Mercado como um sistema complexo em permanente adaptação

"Markets are a classic case of a complex adaptive system (CAS). Mathematicians developed CASs as a distinct category between systems that are ordered but very complicated, like the flight deck of a modern airliner, and outright chaotic systems, like weather, which is subject to the famous “butterfly effect.

...

Because CASs don’t obey ordinary laws of cause and effect, we have to throw out the simplistic view of markets as supply-and-demand curves. Also heading for the trash can is the old, linear view of strategy as a detailed master plan drawn up in phase one and executed in phase two.

...

The firm is one of the agents or actors, inside the market system. Although CASs don’t follow ordinary cause and effect in a way that even an expert consultant can predict, they are amenable to a degree of influence by their parts, and those include the firm.

...

CAS tells us that markets will continually evolve
and that we’ll have to deal with it! ... They do not pre-exist as eternal givens. Neither do they pop magically into and out of existence, nor are they fixed while they’re around."

 Trechos retirados de SMASH: Using Market Shaping to Design New Strategies for Innovation, Value Creation, and Growth de Kaj Storbacka e Suvi Nenonen. 

"small actions can make a disproportionate impact"

"it is characteristic of complex systems that small actions can make a disproportionate impact. You just don’t know, won’t know, until you try. And try again.

...

What makes people and institutions abandon old bad habits and acquire new, better ones? Some argue that pressure eventually produces a tipping point, while others maintain it’s all about the cogency or timing of the message. When large corporations and institutions require strategic change, investors and participants demand a theory of change that promises to contain or define their risk. But the test of a good theory is that it can predict—and what we know about complex systems is that, while aspects of them may repeat, they are inherently unpredictable. So theories of change in highly dynamic systems might purport to offer certainty, where it often proves most illusory. The value of experiments is that they disrupt apathy, acknowledge ambiguity, and give people hope."

Trechos retirados de "Uncharted: How to Navigate the Future" de Margaret Heffernan.

"test out the future"

"it is characteristic of complex systems that small actions can make a disproportionate impact. You just don’t know, won’t know, until you try. And try again.

...

What makes people and institutions abandon old bad habits and acquire new, better ones? Some argue that pressure eventually produces a tipping point, while others maintain it’s all about the cogency or timing of the message. When large corporations and institutions require strategic change, investors and participants demand a theory of change that promises to contain or define their risk. But the test of a good theory is that it can predict—and what we know about complex systems is that, while aspects of them may repeat, they are inherently unpredictable. So theories of change in highly dynamic systems might purport to offer certainty, where it often proves most illusory. The value of experiments is that they disrupt apathy, acknowledge ambiguity, and give people hope.

...

Experiments are pragmatic ways to test out the future, but to have real impact requires that other people contribute.

...

traditional management is addicted to grand plans. However much executives claim to want, and to support, innovation and so-called transformation, much of their enthusiasm runs tepid to cold. They want safety and certainty, not the creativity and risk that come with experimentation. The irony is lost on no one: the more they demand certainty, the more they constrain their chance to discover a safer future.

...

Nowhere has this constraint been more obvious than amid the bloodbath of retail, where companies seem to have taken to heart Hilaire Belloc’s line: “always keep ahold of Nurse / For fear of finding something worse.” So afraid are they of failure that they plan shop closures and layoffs with meticulous efficiency—while failing to be inventive enough to keep those businesses alive. Market analysts may call this creative destruction but it’s hard to find much that’s creative about it. Experiments and innovation are almost nowhere to be seen."

Trechos retirados de "Uncharted: How to Navigate the Future" de Margaret Heffernan.

Ecossistemas, transitoriedade e a morte do regime (parte II)

Parte I.

Isto que se segue deve ser blasfémia para os crentes no Grande Planeador, no Grande Geometra:

"The actors in the system are continuously driving adaptation of the system. By the time we decide what to do, it is quite possible, if not likely, that the system has changed in a way that renders our decision obsolete by the time it is acted upon. And by the time we have figured that out, the system will have changed again. Because of that adaptability, our design principle must be to balance the desire for perfection with the drive for improvement.
.
In a machine model, the pursuit of perfection makes sense. It is sensible to analyze the machine in every detail in order to understand how to maximize its performance and, once that optimum performance level has been achieved, then defend against any attempt to change the way the machine works—because it is performing as well as it possibly can. At this point, any failure in the machine’s performance is likely to be interpreted as pilot error or not giving the machine enough input or time. This is what philosophers call a justificationist stance. There is a perfect answer out there to be sought, and when that perfect answer is found, the search is over. The task then turns from searching for the perfect answer to protecting the perfect answer against any attempt to alter it. It feels noble to aim for, fight for, and protect perfection.
.
However, in an adaptive system, there is no perfect destination; there is no end to the journey. The actors in it keep adapting to how it works. In nature, this happens reflexively, as with a tree that turns to the sunlight due to the force of nature, and by growing taller obscures the sunlight for those in its increasing shadow. In the economy, adaptation “happens reflectively. People take in the available inputs and make choices, and those choices influence the choices and behaviors of the other humans in the system.
...
So, although the pursuit of perfection may seem like a noble goal, in a complex adaptive system it is delusional and dangerous. In a cruel paradox, seeking perfection does not enhance the probability of achieving said perfection. In a complex adaptive system, it is not possible to know in advance the organized, sequential steps toward perfection. Guesses can be made. Better and worse vectors can be reasonably chosen. But perfection is an unrealistic direct goal, with the problematic downside of creating a paradise for gamers. As justificationists staunchly defend a system they perceive to be perfect, gamers are only given more time and space to enrich themselves at the system’s long-term expense."

Trechos retirados de "When More Is Not Better" de Roger Martin 

Acreditar nas pessoas

Ao ver esta proposta de cartaz:

Dúvida sincera 1: se o cidadão mantiver distanciamento e evitar ajuntamentos com mais de 10 pessoas qual o problema de permanecer na praia e tomar banhos de sol ou de mar?

Dúvida sincera 2: se é proibido ficar na praia o distancimento e proibição de ajuntamentos são para quem? pic.twitter.com/TXCN3JVSTu

— Paulo Ferreira (@pauloferreira1) May 11, 2020

Pensei em mais uma oportunidade para a venezuelização entrar na nossa sociedade, com a introdução de regras absurdas numa lógica de top down, dos papás para as crianças.

E recuei a Agosto de 2010, sentado no pátio da minha casa em Estarreja, a ver este vídeo pela primeira vez:


Como se escreve na introdução:

"A fun game that shows how chaos dynamics and complexity theory works.  It shows how self-organisation can get better results than leader directed organisation within a complex task." 

Em vez de detalhar todas as regras e micro-regras, estabelecer princípios gerais e deixar o bottom-up funcionar.

Acreditar nas pessoas em vez de as tratar e considerar como crianças.

BTW, para um libertário em construção como eu, a introdução de regras absurdas tem a vantagem de converter mais algumas pessoas à liberdade, e o inconveniente de criar mais pides, gente mais interessada em aconselhar Salomão a matar o bebé do que a salvá-lo.

For frequent future use - a reminder that predictability is for suckers

The economy is a complex system.

A complex system is anything but linear.

It is not because we change an input, or because we change something within the system, that we can get or modify an output to get a desired result.

When acting on a system you can never guess what the result will be. In my country we have a saying that goes like this: “Hell is full of good intentions”

That's why I wrote some days ago:

“You know how scared I am of the fragilistas, the naive interventionistas. You know how I learned to appreciate the Via Negativa: first, do no harm!
You know how scared I am of social engineers who want to change the world.
...
With biology, innovation has to go with small experiments”

It is so easy to forget this.

So easy.

So easy to delude ourselves with ideas about our power, our predictability powers ...

The truth is that when we dive into the complex system we have this:

This blogpost, written on this day, is for me to be able to come back to it regularly for a bath of humility, for a good and sound slap in the face - in the style of Templar initiation.

Beware of system interventions, beware of the illusion of power and predictability.

2019 gave me an excellent slap in the face when I realized once again that a complex system does not think. A complex system does not pursue goals. A complex system is like a river, it runs away from constraints. When actors in a system act on it, they alter the set of existing constraints, and what they hoped to achieve is often torpedoed by the system, which ultimately found an easier alternative.

Remember what the first settlers of Australia did? They introduced rabbits to maintain their English hunting tradition. Rabbits discovered a habitat where they had no predators and multiplied exponentially. So the settlers decided to introduce foxes, traditional rabbit predators. But foxes, once introduced to Australia, discovered a whole panoply of prey much easier to hunt than rabbits.

