How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition in development projects

New product development projects are experiencing increasing internal and external project complexity. Complexity leadership theory proposes that external complexity requires adaptive and enabling leadership, which facilitates opportunity recognition (OR). We ask whether internal complexity also requires OR for increased adaptability. We extend a model of EO and OR to conclude that internal complexity may require more careful OR. This means that leaders of technically or structurally complex projects need to evaluate opportunities more carefully than those in projects with external or technological complexity.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

Boundary weaving : the social structure and processes of organizational boundaries

Boundaries are an important field of study because they mediate almost every aspect of organizational life. They are becoming increasingly more important as organizations change more frequently and yet, despite the endemic use of the boundary metaphor in common organizational parlance, they are poorly understood. Organizational boundaries are under-theorized and researchers in related fields often simply assume their existence, without defining them. The literature on organizational boundaries is fragmented with no unifying theoretical basis. As a result, when it is recognized that an organizational boundary is "dysfunctional". there is little recourse to models on which to base remediating action. This research sets out to develop just such a theoretical model and is guided by the general question: "What is the nature of organizational boundaries?" It is argued that organizational boundaries can be conceptualised through elements of both social structure and of social process. Elements of structure include objects, coupling, properties and identity. Social processes include objectification, identification, interaction and emergence. All of these elements are integrated by a core category, or basic social process, called boundary weaving. An organizational boundary is a complex system of objects and emergent properties that are woven together by people as they interact together, objectifying the world around them, identifying with these objects and creating couplings of varying strength and polarity as well as their own fragmented identity. Organizational boundaries are characterised by the multiplicity of interconnections, a particular domain of objects, varying levels of embodiment and patterns of interaction. The theory developed in this research emerged from an exploratory, qualitative research design employing grounded theory methodology. The field data was collected from the training headquarters of the New Zealand Army using semi-structured interviews and follow up observations. The unit of analysis is an organizational boundary. Only one research context was used because of the richness and multiplicity of organizational boundaries that were present. The model arose, grounded in the data collected, through a process of theoretical memoing and constant comparative analysis. Academic literature was used as a source of data to aid theory development and the saturation of some central categories. The final theory is classified as middle range, being substantive rather than formal, and is generalizable across medium to large organizations in low-context societies. The main limitation of the research arose from the breadth of the research with multiple lines of inquiry spanning several academic disciplines, with some relevant areas such as the role of identity and complexity being addressed at a necessarily high level. The organizational boundary theory developed by this research replaces the typology approaches, typical of previous theory on organizational boundaries and reconceptualises the nature of groups in organizations as well as the role of "boundary spanners". It also has implications for any theory that relies on the concept of boundaries, such as general systems theory. The main contribution of this research is the development of a holistic model of organizational boundaries including an explanation of the multiplicity of boundaries . no organization has a single definable boundary. A significant aspect of this contribution is the integration of aspects of complexity theory and identity theory to explain the emergence of higher-order properties of organizational boundaries and of organizational identity. The core category of "boundary weaving". is a powerful new metaphor that significantly reconceptualises the way organizational boundaries may be understood in organizations. It invokes secondary metaphors such as the weaving of an organization's "boundary fabric". and provides managers with other metaphorical perspectives, such as the management of boundary friction, boundary tension, boundary permeability and boundary stability. Opportunities for future research reside in formalising and testing the theory as well as developing analytical tools that would enable managers in organizations to apply the theory in practice.

A conceptualization of complexity in IS-driven organizational transformations

Organizational transformations reliant on successful ICT system developments (continue to) fail to deliver projected benefits even when contemporary governance models are applied rigorously. Modifications to traditional program, project and systems development management methods have produced little material improvement to successful transformation as they are unable to routinely address the complexity and uncertainty of dynamic alignment of IS investments and innovation. Complexity theory provides insight into why this phenomenon occurs and is used to develop a conceptualization of complexity in IS-driven organizational transformations. This research-in-progress aims to identify complexity formulations relevant to organizational transformation. Political/power based influences, interrelated business rules, socio-technical innovation, impacts on stakeholders and emergent behaviors are commonly considered as characterizing complexity while the proposed conceptualization accommodates these as connectivity, irreducibility, entropy and/or information gain in hierarchically approximation and scaling, number of states in a finite automata and/or dimension of attractor, and information and/or variety.

