activity well.

1.3.2 Six System Elements

1.3.2.1 Organizational Intelligence

Essential Ideas are key concepts, major theories, big ideas or “meaning” that exists collectively. Examples are shared vision or benchmarks of practice, like the need to diversify, the benefit of new market development, the impact of going “green,” or the value of collaborating to co-innovate. Essential Process-Protocol-Structural understandings are identified steps, forces and systems, both tacit and explicit, that are commonly understood. Examples are governance structures, business architecture, policies and practices, like budgeting processes, HR protocols, IT systems, Customer Records Management systems, training and development, manufacturing processes, grievance processes, social networks or strategic planning.

Essential Assessments-Audits are corporate data collection and analysis activities using quantitative and/or qualitative data and formative or summative assessments. Examples are analytics of operations or business intelligence, such as resource allocation effectiveness, performance activity results, ROI, scalability data, contextualized results, test or performance scores or achievement data.

1.3.2.2 Performance Management

Essential Actions are core values, initiatives, corporate ethos, and traditions that demonstrate what is highly valued in the culture by what is done. Examples are customer service, guarantees of conduct or quality, implementation of new initiatives, use of e-learning for training, product recalls, new marketing initiatives based on globalization, resource allocation to support an initiative, or capital expenditures.

Essential Standards in action are compliance-based or professionally-based codes designed to produce a result valued in the culture. They can be explicitly defined or tacitly understood behaviors. Examples are risk management compliance, key performance indicators or operational standards, like SOX compliance, globalization standards, expectations for creativity, common syntax, professional codes of conduct, organizational citizenship behavior, commonly shared practice or behavior shaped by culture. Essential Deliverables in action are the valued tangible and intangibles results of corporate effort aligned with mission. Examples are realized transactional or transformational value, thought leadership, societal improvement, quality products, outstanding service delivery, customer satisfaction, research and development breakthroughs or community service.

1.3.3 Three Congruence Metrics

Congruence is an equal state between Elements. Congruence, as opposed to equivalence or approximation, is a relation which implies a parallel existence. Congruence is not the same as alignment, which is more linear in nature. Congruence includes the concept of alignment, but is more expansive by including intensity, pace and interdependency of the interrelationship between Elements as being equal.

The metrics of Congruence in the CX Lean Tool are Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Relevance. Efficiency is a metric of Congruence that demonstrates the ability to achieve a desired result without wasted resources, energy or effort such as minimizing wasted time, motion or funds.

Effectiveness is a metric of Congruence causing an intended result that is favorable to organizational mission and performance such as facilitating sales objectives, employee productivity or financial stability.

Relevance is a metric of Congruence that is the sensible or logical connection that an activity has to a bigger scope such as department to organizational objectives, corporate to real-world issues, research and development to the marketplace, and executive goals to stakeholder value.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Flumerfelt, S., Alves, A., Calvo-Amodio, J., Hoyle, C., Kahlen, FJ. (2017). Managing Systems Complexity Through Congruence. In: Kahlen, J., Flumerfelt, S., Alves, A. (eds) Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38756-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics