%PDF-1.3
1 0 obj
<< /Type /Catalog
/Outlines 2 0 R
/Pages 3 0 R >>
endobj
2 0 obj
<< /Type /Outlines /Count 0 >>
endobj
3 0 obj
<< /Type /Pages
/Kids [6 0 R
36 0 R
39 0 R
41 0 R
61 0 R
63 0 R
65 0 R
73 0 R
76 0 R
78 0 R
80 0 R
82 0 R
]
/Count 12
/Resources <<
/ProcSet 4 0 R
/Font <<
/F1 8 0 R
/F2 9 0 R
/F3 10 0 R
/F4 11 0 R
/F5 38 0 R
>>
/XObject <<
/I1 75 0 R
>>
>>
/MediaBox [0.000 0.000 612.000 792.000]
>>
endobj
4 0 obj
[/PDF /Text /ImageC ]
endobj
5 0 obj
<<
/Creator (DOMPDF)
/CreationDate (D:20190618094511+00'00')
/ModDate (D:20190618094511+00'00')
/Title (A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity – Emergence: Complexity and Organization)
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Annots [ 12 0 R 14 0 R 16 0 R 18 0 R 20 0 R 22 0 R 24 0 R 26 0 R 28 0 R 30 0 R 32 0 R 34 0 R ]
/Contents 7 0 R
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Length 24503 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 227.982 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization. Emergence: Complexity and Organization.)] TJ ET
q
15.000 736.397 577.500 28.698 re W n
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 15.000 745.137 Td /F2 21.0 Tf [(A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity)] TJ ET
Q
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 15.000 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(June 30, 2004)] TJ ET
BT 74.846 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(·)] TJ ET
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 79.721 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(Practitioner)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Guido Fioretti)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 84.769 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, )] TJ ET
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 90.191 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Bauke Visser)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 703.386 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti G, Visser B. A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity. Emergence: Complexity and Organization. 2004 Jun )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 691.481 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(30 [last modified: 2016 Nov 22]. Edition 1. doi: 10.emerg/10.17357.f4caf88746629eef803a202d68b83b93.)] TJ ET
q
15.000 28.240 577.500 660.860 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 662.378 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Abstract)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 642.424 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organizational theory has construed complexity as an objective characteristic of either the structure or the behavior of an )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 630.519 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organization. We argue that, in order to further our understanding, complexity should be understood in terms of the human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 618.615 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition of a structure or behavior. This cognitive twist is illustrated by means of two theoretical approaches, whose )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 606.710 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationship is discussed.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 570.107 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Introduction)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.153 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organization theory presents complexity as an objective property of the organization, much in the same way as, e.g., its degree )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.248 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of centralization and formalization. It is viewed as an objective characteristic of the structure of an organization, defined and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 526.344 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measured in terms of the number of its constituent parts, their diversity and relationships \(e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch 1967; )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 514.439 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973; Jablin, 1987; Daft 1989\). In the 1990s, complexity also became identified with intricate )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 502.534 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational behavior, with small changes at the unit or employee level, possibly giving rise to ‘complex’ aggregate patterns )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 490.629 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(e.g., Anderson, 1999; Lissack, 1999a, 1999b; Marion, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.225 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The aim of this paper is to argue that complexity should neither be defined nor measured in term of its source, be it an obj )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.320 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ectively given feature of the structure or of the behavior of an organization, but instead in terms of its effects on human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.415 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition. Organization theorists have been careful in pointing to the decision context within which the concept of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.510 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(plays a role. Briefly, complexity as numerosity, diversity, and unpredictability matters because of the increasing demands it )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 423.606 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(imposes on decision makers concerned with attaining overall organizational effectiveness. But such demands are cognitive in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 411.701 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(nature. It therefore only seems natural to take the analysis one step further by detaching the notion of complexity from its )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 399.796 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objective source and instead attaching it to its consequence on the cognitive effort exerted by the decision maker to come to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 387.891 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(grips with her decision problem. That is, an organization is complex to the extent that a human being – e.g., an organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 375.987 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer or an outside observer – has to exert a certain degree of cognitive effort in coming to grips with a decision problem.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.582 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Various reasons support this cognitive turn. First, this approach fits well with the general outlook of the theories in which the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 344.677 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objective notions of complexity appear. As noted, complexity as a structural feature figures within well-defined decision theoretic )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 332.772 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(approaches to organizations, and it therefore seems natural to construe complexity cognitively. The same applies to behavioral )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 320.868 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity. Second, it helps unify existing organization theory. In particular, we illustrate how this approach may shed light on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 308.963 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the discussion of whether structural complexity stems from the number of horizontally organized units and vertically organized )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 297.058 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(layers, or from the connections between these parts. Moreover, it helps show commonalities between theories focusing on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.153 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complex behavior and theories focusing on complex structures. Third, it is in line with major accounts of complexity in general. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 273.249 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, a cognitive approach is in line with what one commonly understands to be ‘complex’. “This is complex” is an utterance )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 261.344 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(typical in situations when we do not understand something, as is clear from the fact that without any change in the observed )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 249.439 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(phenomenon or the problem at hand, all at once we may consider it trivial or at least manageable.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 230.034 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(After an overview of the main ingredients of contemporary thought on complexity in the realm of organization theory, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 218.130 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive turn is presented in general terms. In the section titled “What a decisionmaker does not know…”, the first )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 206.225 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operationalization is presented that starts with the cognitive map held by a human being who faces an organizational problem. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 194.320 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Complexity is defined in terms of the level of dissatisfaction with the explanatory power of a cognitive map. The second )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 182.415 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operationalization, discussed in the section titled “…And what a decision-maker should know”, defines complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 170.511 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information required to solve an organizational problem. An application to the problem of selecting projects by a firm illustrates )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 158.606 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(its main features. The relationships between these two approaches are discussed in the concluding section.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 122.003 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(The traditional approach to organizational complexity)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 102.049 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(There are two strands in the organizational literature that use the words ‘complex’ and ‘complexity’ to characterize )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 90.144 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizations. The first one refers to structural features of an organization. In particular, an organization is called complex if it is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 78.240 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(large and consists of several subsystems \(e.g., R&D, manufacturing, sales, finance\) that differ from each other “in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 66.335 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(subsystem formal structures, the member’s goal orientation, member’s time orientations and member’s interpersonal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 54.430 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(orientations” \(Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967: 1\). Thompson \(1967: 55-59\) and Galbraith \(1973: 46-66\) characterize a complex )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 42.525 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organization very much in the same vein. These authors stress the importance of the relationships among organizational units )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 736.397 577.500 28.698 re W n
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 15.000 745.137 Td /F2 21.0 Tf [(A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity)] TJ ET
Q
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 15.000 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(June 30, 2004)] TJ ET
BT 74.846 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(·)] TJ ET
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 79.721 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(Practitioner)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Guido Fioretti)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 84.769 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, )] TJ ET
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 90.191 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Bauke Visser)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 703.386 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti G, Visser B. A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity. Emergence: Complexity and Organization. 2004 Jun )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 691.481 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(30 [last modified: 2016 Nov 22]. Edition 1. doi: 10.emerg/10.17357.f4caf88746629eef803a202d68b83b93.)] TJ ET
q
15.000 28.240 577.500 660.860 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 662.378 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Abstract)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 642.424 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organizational theory has construed complexity as an objective characteristic of either the structure or the behavior of an )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 630.519 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organization. We argue that, in order to further our understanding, complexity should be understood in terms of the human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 618.615 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition of a structure or behavior. This cognitive twist is illustrated by means of two theoretical approaches, whose )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 606.710 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationship is discussed.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 570.107 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Introduction)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.153 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organization theory presents complexity as an objective property of the organization, much in the same way as, e.g., its degree )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.248 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of centralization and formalization. It is viewed as an objective characteristic of the structure of an organization, defined and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 526.344 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measured in terms of the number of its constituent parts, their diversity and relationships \(e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch 1967; )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 514.439 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973; Jablin, 1987; Daft 1989\). In the 1990s, complexity also became identified with intricate )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 502.534 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational behavior, with small changes at the unit or employee level, possibly giving rise to ‘complex’ aggregate patterns )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 490.629 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(e.g., Anderson, 1999; Lissack, 1999a, 