Complexity and learning behaviors in product innovation

Successful product innovation and the ability of companies to continuously improve their innovation processes are rapidly becoming essential requirements for competitive advantage and long-term growth in both manufacturing and service industries. It is now recognized that companies must develop innovation capabilities across all stages of the product development, manufacture, and distribution cycle. These Continuous Product Innovation (CPI) capabilities are closely associated with a company’s knowledge management systems and processes. Companies must develop mechanisms to continuously improve these capabilities over time. Using results of an international survey on CPI practices, sets of companies are identified by similarities in specific contingencies related to their complexity of product, process, technological, and customer interface. Differences between the learning behaviors found present in the company groups and in the levers used to develop and support these behaviors are identified and discussed. This paper also discusses appropriate mechanisms for firms with similar complexities, and some approaches they can use to improve their organizational learning and product innovation.

Complexity, evolution, and the structure of demand

This chapter argues that evolutionary economics should be founded upon complex systems theory rather than neo-Darwinian analogies concerning natural selection, which focus on supply side considerations and competition amongst firms and technologies. It suggests that conceptions such as production and consumption functions should be replaced by network representations, in which the preferences or, more correctly, the aspirations of consumers are fundamental and, as such, the primary drivers of economic growth. Technological innovation is viewed as a process that is intermediate between these aspirational networks, and the organizational networks in which goods and services are produced. Consumer knowledge becomes at least as important as producer knowledge in determining how economic value is generated. It becomes clear that the stability afforded by connective systems of rules is essential for economic flexibility to exist, but that too many rules result in inert and structurally unstable states. In contrast, too few rules result in a more stable state, but at a low level of ordered complexity. Economic evolution from this perspective is explored using random and scale free network representations of complex systems.

Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies

The concept of focus on opportunities describes how many new goals, options, and possibilities employees believe to have in their personal future at work. This study investigated the specific and shared effects of age, job complexity, and the use of successful aging strategies called selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC) in predicting focus on opportunities. Results of data collected from 133 employees of one company (mean age = 38 years, SD = 13, range 16–65 years) showed that age was negatively, and job complexity and use of SOC strategies were positively related to focus on opportunities. In addition, older employees in high-complexity jobs and older employees in low-complexity jobs with high use of SOC strategies were better able to maintain a focus on opportunities than older employees in low-complexity jobs with low use of SOC strategies.

On Ordinal VC-Dimension and Some Notions of Complexity

We generalize the classical notion of Vapnik–Chernovenkis (VC) dimension to ordinal VC-dimension, in the context of logical learning paradigms. Logical learning paradigms encompass the numerical learning paradigms commonly studied in Inductive Inference. A logical learning paradigm is defined as a set W of structures over some vocabulary, and a set D of first-order formulas that represent data. The sets of models of ϕ in W, where ϕ varies over D, generate a natural topology W over W. We show that if D is closed under boolean operators, then the notion of ordinal VC-dimension offers a perfect characterization for the problem of predicting the truth of the members of D in a member of W, with an ordinal bound on the number of mistakes. This shows that the notion of VC-dimension has a natural interpretation in Inductive Inference, when cast into a logical setting. We also study the relationships between predictive complexity, selective complexity—a variation on predictive complexity—and mind change complexity. The assumptions that D is closed under boolean operators and that W is compact often play a crucial role to establish connections between these concepts. We then consider a computable setting with effective versions of the complexity measures, and show that the equivalence between ordinal VC-dimension and predictive complexity fails. More precisely, we prove that the effective ordinal VC-dimension of a paradigm can be defined when all other effective notions of complexity are undefined. On a better note, when W is compact, all effective notions of complexity are defined, though they are not related as in the noncomputable version of the framework.

Building an organizational change communication theory

The difficulty of communicating during organizational change has intensified with the prevalence of continuously changing organizations (Buchanan, Claydon & Doyle, 1999). The difficulty faced by managers is compounded by the lack of studies examining organizational communication within a context of organizational change (Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy, & Laine-Timmerman, 1999; Lewis & Seibold, 1996). Not surprisingly then, is there a paucity of organizational change theory to guide further research and practitioners. This paper addresses the lack of organizational change communication research and contributes to theoretical development of communication during organizational change. A model of change communication during continuous change is presented from the analysis of two longitudinal empirical studies. Central constructs of the model are the monologic change communication, the dialogic change communication and the background talk of change. Further Van de Ven and Poole's (1995) Process Theories of Change are extended to consider the sequencing of the three constructs. The findings suggest that the sequencing of the dominant change communication approaches is informed by an alignment of individual communication competences and organizational change communication expectations.