scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)

Using Lean to Counteract Complexity

Abstract

Based on a literature review and drawing from the experience of lean implementation in multiple construction projects, this paper explores the notion that simplicity and integrality might be crucial for any production system seeking to develop competences against variations derived from both internal and external sources. A discussion using different systems thinking approaches is conducted to provide a better understanding of the volatile behaviour of complex organizations. The aim is to encourage initiatives that address organizational simplicity and integrality in construction projects and, more important, to highlight the important role of lean tools and principles for this endeavour.

Read accessible full text

Using Lean to Counteract Complexity

Author: Jorge Moreira da Costa,António N. de Miranda Filho,Luiz F. M. Heineck
Year: 2016
Source: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/85349/2/143376.pdf
24 h Annual Con e ence o he In e na ional G oup o Lean Cons uc ion
- Bos on, USA - 2016
(/Pape s/Con e ence/26)
Using Lean o Coun e ac Complexi y
An onio N. de Mi anda Filho , Luiz F. M. Heineck & Jo ge Mo ei a da
Cos a
Ci il Enginee , Ph.D., CEO, Cons u o a San o Ama o L da., Fo aleza, Cea á, B azil, anmi an[email p o ec ed]
Ci il Enginee , Ph.D., Senio P o esso , Business Adminis a ion Depa men , Cea á S a e Uni e si y (UECE), B azil.
[email p o ec ed]
Ci il Enginee , Ph.D., Associa e P o esso , Depa men o Ci il Enginee ing, Uni e si y o Po o (FEUP), Po ugal,
[email p o ec ed].p
Abs ac
Based on a li e a u e e iew and d awing om he expe ience o lean implemen a ion in mul iple
cons uc ion p ojec s, his pape explo es he no ion ha simplici y and in eg ali y migh be c ucial o any
p oduc ion sys em seeking o de elop compe ences agains a ia ions de i ed om bo h in e nal and
ex e nal sou ces. A discussion using di e en sys ems hinking app oaches is conduc ed o p o ide a be e
unde s anding o he ola ile beha iou o complex o ganiza ions. The aim is o encou age ini ia i es ha
add ess o ganiza ional simplici y and in eg ali y in cons uc ion p ojec s and, mo e impo an , o highligh
he impo an ole o lean ools and p inciples o his endea ou .
Keywo ds
Sys ems hinking, o ganiza ional complexi y, p oduc ion sys em design, lean ools
Files
1 2
3
1
2
3
Full Tex (/Pape s/De ails/1355/pd )
Re e ence
Filho, A.N.D.M. , Heineck, L.F.M. & Cos a, J.M.D. 2016, 'Using Lean o Coun e ac Complexi y' In:, 24 h
Annual Con e ence o he In e na ional G oup o Lean Cons uc ion. Bos on, USA, 20-22 Jul 2016.
(/)
REGISTER (/ACCOUNT/REGISTER) LOG IN (/ACCOUNT/LOGIN)
Download: BibTeX (/Pape s/Expo Bib ex/1355) | RIS Fo ma (/Pape s/Expo Ris/1355)
(index.h ml)
Founded in 1993, he IGLC is an in e na ional ne wo k o esea che s om p ac ice and academia in
a chi ec u e, enginee ing, and cons uc ion (AEC) who eel ha he p ac ice, educa ion, and esea ch o he
AEC indus y ha e o be adically enewed in o de o espond o he global challenges ahead.
2015 © All Righ s Rese ed.
Mi anda Filho, A.N., Heineck, L.F.M., and Cos a, J.M. (2016). “Lean as a coun e balance o complexi y.”
In: P oc. 24 h Ann. Con . o he In ’l. G oup o Lean Cons uc ion, Bos on, MA, USA, sec .1 pp. 133–142.
A ailable a : <www.iglc.ne >.