1999b; Marion, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.225 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The aim of this paper is to argue that complexity should neither be defined nor measured in term of its source, be it an obj )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.320 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ectively given feature of the structure or of the behavior of an organization, but instead in terms of its effects on human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.415 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition. Organization theorists have been careful in pointing to the decision context within which the concept of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.510 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(plays a role. Briefly, complexity as numerosity, diversity, and unpredictability matters because of the increasing demands it )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 423.606 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(imposes on decision makers concerned with attaining overall organizational effectiveness. But such demands are cognitive in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 411.701 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(nature. It therefore only seems natural to take the analysis one step further by detaching the notion of complexity from its )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 399.796 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objective source and instead attaching it to its consequence on the cognitive effort exerted by the decision maker to come to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 387.891 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(grips with her decision problem. That is, an organization is complex to the extent that a human being – e.g., an organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 375.987 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer or an outside observer – has to exert a certain degree of cognitive effort in coming to grips with a decision problem.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.582 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Various reasons support this cognitive turn. First, this approach fits well with the general outlook of the theories in which the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 344.677 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objective notions of complexity appear. As noted, complexity as a structural feature figures within well-defined decision theoretic )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 332.772 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(approaches to organizations, and it therefore seems natural to construe complexity cognitively. The same applies to behavioral )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 320.868 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity. Second, it helps unify existing organization theory. In particular, we illustrate how this approach may shed light on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 308.963 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the discussion of whether structural complexity stems from the number of horizontally organized units and vertically organized )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 297.058 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(layers, or from the connections between these parts. Moreover, it helps show commonalities between theories focusing on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.153 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complex behavior and theories focusing on complex structures. Third, it is in line with major accounts of complexity in general. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 273.249 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, a cognitive approach is in line with what one commonly understands to be ‘complex’. “This is complex” is an utterance )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 261.344 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(typical in situations when we do not understand something, as is clear from the fact that without any change in the observed )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 249.439 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(phenomenon or the problem at hand, all at once we may consider it trivial or at least manageable.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 230.034 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(After an overview of the main ingredients of contemporary thought on complexity in the realm of organization theory, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 218.130 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive turn is presented in general terms. In the section titled “What a decisionmaker does not know…”, the first )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 206.225 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operationalization is presented that starts with the cognitive map held by a human being who faces an organizational problem. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 194.320 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Complexity is defined in terms of the level of dissatisfaction with the explanatory power of a cognitive map. The second )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 182.415 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operationalization, discussed in the section titled “…And what a decision-maker should know”, defines complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 170.511 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information required to solve an organizational problem. An application to the problem of selecting projects by a firm illustrates )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 158.606 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(its main features. The relationships between these two approaches are discussed in the concluding section.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 122.003 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(The traditional approach to organizational complexity)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 102.049 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(There are two strands in the organizational literature that use the words ‘complex’ and ‘complexity’ to characterize )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 90.144 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizations. The first one refers to structural features of an organization. In particular, an organization is called complex if it is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 78.240 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(large and consists of several subsystems \(e.g., R&D, manufacturing, sales, finance\) that differ from each other “in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 66.335 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(subsystem formal structures, the member’s goal orientation, member’s time orientations and member’s interpersonal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 54.430 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(orientations” \(Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967: 1\). Thompson \(1967: 55-59\) and Galbraith \(1973: 46-66\) characterize a complex )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 42.525 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organization very much in the same vein. These authors stress the importance of the relationships among organizational units )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 736.397 577.500 28.698 re W n
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 15.000 745.137 Td /F2 21.0 Tf [(A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity)] TJ ET
Q
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 15.000 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(June 30, 2004)] TJ ET
BT 74.846 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(·)] TJ ET