For years I believed that the demographic evolution in Portugal, and the continued expansion of the emigration of people of value who do not want to live in a socialist-extractivist country, would bring a time when companies would be forced to raise wages beyond productivity in order to capture workers, a precious resource. Raising wages beyond productivity is a dangerous policy. This policy would have two consequences: shutting down the less competitive companies, and forcing companies to move up the value ladder to compensate for the rising cost of people. Therefore, I have long devalued the issue of the national minimum wage because companies would have lack of people as the most important constraint.

And 2019 ended my theory !!!

By the way, this theory I was hoping for, based on demography, is the same as that followed by the current Portuguese government and the left wing parties, with a small-big detail, while my driving force was demography, theirs is the national minimum wage.

How did 2019 destroy this theory of mine?

The day I realized that it is so easy for a company to import people and get around the national minimum wage. For example, on the last day of 2019 when I visited a certain small company, I watched in amazement at a conversation about the virtues of importing Brazilian versus Colombian versus Venezuelan workers.

You will tell me that they will have to pay the national minimum wage to these workers. No, that's the big slap trick I got. I already had as a neighbor of my office a company that hired Portuguese carpenters for construction works in Belgium and the Netherlands. These carpenters were paid at 12 € per hour (2016 values). They made a contract with this Portuguese company in Portugal, received their wage in Portugal, but worked in Belgium or the Netherlands. How much will a Portuguese carpenter recruited in the Netherlands receive to work in the Netherlands? What I heard in the corridor of the offices where my company was based is being done with workers from Asia and Latin America. The workers are here, they work here, but they are not employees of the company where they work, so they do not receive the Portuguese national minimum wage, they come to provide a service to the Bangladeshi company, their real employer.

I who detest eucalyptus trees and their associated DDTs (Portuguese initials for Owners Of This All, big companies with huge power and benefitting from special "services" from the government), sometimes marvel and tip my hat at eucalyptus trees because they seem to have the will and thought, they seem to have goals just as nature, evolution has prepared them to take advantage of their apparent weakness before fire.

We know nothing about complex systems, stop. We can only be conservative, be pragmatic, do a little experimentation, and observe results. Then back off when things go wrong, or less well, or keep going when things go in the right direction.

Blogposts list on the theme in 2019:

• Uma bofetada que recebo como um aviso (August)
•  Bofetadas e locus de controlo - produtividade é que não. (November) 
•  Mais bofetadas e a turbulência em curso (November)
• And the american source behind this series of blogposts Curiosidade do dia - comunismo e Chega (parte III) (December)

"nearly impossible to predict"

"Understand and exploit the link between local behaviors and macro-outcomes. It is no surprise that the process of emergence in a complex adaptive system cannot be described precisely. It is for this reason that the outcomes of these systems are nearly impossible to predict—and that the mechanical management of them is therefore often unwise. For instance, no degree of micromanagement of researchers’ behaviors can guarantee higher productivity in R&D departments. Controlling lower-level processes, no matter how precisely, cannot guarantee innovation.
.
Nevertheless, this does not imply that there are no useful links to be exploited between local behaviors and macro-outcomes. Rather, it implies that business leaders should look for these links using the right statistical approaches."

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

Pontos de alavancagem

"Folks who do systems analysis have a great belief in “leverage points.” These are places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything.
...
The systems analysis community has a lot of lore about leverage points. Those of us who were trained by the great Jay Forrester at MIT have all absorbed one of his favorite stories. “People know intuitively where leverage points are,” he says. “Time after time I’ve done an analysis of a company, and I’ve figured out a leverage point — in inventory policy, maybe, or in the relationship between sales force and productive force, or in personnel policy. Then I’ve gone to the company and discovered that there’s already a lot of attention to that point. Everyone is trying very hard to push it IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!”
...
Leverage points are not intuitive. Or if they are, we intuitively use them backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve.
...
PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM
(in increasing order of effectiveness)
.
12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures).
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals of the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.
1. The power to transcend paradigms."

Pensamento sistémico, algo que os amadores jogadores de bilhar ignoram.

Trechos retirados de "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System"

"em ambientes cada vez mais complexos os gigantes falham"

Mongo é variedade, é diversidade, é explosão de tribos.