133
Sec ion 1: Theo y
USING LEAN TO COUNTERACT
COMPLEXITY
An onio N. de Mi anda Filho1, Luiz F. M. Heineck2, and Jo ge Mo ei a da Cos a3
ABSTRACT
Based on a li e a u e e iew and d awing om he expe ience o lean implemen a ion in
mul iple cons uc ion p ojec s, his pape explo es he no ion ha simplici y and
in eg ali y migh be c ucial o any p oduc ion sys em seeking o de elop compe ences
agains a ia ions de i ed om bo h in e nal and ex e nal sou ces. A discussion using
di e en sys ems hinking app oaches is conduc ed o p o ide a be e unde s anding o
he ola ile beha iou o complex o ganiza ions. The aim is o encou age ini ia i es ha
add ess o ganiza ional simplici y and in eg ali y in cons uc ion p ojec s and, mo e
impo an , o highligh he impo an ole o lean ools and p inciples o his endea ou .
KEYWORDS
Sys ems hinking, o ganiza ional complexi y, p oduc ion sys em design, lean ools.
INTRODUCTION
The challenge o managing complex p ojec o ganiza ions poin s o he impo ance o
shedding ligh on he easons why lean ools ha e been success ully applied in he
cons uc ion en i onmen while o he so-called bes p ac ices ha e no . The cu en s udy
pu s o wa d ha he pe cei ed gains migh come om o ganiza ional simplici y and
in eg ali y suppo ed by lean ools. Simplici y is a desi able ea u e o a p ojec
o ganiza ional s uc u e because he low deg ee o e ical and ho izon al di e en ia ion
be ween pa icipan s helps o educe he numbe o changes and e en s ha cause
dynamics (e.g., Bacca ini 1996; Ashkenas 2007). Addi ionally, in eg ali y is based on
solu ions ha enhance o ganiza ional p oximi y in di e en dimensions and he eby
imp o e in e ac ions be ween pa icipan s (e.g., Voo dijk e al 2006).
In o de o p o ide a deepe unde s anding, he discussion he ein e isi s he issue o
complexi y caused by he he e ogenei y o p ojec pa icipan s and hei in e ac ion
di icul ies. I is ini ially a gued ha a clea dis inc ion be ween he complex and
complica ed aspec s o p ojec p oduc ion is necessa y o unde s anding he e ec i eness
o ce ain ools. Wi h his di ec i e he discussion ocuses on nonlinea in e ac ions
1 Ci il Enginee , Ph.D., CEO, Cons u o a San o Ama o L da., Fo aleza, Cea á, B azil,
anmi anda @yahoo.com.b
2 Ci il Enginee , Ph.D., Senio P o esso , Business Adminis a ion Depa men , Cea á S a e Uni e si y
(UECE), B azil. [email p o ec ed]
3 Ci il Enginee , Ph.D., Associa e P o esso , Depa men o Ci il Enginee ing, Uni e si y o Po o
(FEUP), Po ugal, jm cos a@ e.up.p
An onio N. de Mi anda Filho , Luiz F. M. Heineck , and Jo ge Mo ei a da Cos a
134 P oceedings IGLC-24, July 2016 | Bos on, USA
wi hin he p ojec o ganiza ion because hese a e he mos ob iously pe cei ed p oblems
associa ed wi h complexi y. Va ia ions in p oduc i i y a es, ewo k and o he
pe o mance measu es a e he ein desc ibed as he inal esul s o nonlinea dynamics.
Thus, ideas om se e al sys em hinking app oaches a e combined o comp ehend how
hese dynamics o igina e and p opaga e wi hin complex p ojec o ganiza ions.
Two main guidelines o coun e measu ing dynamics ha cause de ia ions in
pe o mance a e iden i ied. Rela ed o sys em design and ope a ion, hese guidelines help
o explain he e icacy o he exis ing lean ools and should con ibu e o new
de elopmen s seeking o s abilize p oduc ion sys ems. The pape concludes by pu ing
o wa d he idea ha he sea ch o simplici y and in eg ali y, in con as o complexi y, is
wha in ui i ely guides he success ul enewal solu ions in p ojec p oduc ion.