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 79.721 727.131 Td /F3 9.8 Tf [(Practitioner)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Guido Fioretti)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 84.769 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, )] TJ ET
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 90.191 715.290 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Bauke Visser)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 703.386 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti G, Visser B. A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity. Emergence: Complexity and Organization. 2004 Jun )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 691.481 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(30 [last modified: 2016 Nov 22]. Edition 1. doi: 10.emerg/10.17357.f4caf88746629eef803a202d68b83b93.)] TJ ET
q
15.000 28.240 577.500 660.860 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 662.378 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Abstract)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 642.424 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organizational theory has construed complexity as an objective characteristic of either the structure or the behavior of an )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 630.519 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organization. We argue that, in order to further our understanding, complexity should be understood in terms of the human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 618.615 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition of a structure or behavior. This cognitive twist is illustrated by means of two theoretical approaches, whose )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 606.710 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationship is discussed.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 570.107 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Introduction)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.153 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organization theory presents complexity as an objective property of the organization, much in the same way as, e.g., its degree )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.248 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of centralization and formalization. It is viewed as an objective characteristic of the structure of an organization, defined and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 526.344 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measured in terms of the number of its constituent parts, their diversity and relationships \(e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch 1967; )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 514.439 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thompson, 1967; Galbraith, 1973; Jablin, 1987; Daft 1989\). In the 1990s, complexity also became identified with intricate )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 502.534 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational behavior, with small changes at the unit or employee level, possibly giving rise to ‘complex’ aggregate patterns )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 490.629 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(e.g., Anderson, 1999; Lissack, 1999a, 1999b; Marion, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.225 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The aim of this paper is to argue that complexity should neither be defined nor measured in term of its source, be it an obj )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.320 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ectively given feature of the structure or of the behavior of an organization, but instead in terms of its effects on human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.415 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition. Organization theorists have been careful in pointing to the decision context within which the concept of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.510 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(plays a role. Briefly, complexity as numerosity, diversity, and unpredictability matters because of the increasing demands it )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 423.606 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(imposes on decision makers concerned with attaining overall organizational effectiveness. But such demands are cognitive in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 411.701 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(nature. It therefore only seems natural to take the analysis one step further by detaching the notion of complexity from its )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 399.796 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objective source and instead attaching it to its consequence on the cognitive effort exerted by the decision maker to come to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 387.891 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(grips with her decision problem. That is, an organization is complex to the extent that a human being – e.g., an organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 375.987 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer or an outside observer – has to exert a certain degree of cognitive effort in coming to grips with a decision problem.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.582 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Various reasons support this cognitive turn. First, this approach fits well with the general outlook of the theories in which the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 344.677 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objective notions of complexity appear. As noted, complexity as a structural feature figures within well-defined decision theoretic )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 332.772 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(approaches to organizations, and it therefore seems natural to construe complexity cognitively. The same applies to behavioral )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 320.868 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity. Second, it helps unify existing organization theory. In particular, we illustrate how this approach may shed light on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 308.963 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the discussion of whether structural complexity stems from the number of horizontally organized units and vertically organized )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 297.058 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(layers, or from the connections between these parts. Moreover, it helps show commonalities between theories focusing on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.153 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complex behavior and theories focusing on complex structures. Third, it is in line with major accounts of complexity in general. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 273.249 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, a cognitive approach is in line with what one commonly understands to be ‘complex’. “This is complex” is an utterance )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 261.344 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(typical in situations when we do not understand something, as is clear from the fact that without any change in the observed )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 249.439 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(phenomenon or the problem at hand, all at once we may consider it trivial or at least manageable.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 230.034 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(After an overview of the main ingredients of contemporary thought on complexity in the realm of organization theory, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 218.130 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive turn is presented in general terms. In the section titled “What a decisionmaker does not know…”, the first )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 206.225 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operationalization is presented that starts with the cognitive map held by a human being who faces an organizational problem. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 194.320 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Complexity is defined in terms of the level of dissatisfaction with the explanatory power of a cognitive map. The second )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 182.415 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operationalization, discussed in the section titled “…And what a decision-maker should know”, defines complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 170.511 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information required to solve an organizational problem. An application to the problem of selecting projects by a firm illustrates )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 158.606 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(its main features. The relationships between these two approaches are discussed in the concluding section.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 122.003 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(The traditional approach to organizational complexity)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 102.049 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(There are two strands in the organizational literature that use the words ‘complex’ and ‘complexity’ to characterize )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 90.144 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizations. The first one refers to structural features of an organization. In particular, an organization is called complex if it is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 78.240 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(large and consists of several subsystems \(e.g., R&D, manufacturing, sales, finance\) that differ from each other “in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 66.335 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(subsystem formal structures, the member’s goal orientation, member’s time orientations and member’s interpersonal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 54.430 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(orientations” \(Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967: 1\). Thompson \(1967: 55-59\) and Galbraith \(1973: 46-66\) characterize a complex )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 42.525 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organization very much in the same vein. These authors stress the importance of the relationships among organizational units )] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
8 0 obj
<< /Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Helvetica
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<< /Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<< /Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<< /Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 13 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 15.0000 743.2468 507.8700 764.0368 ]
>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/article/a-cognitive-interpretation-of-organizational-complexity/)
>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 15 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 79.7205 726.2533 127.3882 735.9058 ]
>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/article_category/practitioner/)
>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 17 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 26.2500 714.3886 84.7695 724.3092 ]
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/author/guido-fioretti/)
>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 19 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 90.1905 714.3886 147.6277 724.3092 ]
>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/author/bauke-visser/)
>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 21 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 15.0000 743.2468 507.8700 764.0368 ]
>>
endobj
21 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/article/a-cognitive-interpretation-of-organizational-complexity/)
>>
endobj
22 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 23 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 79.7205 726.2533 127.3882 735.9058 ]
>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/article_category/practitioner/)
>>
endobj
24 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 25 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 26.2500 714.3886 84.7695 724.3092 ]
>>
endobj
25 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/author/guido-fioretti/)
>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 27 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 90.1905 714.3886 147.6277 724.3092 ]
>>
endobj
27 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/author/bauke-visser/)
>>
endobj
28 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 29 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 15.0000 743.2468 507.8700 764.0368 ]
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/article/a-cognitive-interpretation-of-organizational-complexity/)
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 31 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 79.7205 726.2533 127.3882 735.9058 ]
>>
endobj
31 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/article_category/practitioner/)
>>
endobj
32 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 33 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 26.2500 714.3886 84.7695 724.3092 ]
>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/author/guido-fioretti/)
>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 35 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 90.1905 714.3886 147.6277 724.3092 ]
>>
endobj
35 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/author/bauke-visser/)
>>
endobj
36 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 37 0 R
>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Length 26782 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 25.087 577.500 751.913 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(as being at the root of complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(With a slightly different emphasis, Jablin and Daft focus on the number of organizational parts in their definitions of complexity. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 736.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Jablin \(1987: 400-404\) uses complexity to depict “the structural components/units into which organizations and their employees )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(may be categorized”. He distinguishes vertical and horizontal complexity. Vertical complexity is the outcome of vertical )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 712.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(differentiation and “is an indication of the number of different hierarchical levels in an organization relative to its size.” Similarly, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(horizontal complexity measures “the number of department divisions in an organization.” One such measure is the “number of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 688.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different occupational specialities or specialized subunits at a given hierarchical level.” That is, complexity refers to the number )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 676.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of parts in an organization, with each part specializing in some activity. Daft \(1989: 18\) uses very similar definitions.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 657.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In this line of research, complexity matters because the implied differentiation allegedly requires integration for the organization )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to perform well. Lawrence and Lorsch \(1967: 1\) consider )] TJ ET