Ao mesmo tempo os gigantes criam organizações-cidade para lidar com os desafios de crescente complexidade:

"an increase in variety was associated with an increase in sourcing complexity, and that an increase in sourcing complexity was associated with worsened coordination performance.
...
This paper focused specifically on the tension between scale and scope economies to suggest that the pursuit of economies of scale generates production rigidity, while pursuing downstream synergies through cross-selling creates organizational interdependencies and complexity. We also empirically explored product line extension — the purest form of firm scope expansion — to demonstrate that complexity- induced coordination burden may, indeed, reduce economies of scope.
...
These results also extend recent attempts to conceptualize the locus and limitation of coordination in complex task systems. As complexity increases, these loci of coordination turn into organizational bottlenecks due to limits on their coordination capacity. Organizations face a tradeoff in designing these hubs, which might reduce complexity in the overall network but become a bottleneck themselves due to local congestion. This further illustrates the point that economies of scope “may decline not because of exogenous opportunity constraints but because of the rising costs of coordinating interdependencies”"

Por isto é que em ambientes cada vez mais complexos os gigantes falham. Ninguém quer ser tratado como plancton.



Trechos retirados de "Product Variety, Sourcing Complexity, and the Bottleneck of Coordination" publicado por Strat. Mgmt. J., 38: 1569–1587 (2017)

À atenção dos comentadores económicos de bancada

Um texto tão bom mas tão bom!!!

"Obvious...
We respond to Obvious problems by picking the appropriate Best Practicse. We have looked at all possible game and have figured out the best possible way. They are called Best, because there is always exactly one best response.
...
Complicated...
In complicated problems the relationship between cause and effect is predictable, but (very) hard to predict. Complicated problems are the domain of expert, who are better able to predict what is likely going to happen. Which is exactly what top chess players do. They need to predict what the likely moves of their opponents are going to be. Experts can simultaneously consider more possible options, but also reduce it to a smaller set of scenarios that require more analysis.
.
So the strategy becomes Sense – Analyse – Respond. And because it is impossible figure out if a move is the best move (except check-mate obviously) there are no best practices in the complicated domain.
...
Complex.
Complex problems are completely different again. What sets them apart is that the relationship between cause & effect is only obvious in hindsight. The gaming metaphor for complexity is poker. Unlike chess, which is a game about predicting, poker is game about learning. Learning what cards your opponents have and how they compare to yours. And the high level strategy for chess doesn’t work for poker.
...
Again, taking the poker example that probe can be in the form of betting. If you make a bet you force opponents to respond to it, by folding, calling or raising. This can give you information about their hand. But other probes can be calling out opponents, sensing can be just looking at their demeanours for example.
.
So the most important thing about Complexity is that there is no way to learn (and thus solving the problem) without doing. Just thinking about it isn’t going to solve it. In Complex problems our practices are always evolving based on what we learn. In poker, even if we would play a game with the exact players with the exact same cards would turn out differently, because we learned things not just about the game, but certainly about our opponents.
...
ChaosChaos happens when there is no relationship between cause and effect or they change very quickly. In this case there is no point in probing because any learning does not help us get better.
.
The gaming analogy here is children playing. Anyone who has ever played with kids know that the rules are continuously changing. And there is no point in trying to learn the rules before starting to play. You have to get in and play with them (Act), while making sure are having fun (Sense) and change accordingly if not (Respond).
.
But most often we end up in Chaos because of some crisis. When that happens we need to very quickly stabilise the situation and get back out of Chaos. This happens all the time in business, where we are frequently relying on hero leaders and task forces to get us out of trouble.
...
But the most important learning is that a whole lot of our circumstances are complex. And thus inherently unpredictable. And no amount of thinking is going to solve that."

Pensem nos comentadores económicos de bancada prontos para dar indicações aos empresários de agora, de Mongo, com as boas-práticas do século XX.

Pensem nos comentadores económicos de bancada crentes num governo todo poderoso com um Cybersyn poderoso capaz de tudo prever.

Trechos retirados de "Understanding Complexity"

"Pragmatism, Rather Than Intellectualism"

"instead of focusing on developing specific techniques or actions, managers should master the principles of biological thinking:
.
Pragmatism, Rather Than Intellectualism.
...
Managers must acknowledge that things often work before we can explain why.
.
Resilience, Rather Than Efficiency. It’s hard to argue against efficiency. What few managers recognize, though, is that it often trades off against resilience. Like excessive dieting, trimming too much fat can in fact be harmful to companies. The difficulty is that the benefits of efficiency are often immediate and visible, while its risks are latent and invisible. To balance the calculus, companies must make resilience an explicit priority.
.
Experimentation, Rather Than Deduction. Paul Graham once claimed that “the best startups almost have to start as side projects.” That’s because when it comes to innovating, no one knows what will work.
...
The biological approach makes management messy, iterative, and even counterintuitive and harder to articulate. Nevertheless, it is also a boon: it allows managers to tinker, to experiment, and to find solutions amid complexity. Biological management also draws on the initiative and diversity of people and liberates them from being mere instruments in mechanical processes — it is thus ultimately a more humanistic approach to management."