DISTINGUISHING COMPLEX FROM COMPLICATED
Inside he p ojec o ganiza ion, nonlinea i ies cause wo k e o s o be disp opo iona e o
he esul s. The nonlinea in e ac ions be ween p ojec pa icipan s a e behind wha
cons uc ion esea che s (e.g., Koskela 2000; Balla d e al. 2001) call he a iabili y o
sys ems and subsys ems. This means ha a ia ions in pe o mance measu es a e he
inal esul o nonlinea dynamics be ween pa icipan s. The e o e, ega dless o ha ing
been s a ed by an ex e nal o in e nal e en , he dynamics a e agg a a ed by laws in he
in e connec ions wi hin he o ganiza ional s uc u e.
This no ion leads o a e iew o he common unde s anding o p ojec complexi y. To
begin wi h, Snowden (2003) de ines p oduc s (engine, e ige a o , ca , house, e c.) as
complica ed sys ems, since hei componen s a e s able wi h ime and can be imp o ed by
op imiza ion. In his case he whole is equal o he sum o i s pa s. Di e en ly, complex
sys ems a e complica ed and uns able, which means hey change shape and pa e n wi h
ime (e.g., O osson and Bjö k 2004). A business o ganiza ion is a good example o a
complex sys em whe e small changes exp essed h ough managemen decisions a e
ampli ied by o he ac o s and disp opo iona ely cause la ge e ec s. The mo e people
in ol ed he mo e p obable i is ha comple ely uncon olled dynamic changes will
occu . The nonlinea in e ac ions among hem make he whole di e om he sum o he
pa s.
Fo a long ime, he common assump ion was o in e p e p ojec s solely as
complica ed sys ems, as demons a ed by he use o ans o ma ion model concep s and
ools like PERT/CPM and Line o Balance (e.g., Mendes J . and Heineck 1999).
A e wa ds he e was a endency o in e p e p ojec s exclusi ely as complex sys ems
(e.g., Be elsen 2003; Be elsen and Koskela, 2003). Howe e , bo h app oaches need o
be econside ed and combined so as o isualize each p ojec as a blend o complica ed
sys em (p oduc ) and complex sys em (o ganiza ion). The wo ealms mus be deal wi h
in di e en bu complemen a y ways (e.g., Figu e 1).
A p oduc is cha ac e ized by a se o a ibu es like pu pose, c i e ia, unc ionali ies,
componen s and alue. These a ibu es es ablish he p oduc ’s cos , quali y s anda ds and
deg ee o cons uc abili y. Changes in a ibu es a ec how simple o complica ed will be
a p oduc . On he o he hand, an o ganiza ion is cha ac e ized by he policies, p ocesses,
Using lean o Coun e ac complexi y
Sec ion 1: Theo y 135
s a egic choices, esou ces, capabili ies and compe ences ha gene a e i s obus ness and
cons ain s. Changes in hese cha ac e is ics al e he sys em’s obus ness and ans o m
he way he a ious subsys ems in e ac ou inely o when submi ed o spo adic e en s.
The e is no di ec ela ionship be ween he p oduc ’s le el o complica ion and
o ganiza ional complexi y. A complica ed p oduc can be en i ely designed and buil by a
small eam i he e is su icien ime and skills. This co obo a es he no ion ha
o ganiza ional complexi y is no jus a consequence o p oduc ype, bu a he he
cumula i e esul o decisions ega ding business selec ion, s uc u e and managemen
(e.g. G öble e al. 2006; Ashkenas 2007). The e o e, a small p ojec can be mo e
complex han a la ge one i he e is a g ea amoun o unce ain y, ei he in p oduc goals
o in o ganiza ional me hods, added o ime and cos cons ain s (e.g., Williams 2002).