BT 272.808 645.333 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(differentiation)] TJ ET
BT 331.337 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 353.021 645.333 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(integration)] TJ ET
BT 398.544 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( to be antagonistic states, and study )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 633.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ways in which organizations assure integration. Thompson and Galbraith observe that differentiation and heterogeneity make )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 621.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(coordination necessary, with the intensity of coordination being dependent on the type of interdependence. They come up with a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 609.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(classification of complexity on the basis of these differences in the intensity of coordination and the ensuing differences in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information processing demands. Thompson \(1967: 55-59\) distinguishes pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependencies )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between subsystems as the basis for his classification of degrees of complexity. Galbraith \(1973\) distinguishes lateral )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationships of varying intensity. Types of coordination differ in communication and decision load, and Thompson \(1967: 56\) )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(adds, “[t]here are very real costs involved in coordination.”)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 542.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Since the end of the 1980s, a second strand in the literature on organizations has emerged that uses the notion of complexity. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Here, it is related to the behavior originating from the interactions of the many parts of a ‘complex’ system. Building upon early )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(studies on self-organization \(Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977; Prigogine & Prigogine, 1989; Haken, 1983, 1987\), several models )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(investigated the formation of structures between a large number of interacting particles and the ensuing properties of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(behavior of the system as a whole \(Fontana, 1991; Kauffman, 1993\). By analogy, one started to suspect that similar )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(phenomena were widespread in natural and social systems alike. Complexity came to be identified with a special kind of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(behavior, i.e., with intricate aggregate patterns emerging from the interaction of the constituent parts of an organization that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(themselves followed relatively simple behavioral rules. It is evident that these insights and their related methodologies are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relevant to organizational problems \(Anderson, 1999; Frank & Fahrbach, 1999; Lissack, 1999a, 1999b; Marion, 1999; Morel & )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ramanujam, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 416.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(According to this strand of literature, complexity matters to organization theory because it makes organizational behavior subject )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 404.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to surprises and hard to predict \(Anderson, 1999: 216-217\), rendering the attainment of organizational effectiveness )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 392.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(nonobvious. Consequently, decision-makers should become aware of the limits of their knowledge and engage in a learning )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 380.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(process with the complex system they are facing \(Allen, 2000, 2001; Cilliers, 2002; Allen & Strathern, 2003\). Indeed, complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 368.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(is not seen as a set of rules to solve a particular set of problems, but rather a perspective that may provide a new understanding )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to problems \(Lissack & Letiche, 2002\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 319.922 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(A cognitive turn)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 299.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The shift from a view of complexity based on the number of component parts to the intricacy of microbehaviors to the current )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 288.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(emphasis on the methodology of complexity suggests the possibility of a cognitive turn in the interpretation of this concept: from )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 276.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(understanding organizational complexity in terms of the structure or the behavior of an organization to its effects on human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 264.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 244.848 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(We want to argue that the very reason that makes complexity important to organizational theory also points to a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 232.944 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(conception of complexity. There is wide agreement that complexity matters because of the resulting difficulties when it comes to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 221.039 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(questions of organizational design and decision making. The multiplicity of subsystems, their diversity, the linkages among )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 209.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(them, and the unpredictable aggregate behavior that results make designing ‘effective’ organizations and taking decisions )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 197.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(involving organizations hard. That is, complexity matters only because of the cognitive problems it gives rise to. It is therefore )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 185.325 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(only natural to define and measure complexity in cognitive terms.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 165.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In other words, this cognitive turn implies that complexity should not be seen as an objective feature of some organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 154.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(characteristic, but rather as relative to a decision problem or to the representation a decision maker has of this problem. Apart )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 142.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(from being an arguably natural part of the organizational theories in which it plays a role, a cognitive conception of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 130.206 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(has got three other advantages.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 110.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(First, it sheds light on various questions that come up when studying the extant literature on organizational complexity, two of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 98.