Muito bom!!!

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

Acerca dos sistemas adaptativos complexos

"Biological thinking matters for several important reasons: First, in complex adaptive systems, there is no single formula or framework that always works. In fact, the very defiance of formulaic problem solving is what makes CAS management so challenging initially. It’s not possible to articulate before the fact how best to intervene in a given situation.[Moi ici: Leram bem? Voltem a ler! Recordar os que nos media dizem que o governo de turno devia dizer o que as empresas deviam fazer para terem sucesso]
...
Second, actions that work in CASs do not make sense except in light of biological thinking. Mechanical management remains alluring precisely because it relies on a familiar and shared protocol for sense making: it focuses on measurable outcomes such as efficiency and profitability; it makes initiatives easy to explain; and it gives managers a sense of control. [Moi ici: Tão verdade!!! Era o que aqui o José Silva tolerou chamar-se de optimismo não fundamentado. É o que aqui sublinhámos com o exemplo da Viarco.] Biological management stops being counterintuitive only when business leaders adopt a new managerial worldview.

.
Third, managing businesses successfully in today’s environment involves new goals rather than just new problem-solving tools. In other words, businesses need a new what as well as a new how: for instance, surviving, in addition to winning; maximizing value for others, as well as for oneself; and prioritizing learning, as well as optimizing short-term performance. [Moi ici: A maior parte dos que pensam em automatização estão a pensar no mesmo what com um diferente how.] These new goals can be embraced only when businesses adopt biological thinking."

 Muito bom!!!

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

The world is more complex

"Adapt approaches in response to changing circumstances. One of the traps of mechanical management is the tendency to seek universal and permanent solutions to complex problems. Processes and procedures are alluring, especially in large organizations, because they seem to be ways to tame complexity by dividing problems into simple tasks that can then be managed separately and predictably repeated. The problem is that the world is more complex than these static universal processes acknowledge — and even if they work for a while, they inevitably become stale and outdated as the environment changes.
.
In a complex world, there is no universal formula for problem solving. So what should managers do? Their best bet is to iteratively conduct small, low-cost experiments that can then be scaled up or down on the basis of their relative success.
...
This mode of problem solving through constant experimentation needs the right organizational enablers. Individual teams require the autonomy to run experiments with minimal hierarchical direction, because worthwhile ideas and initiatives often spring from individuals closest to the front line. Moreover, they need to be empowered to take full advantage of the experimental learnings. At Intuit, teams running experiments often have embedded data scientists to help them draw rigorous conclusions from their trials. Finally, teams require a culture that prioritizes learning over immediate profitability or efficiency. Experiments are not valuable unless there is a legitimate chance of failure, so businesses must help teams and individuals become bold enough to attempt such risky experiments."

Trechos retirados de "Think Biologically: Messy Management for a Complex World"

Paz à sua alma

Soube há momentos, via Twitter, da morte de John H. Holland. Um dos gigantes sobre os ombros do qual comecei a acreditar que a hipótese Mongo, o Estranhistão, tinha mesmo pernas para andar.
.
Lembro-me de um dia quente, sentado na ombreira da porta da cozinha para o pátio traseiro, a acompanhar o vídeo relatado em "Um admirável mundo novo pleno de oportunidades", de onde sublinhei:

"“A complex adaptive system, CAS, is an evolving, perpectually novel set of interacting agents where:

• There is no universal competitor or optimum

• There is great diversity, as in a tropical forest, with many niches occupied by different kinds of agents

• Innovation is a regular feature – equilibrium is rare and temporary

• Anticipations change the course of the system."[Moi ici: Nem vale a pena sublinhar, senão teria de sublinhar tudo]

Paz à sua alma e obrigado pela ajuda.