Figu e 1: A Model o P ojec Realms, whe e Complexi y is mo e Di ec ly De i ed om
O ganiza ional Cha ac e is ics and no Necessa ily om P oduc A ibu es
Dis inguishing a complica ed sys em om a complex sys em is an impo an s ep o guide
imp o emen s in p ojec pe o mance. As men ioned by Sa gu and McG a h (2012),
se ious, expensi e mis akes a e made when a complex o ganiza ion is managed as i i
we e jus a complica ed one. O osson and Bjö k (2004) obse e ha adi ional
managemen p ac ices can deal well wi h complica ed sys ems, i.e. sys ems consis ing o
many componen s ha a e s able o e ime. Complex sys ems, on he o he hand, canno
be deal wi h in he same way as s able sys ems, because he changes a e g ea e in each
chosen ime in e al. The nonlinea in e ac ions in complex sys ems canno be p edic ed

An onio N. de Mi anda Filho , Luiz F. M. Heineck , and Jo ge Mo ei a da Cos a
136 P oceedings IGLC-24, July 2016 | Bos on, USA
by adi ional budge and schedule ools, as hey a e he esul s o ela ionships inside and
among he a ious subg oups in he s uc u e. Thus, coun e ing he ha m ul e ec s o
nonlinea in e ac ions equi es paying close a en ion o he design o unc ional a eas in
he o ganiza ion s uc u e and managing wo k e o s in eal ime as much as possible.
UNDERSTANDING NONLINEARITIES AND VARIATIONS
Unde s anding nonlinea dynamics and how hey a e agg a a ed is a p e equisi e o
de ising solu ions o s uc u ing and managing la ge p ojec o ganiza ions. When acing
a p oblem, manage s end o assume ha some ex e nal e en caused i . Bu no e e y
p oblem is caused by an ex e nal e en and secondly, he way ex e nal e en s e ol e and
a e deal wi h p e y much depends on he o ganiza ion’s in e nal capabili ies. F om he
iewpoin o sys ems hinking, he in e nal s uc u e is o en mo e impo an han ex e nal
e en s in gene a ing p oblems ha a ec pe o mance (e.g., Ki kwood 1998).
The p oblems aced o e and o e by he managemen eam a e, e y o en,
symp oms o an unde lying cause in he o ganiza ional s uc u e. Focusing on a symp om
leads o co ec i e in e en ions ha may ampli y he p oblem o e en gene a e o he
de ia ions. Fo his eason, Toyo a’s s a egy says “ask why 5 imes”, which is i s way o
poin ing ou he need o ind he unde lying cause. Howe e , pe cei ing how nonlinea
dynamics o igina e and p opaga e equi es combining ideas om di e en sys ems
hinking app oaches like heo y o cons ain s, sys em dynamics and complexi y heo y.
To begin wi h, Ki kwood (1998) s a es ha many business p ocesses a e nonlinea ,
especially when p essed o ex emes. Fo example, while i may be ue ha i an
employee wo ks en pe cen longe hou s he will accomplish en pe cen mo e wo k, i is
p obably no ue ha i he wo ks wice as many hou s he will accomplish wice as much
wo k. By ying o inc ease e en u he he amoun o o e ime he employee soon
su e s om a igue, which leads o a educ ion in his wo king e ec i eness. Simila ly,
despi e he e o s o he sales eam, i he deg ee o cus ome demand g ows oo apidly
he a ailable p oduc ion capaci y o a manu ac u ing plan may limi he amoun o a
p oduc ha can be sold, making cus ome sa is ac ion gi e way o dissa is ac ion. These
a e bo h p ac ical examples o nonlinea esponses encoun e ed by business
o ganiza ions. In bo h cases he inal esul is qui e di e en om wha was o iginally
in ended.