"-THERE WILL BE TURBULENCE!" por isso, safe-fail

Na semana passada, através de um tweet de Esko Kilpi cheguei a este vídeo:
Safe-Fail, NOT Fail-Safe - Alicia Juarrero from William Evans on Vimeo.
Já o vi 3 vezes. Excepcional.
.
A certa altura dei comigo a pensar que se viajasse atrás no tempo, humildemente, recuaria a 9 de Agosto de 2007, para o dar ao então primeiro-ministro.
.
Quantas pessoas nas empresas, menos, é certo, e sobretudo na política, assumem que o futuro será estável? A mensagem de Alicia Juarrero é:

"-THERE WILL BE TURBULENCE!"

Como não recordar Vítor Bento em "O anónimo engenheiro da província pensava...", quando Alicia Juarrero retrata o pensamento dominante acerca da economia, como quando se adia o lançamento do space-shuttle em Cabo Canaveral, por causa do mau tempo, aguarda-se pelo retorno da normalidade.

"They both assume equilibrium, stability as a model, as a framework to work with."

Depois, Juarrero chama a atenção para a diferença entre a mecânica newtoniana e a economia... com as pessoas, o contexto é fundamental.
.
Como não pensar nos "cofres cheios por um lado" e no canto da sereia que convida ao retorno à orgia despesista por outro, ao ouvir coisas como:

"Haverá instabilidade, haverá perturbação, haverá turbulência, virão problemas. Por isso, o objectivo é sobreviver aos problemas que virão. Quem acredita na estabilidade, os fragilistas, anda na corda bamba, estica a corda, coloca-se numa posição de fragilidade. Quando chega a turbulência, e ela acaba sempre por chegar, não há capacidade de resistir, de aguentar..."

Mais citações:

"Complex adaptive systems and evolution select for resilience, not stability."
  ...
"Stability gets killed by next disease, next pest, next competitor, next predator, next crisis
...
Resilience is evolving towards greater evolvability, enabling creativity and emergence
...
Biology is the metaphor" [Moi ici: Uma frase que tão bem se encaixa da narrativa e no sistema de crenças deste blogue]

.

À atenção dos políticos e não só.

"In fact, their organization is producing precisely the results it is designed to produce.
So is yours.
So is your community, your family, your government, your country.
Because . . . the design determines the results.
So snap out of it!
Stop fighting the existing reality.
Stop trying to change the people.
If you don't like the results, change the design."

Como costumo dizer: Não há acasos!!!
.
Os resultados que uma empresa obtém são um produto perfeitamente  natural da sua organização (aqui e aqui, por exemplo)
.
Trecho retirado de "Snap out of it!"

Isto é tão verdade!

"Stacey next sets out his stall for viewing organisations as complex responsive processes of people interacting locally. In doing so, he re-emphasises the social and emergent nature of these processes, in which the future is perpetually constructed through present interactions. Everyone influences these dynamics, through their ongoing, local participation. And population-wide patterns emerge from (and, at the same time, influence) the content and patterns of these local, communicative interactions. This perspective contrasts starkly with the dominant discourse, which maintains that change results from managers‟ deliberate intentions and designs."

"locally" e há uns iludidos que ainda acreditam no poder do Grande Geometra do Grande Planeador que tudo sabe, até sabe, melhor do que nós, o que é o melhor para nós.

Fonte.

Participar, em vez de controlar e manipular

Daqui, sublinho este trecho que classifico de muito feliz:

“ the intentionality behind science and design needs to shift from aiming to increase prediction, control and manipulation of nature as a resource, to a transdisciplinary cooperation in the process of learning how to participate appropriately and sustainably in Nature”

Vivemos em sociedades cada vez mais socialistas, que namoram e se enamoram com o poder de controlar, de ditar, de receitar. Exemplo de hoje:

• "Colin Crouch. “Precisamos de regular a globalização e organizar melhor os trabalhadores”

"Precisamos de regular a globalização e organizar melhor os trabalhadores" uma frase típica de um qualquer aspirante a Palpatine... prefiro, neste tempo de "... a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation", seguir o conselho de Gary Hamel:

• "Reversing the Ratchet of Control";  
• "Managing Without Hierachy"; ou ainda
• "Rediscovering Farmer Values"

Depois, queixam-se disto como se fosse culpa dos indivíduos em particular, quando é uma consequência natural de um sistema focado no controlo.

.

Henrique, o Leão pode ter vivido no tempo do nascimento de Portugal mas sabia algumas coisas que podia ensinar no mundo de hoje, participar, em vez de controlar e manipular.

A concorrência não interessa!

Apreciem as lições desta pequena história "How I Reinvented My Business".
.
Ressalta a preocupação em manter algum controlo sobre o futuro, em perceber quais são as tendências e aproveitá-las antes que outros o façam.
.
"Like many fabled company founders, Curt Richardson launched his first business in his garage. He channeled his love of tinkering into a series of businesses that custom-manufactured plastics for automotive, medical, and industrial companies. But by the mid-1990s, Richardson had grown weary of having his fortunes tightly hitched to the financial returns of his clients. ( Moi ici: Viu o que seria o impacte da China e a optimização do modelo de negócio que propõe o preço-mais baixo ao cliente... escala, escala, escala e pedofilia empresarial) So, as he had done several times before, he went back to his garage to develop his own product line. "We wanted to take our destiny into our own hands," he says. ( Moi ici: Locus de controlo no interior)
Since water sports such as surfing and scuba diving were gaining in popularity, Richardson decided to create a product to target that market. In 1995, he developed the first prototype of a waterproof electronics case. His wife, Nancy, dubbed it the OtterBox, in reference to the animal's waterproof fur. Over the next couple of years, Richardson built up a modest revenue stream with the new product, and in 1998, he launched a separate company around the line.

That move turned out to be prescient. Although Richardson had anticipated a steady decline in his industry's fortune, the one-two punch of the dot-com crash and the 9/11 terrorist attacks severely hastened the fall. In 2002, he decided to outsource OtterBox's manufacturing in order to devote the company's resources to design and marketing. ( Moi ici: Onde podemos ser bons? Onde podemos fazer a diferença? Onde temos de nos concentrar? Onde está a alma do nosso negócio? Que experiências vamos alimentar?) "We were not in the hub of manufacturing, and it affected us finding talent," he says. "That definitely limited our scalability." The demise of many of his former competitors has since confirmed his decision; whereas once there had been hundreds of molding shops in Colorado, Richardson says, now there are only a few dozen.
.
OtterBox, conversely, has blossomed into a nearly $170 million business. Much of the company's success stems from its ability to pinpoint technology trends. In the beginning, though, OtterBox's business was far from the cutting edge. For the first few years of its existence, the company sold travel cases for cigar humidors in addition to its namesake waterproof cases. It wasn't until a retail customer asked if the company could make a case for PDAs that OtterBox got into mobile technology. When the iPod made its debut in the fall of 2001, the company quickly moved to develop a new line for the device, and its sales soon shot up.
.
Although OtterBox's fortunes are no longer tied to the health of domestic manufacturing, its success is dependent on another, notoriously fickle industry. But Richardson isn't worried. "If one device drops off, one will pick up," he says. "We don't really care who it is." Richardson's confidence in his company's success is particularly evident in his willingness to make bets on changing tides in the market. He decided, for instance, to produce accessories for tablets even when market observers were skeptical about whether the iPad would sell. And, last year, he made the move to stop selling OtterBox's line of iPod cases, which were still one of the company's top sellers, in favor of focusing on mobile accessories. ( Moi ici: Aplicação prática daquela máxima "Volume is vanity, Profit is sanity") "We looked at the market, and there was a lot of noise, a red ocean there," he says. "We knew fairly quickly we had made a good strategic move."
.
That said, plenty of market intelligence factors into OtterBox's decisions to develop or discontinue product lines. The company maintains strong relationships with mobile manufacturers, and it often receives information about new devices well in advance. ( Moi ici: São clientes-alvo? Não! No canvas de Osterwalder ocupam a caixa dos Parceiros-chave. Gente que não nos compra, gente que não prescreve mas gente que ganha em os seus potenciais clientes terem a vida facilitada e a experiência de uso mais enriquecida) Often, manufacturers' own investments offer valuable clues as to which products will be most successful. In addition to keeping close contact with those companies, OtterBox has made substantive investments in research and development over the past few years. This year, the company hired a director of R&D, and it has since expanded the department to 16 employees. ( Moi ici: Isto troca as voltas aos INEs de todo o mundo ... como acompanhar a explosão de divergência cladística? )
.
In addition to its continuous investments in market prediction, the company is eyeing global expansion. OtterBox has regional offices in Cork, Ireland, for the European market and Hong Kong for the Asia-Pacific Rim market, as well as a small sales office in Dubai. The latter region has had particularly explosive growth, Richardson says. The company now has three sales representatives in Australia and plans to hire additional reps based in Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan. OtterBox's sales have also picked up significantly in the Middle East and Africa, particularly South Africa. "Globally, if we could see 3 percent of the market," Richardson says, "I would be ecstatic."
.
Ultimately, Richardson credits as much of the company's success to its internal processes as the products it ships out to the public. He places particular emphasis on consistently being prepared for change—a necessity given the rapidly changing consumer market. Richardson requires each department and account manager to submit a new plan every six to eight weeks in order to take stock of current trends and resources. ( Moi ici: A gente da moda talvez pudesse tirar daqui ideias para o target das 52 épocas por ano) ( Moi ici: And now... The Grand Finale!!!!!) One area he doesn't focus on, however, is the competition. "I don't know what competitors are doing with their systems, prices, or infrastructure," he says. "To me, it doesn't really matter. We're our own worst enemy here."
.
Como não recordar John Holland:

• There is no universal competitor or optimum
• There is great diversity, as in a tropical forest, with many niches occupied by different kinds of agents
• Innovation is a regular feature – equilibrium is rare and temporary
• Anticipations change the course of the system.

Mongo is everywhere I look (parte II)

Continuado daqui.
.
E por que é que existem espécies e não uma gama infinita de variedades em simultâneo em cada paisagem competitiva?
.
Eheheh a resposta está na Análise Matemática IV ou V das universidades... existem atractores que limitam as possibilidades!!!
.
"We have then been able to develop an evolutionary simulation model, in which a manufacturing firm attempts to incorporate successive new practices at some characteristic rate. There is an incredible range of possible structures that can emerge, however, depending simply on the order in which they are tried. But, each time a new practice is adopted within an organisation, it changes the “invadability” or “receptivity” of the organisation for any new innovations in the future. This is a true illustration of the “path dependent evolution” that characterises organizational change. Successful evolution is about the “discovery” or “creation” of highly synergetic structures of interacting practices.
…
The explorations/innovations that are tried out at a given time cannot be logically or rationally deduced because their overall effects cannot be known ahead of time. Therefore, the impossibility of prediction gives the system “choice.”
…
However, the actual success that a new practice meets with is predetermined by the “fitness landscape” resulting from the practices already present and what the emergent attributes and capabilities encounter in the marketplace.
.
But this landscape will be changed if a new practice does successfully invade the system. The new practice will bring with it its own set of pair interactions, modifying the selection criteria for further change. So, the pattern of what could then invade the system (if it were tried) has been changed by what has already invaded successfully. This is technically referred to as a “path dependent” process since the future evolutionary pathway is affected by that of the past.
…
It shows us that for a system of co-evolving agents with underlying microdiversity and idiosyncracy, we automatically obtain the emergence of structural attractors such as the organizational forms shown in Figure

…
What are the implications of these structural attractors?
.
Search carried out by the “exploratory” diffusion in character space leads to vastly increased performance of the final object. Instead of a homogeneous system, characterised by intense internal competition and low symbiosis, the development of the system leads to a much higher performance, and one that decreases internal competition and increases synergy. (Moi ici: Faz logo recordar Holland e os "complex adaptive systems":

• There is no universal competitor or optimum
• There is great diversity, as in a tropical forest, with many niches occupied by different kinds of agents
• Innovation is a regular feature – equilibrium is rare and temporary
• Anticipations change the course of the system." Por isso, é que Mongo é diversidade, é variedade, é explosão contínua de diferenciação)

.

The whole process leads to the evolution of a complex, a “community” of agents whose activities, whatever they are, have effects that feed back positively on themselves and the others present. It is an emergent “team” or “community” in which positive interactions are greater than the negative ones.
.
The diversity, dimensionality and attribute space occupied by the final complex is much greater than the initial homogeneous starting structure of a single characteristic practice or behaviour. However, it is much less than the diversity, dimensionality and attribute spaces that all possible behaviours or practices would have brought to the system. The structural attractor therefore represents a reduced set of activities from all those possible in principle. It reflects the “discovery” of a subset of agents/practices whose attributes and dimensions have properties that provide positive feedback. This is different from a classical dynamic attractor that refers to the long-term trajectory traced by the given set of variables. Here, our structural attractor concerns the emergence of variables, dimensions and attribute sets that not only coexist but actually are synergetic."
.
This is so cool!!!
.
Quem diria que a minha Análise Matemática V ou VI viria em promoção de Mongo!!!