Wha s ands ou om hese examples is ha he nonlinea beha iou o he
in e ac ions is agg a a ed by cons ain s in he sys ems. Di e en cons ain s ha e in
common he ac ha hey a e ela ed o he capaci y o he esou ces in ol ed. Indeed,
esou ces a e de ined as hings ha ha e a limi ed capaci y o bea s ain; e.g., labo ,
ools, equipmen , space, and ime (e.g., Balla d e al. 2001; Balla d and Howell 2003).
Al hough sys ems a e some imes cons ained by policies (e.g., Gold a 1990), i is a ac
ha ules can be s e ched while esou ces a e o en physical en i ies ha canno . This
shows he need o conside he impac o o e loaded esou ces in cause-e ec chains.
Rega dless o ha ing been s a ed by an in ended o unin ended e en , he dynamics
o igina ed a e exceeding a esou ce’s load capaci y will always be ha m ul o business
pe o mance. As a ma e o ac , i he desi ed s a e o a subsys em is cha ac e ized by
Using lean o Coun e ac complexi y
Sec ion 1: Theo y 137
speci ic alues o a ele an se o a iables, an e en causing one o hose a iables o
change beyond a ole able limi al e s he s a e and is, he eby, conside ed o be
dis u bing he cou se o he subsys em (e.g., Campagne e al. 1995). Fo his eason, Van
de Me we (2002) men ions ha o en he op imal ope a ing poin o a subsys em is nea
he limi s o cons ain s in he ope a ing window.
Howe e , in cons uc ion p ojec s he cu en ly impeding cons ain ypically changes
wi h ime and si ua ions. The e o e, he e may be li le ime o iden i y and exploi
in e nal cons ain s in complex adap i e sys ems ha ha e a con inuously changing
s uc u e (e.g., Meije , 1998). To make ma e s wo se, he hie a chic laye s and di e en
occupa ional specializa ions wi hin he o ganiza ional s uc u e added o he peculia i ies
o si e p oduc ion ha e a nega i e e ec on he deg ee o ope a ional in e ac ion be ween
p ojec elemen s. This implies ha he e can be no one, bu many unknown cons ain s
ha a e being pushed o he limi as he dynamics p opaga e h oughou he o ganiza ion
all he way o he on line wo ke s. Consequen ly, wha may seem like a simple decision
o eques o a p ojec s akeholde can u n in o a majo exe cise o hund eds o o he
people. Connec ion p oblems be ween componen s o a la ge sys em and he lack o
su icien in o ma ion ega ding he exis ing cons ain s explain why a se ies o ou pu s
may appea andom o an ou side obse e .
The no ion ha dynamics o bo h in ended and unin ended e en s can cause posi i e
and nega i e in luences shows ha i is pa adoxical ha a cons uc ion p ojec is i sel a
p ocess o con inuous change, bu wi hin he p ojec e e y change may be haza dous
(e.g., Lo e e al. 2002). In cons uc ion, manage ial in e en ions o cope wi h
en i onmen al dynamics o o ini ia e planned ac i i ies s a dynamics ha apidly c ea e
in e media e s a es o mo e he p oduc ion sys em om one p ojec phase o ano he
(e.g., Be elsen 2003). Al e a ions in p oduc speci ica ions o scope, hando s be ween
specialis s, inc eases in he wo k o ce, and changes in he cons uc ion si e layou a e jus
a ew examples o such e en s.
Knowing ha dynamics causing posi i e and nega i e in luences co-exis h oughou
a p ojec ’s li e cycle implies ha app op ia e solu ions need o be de ised o maximize
he posi i e e ec s and minimize he nega i e ones. Al hough a sou ce o manage ial
conce n, his ola ile sys emic beha io can be p e en ed i add essed ea ly in he p ocess
o p oduc ion s a egy o mula ion. The decisions made when designing he p oduc ion
sys em can no only c ea e capabili ies ha educe he nega i e in luences o ha m ul
dynamics, bu also induce a p ojec o unde go less in e sec ing phase ansi ions.
Unde lying he p oduc ion sys em design and ope a ion should be he philosophy ha a
sys em canno achie e managemen goals no be imp o ed i i is no s able. E en hough
cons uc ion p ojec s need o pass h ough a se ies o phase ansi ions, i is necessa y o
place emphasis in unde s anding how p oduc ion sys ems can be designed and ope a ed
o deal wi h dynamics ha cause a p ocess o a y om he expec ed o desi ed s a e.
PROPOSING GUIDELINES FOR STABILIZATION
Field obse a ions suppo he no ion ha o e loaded esou ces in cause-e ec chains
agg a a e he nonlinea beha iou o in e ac ions. Ano he in e es ing no ion is ha
An onio N. de Mi anda Filho , Luiz F. M. Heineck , and Jo ge Mo ei a da Cos a
138 P oceedings IGLC-24, July 2016 | Bos on, USA
nonlinea i ies be ween p ojec s akeholde s na u ally a ise om hei dis ance in e ms o
communica ion, geog aphy, wo k pa e n, cul u e, and echnology. Those wo insigh s a e
pa icula ly impo an o app ecia e he di icul y o making decisions in a empo a y
o ganiza ion cha ac e ized by high di ision o wo k and many hie a chic laye s.
E en so, decision-making in cons uc ion managemen is mainly based on he
educ ionis hinking, whe e he ocus is on a smalle numbe o decision a eas and
possible ou comes. This is especially ue o ime-s essed si ua ions. Reduc ionis
hinking causes manage ial in e en ions o be mo e equen and commonly aken om a
mac oscopic pe spec i e. A la ge p ojec obse ed mac oscopically is cha ac e ized and
e alua ed based on ew a iables, which c ea es he illusion o a p edic able beha iou .
Hence, decisions a e made conside ing a ela i ely small numbe o a iables, such as he
ma ch be ween esou ces and asks o accomplish a p ojec schedule. Howe e , as
men ioned by O osson and Bjö k (2004), decision-making cen alized in uppe
hie a chic le els will ha e se ious p oblems in g asping he small hings, which include
in e ela ionships and cons ain s. Thus, in a pa icula p ojec he di e en in e en ions
a e ei he done: op imis ically, wi h unknown cons ain s being o e loaded and s a ing
ha m ul dynamics; o pessimis ically, wi h unknown cons ain s being deal wi h by
bu e s placed in p ojec plans. This p o ides a pa ial explana ion o why de ailed long-
e m planning and budge ing a e a he meaningless in p ac ice.
The combina ion be ween educ ionis hinking and mac oscopic pe spec i e
illus a es he p oblem wi h s a egies ha allow he occu ence o many e en s and ha
os e cen alized decision-making. The high p obabili y o occu ing uncon ollable
dynamics ha cause de ia ions indica es ha manage s should no y o manage
complexi y, bu a he o o ganize hei way a ound i (e.g., Meije 1998). The e o e, wo
complemen a y guidelines o a be e s abiliza ion o la ge p ojec p oduc ion sys ems
a e p oposed:
Reduce he numbe o in ended and unin ended e en s/changes o be handled by he
p oduc ion sys em. This i s guideline is mo e ela ed o o ganiza ional
simplici y. In ense and o e lapping manage ial in e en ions o abso b
en i onmen al dynamics o o ini ia e planned ac i i ies a e likely o o e load
esou ces and he eby s a ha m ul dynamics. Fo his eason, o e -in e en ion,
which is quan i ied by he magni ude and he equency o changes, is coun e -
p oduc i e.
Imp o e he p oduc ion sys em’s in eg a ion by inc easing he quali y and quan i y o
in e ac ions be ween p ojec s akeholde s. This second guideline is mo e ela ed o
o ganiza ional in eg ali y. Designing a p oduc ion sys em in a way ha enhances
he deg ee o p oximi y be ween pa icipan s imp o es hei in e ac ions and
allows hem o help in keeping he subsys ems ope a ing op imally nea he limi s
o he closes ac i e cons ain s. This educes nonlinea i ies in he sys em and
consequen ly enhances p ojec pe o mance.
Using lean o Coun e ac complexi y
Sec ion 1: Theo y 139
FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES THROUGH LEAN
In o de o ollow he guidelines, i is impo an o pe cei e he d i e s o o ganiza ional
complexi y ha can be minimized. The i s in luence comes om ex e nal d i e s o
complexi y. The business s a egy es ablishes he ex e nal en i onmen al complexi y in
which he i m will compe e. As a esul , he complexi y o he o ganiza ion’s in e nal
s uc u e ends o ma ch ha o he ex e nal en i onmen . E en i ms ha ha e
ou sou ced many o hei p oduc ion asks s ill need o ake in o accoun a numbe o
aspec s and o emphasize con ol on he in e ela ions wi h he ou sou cees (e.g., Meije ,
2002). This is especially ue o he lead i m in a la ge-scale p oduc de elopmen
cha ac e ized by si e p oduc ion and pe o med unde a igh schedule.
Fo una ely, business o ganiza ions a e able o selec o a ce ain deg ee he ex e nal
en i onmen hey wan o li e in depending on i s complexi y (e.g. G öble e al. 2006). I
is up o op manage s o decide abou a speci ic s a egic o ien a ion o pa icula
geog aphic a ea in which he i m will compe e. The e o e, complexi y is conside ed
lowe o i ms wi h a ocus on ce ain cus ome segmen s o highe deg ee o
geog aphical concen a ion. The choice o c ea e alue o a limi ed well-chosen se o
cus ome s helps o educe he numbe o aspec s ha need o be aken in o accoun
simul aneously and o lowe he bandwid h and andomness o in e ela ions (Meije ,
2002). In o he wo ds, ocusing he business p oposi ion can no only educe he exposu e
o e en s and unplanned changes ha cause dynamics bu also imp o e he quali y o
in e ac ions be ween s akeholde s. This is well aligned wi h he abo emen ioned wo
guidelines o imp o ing sys emic s abili y.
Rega ding he second in luence o o ganiza ional complexi y, i is impo an o
ecognize he in e nal d i e s ha la gely con ibu e o he he e ogenei y o pa icipan s,
unc ions, and p ocesses pe o med wi hin he sys em. As men ioned be o e, he way an
o ganiza ion is s uc u ed s ongly shapes i s inne complexi y. The e o e, despi e he
in luence o con ex ual ac o s in he ex e nal en i onmen , a leas o a ce ain deg ee,
o ganiza ions a e able o educe in e nal complexi y (e.g. G öble e al. 2006).
The educ ion o in e nal complexi y is jus i ied by he need o coun e nonlinea i ies.
The no ion ha bo h in ended and unin ended e en s can s a ha m ul dynamics
highligh s he impo ance o o ganiza ional ea u es ha shield downs eam ac i i ies
om dis u bances o ha os e adap i e managemen schemes (e.g., Mawby and
S upples 2002; Balla d and Howell 2003). To do so, o ganiza ional s uc u ing in ci il
cons uc ion should pay mo e a en ion o s a egies and p ac ices ha enhance simplici y
and in eg ali y. O ganiza ional simplici y based on low di e en ia ion can educe
changes and e en s ha cause dynamics. Complemen a ily, o ganiza ional in eg ali y
based on p oximi y in di e en dimensions can educe nonlinea i ies wi hin dynamics.
Ini ia i es aimed o s eng hen linkages be ween pa icipan s in empo a y
o ganiza ions allow hem o help in keeping he dynamics om o e loading he cu en ly
ac i e cons ain s. The lowe deg ee o di e en ia ion and he highe deg ee o p oximi y
elimina e in e media e ba ie s o lows, including laye s o au ho i y ela ionships in he
chain o command, and empowe people a each le el o make decisions and sol e
e e yday p oblems. Hence, each wo k eam becomes an a ac o ha ensu es ha a