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(which will be presented here. Recall that in the literature on complexity as a feature of organizational structure, there was little )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 86.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(agreement on the measurement of complexity. Some argued that complexity is captured by the number of horizontally arranged )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(units and vertical layers, while others insisted on the type of connections between these units and layers. We illustrate in “…And )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 63.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(what a decision-maker should know” how explicitly taking into account the cognitive requirements an organizational designer )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 51.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(faces may resolve the dilemma of whether numbers or connections matter. A further ambiguity concerns the relationship )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 39.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between complexities as an aspect of organizational structure on the one hand, and complexity as organizational behavior on )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 25.087 577.500 751.913 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(as being at the root of complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(With a slightly different emphasis, Jablin and Daft focus on the number of organizational parts in their definitions of complexity. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 736.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Jablin \(1987: 400-404\) uses complexity to depict “the structural components/units into which organizations and their employees )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(may be categorized”. He distinguishes vertical and horizontal complexity. Vertical complexity is the outcome of vertical )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 712.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(differentiation and “is an indication of the number of different hierarchical levels in an organization relative to its size.” Similarly, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(horizontal complexity measures “the number of department divisions in an organization.” One such measure is the “number of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 688.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different occupational specialities or specialized subunits at a given hierarchical level.” That is, complexity refers to the number )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 676.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of parts in an organization, with each part specializing in some activity. Daft \(1989: 18\) uses very similar definitions.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 657.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In this line of research, complexity matters because the implied differentiation allegedly requires integration for the organization )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to perform well. Lawrence and Lorsch \(1967: 1\) consider )] TJ ET
BT 272.808 645.333 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(differentiation)] TJ ET
BT 331.337 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 353.021 645.333 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(integration)] TJ ET
BT 398.544 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( to be antagonistic states, and study )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 633.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ways in which organizations assure integration. Thompson and Galbraith observe that differentiation and heterogeneity make )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 621.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(coordination necessary, with the intensity of coordination being dependent on the type of interdependence. They come up with a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 609.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(classification of complexity on the basis of these differences in the intensity of coordination and the ensuing differences in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information processing demands. Thompson \(1967: 55-59\) distinguishes pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependencies )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between subsystems as the basis for his classification of degrees of complexity. Galbraith \(1973\) distinguishes lateral )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationships of varying intensity. Types of coordination differ in communication and decision load, and Thompson \(1967: 56\) )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(adds, “[t]here are very real costs involved in coordination.”)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 542.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Since the end of the 1980s, a second strand in the literature on organizations has emerged that uses the notion of complexity. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Here, it is related to the behavior originating from the interactions of the many parts of a ‘complex’ system. Building upon early )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(studies on self-organization \(Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977; Prigogine & Prigogine, 1989; Haken, 1983, 1987\), several models )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(investigated the formation of structures between a large number of interacting particles and the ensuing properties of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(behavior of the system as a whole \(Fontana, 1991; Kauffman, 1993\). By analogy, one started to suspect that similar )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(phenomena were widespread in natural and social systems alike. Complexity came to be identified with a special kind of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(behavior, i.e., with intricate aggregate patterns emerging from the interaction of the constituent parts of an organization that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(themselves followed relatively simple behavioral rules. It is evident that these insights and their related methodologies are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relevant to organizational problems \(Anderson, 1999; Frank & Fahrbach, 1999; Lissack, 1999a, 1999b; Marion, 1999; Morel & )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ramanujam, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 416.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(According to this strand of literature, complexity matters to organization theory because it makes organizational behavior subject )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 404.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to surprises and hard to predict \(Anderson, 1999: 216-217\), rendering the attainment of organizational effectiveness )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 392.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(nonobvious. Consequently, decision-makers should become aware of the limits of their knowledge and engage in a learning )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 380.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(process with the complex system they are facing \(Allen, 2000, 2001; Cilliers, 2002; Allen & Strathern, 2003\). Indeed, complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 368.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(is not seen as a set of rules to solve a particular set of problems, but rather a perspective that may provide a new understanding )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to problems \(Lissack & Letiche, 2002\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 319.922 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(A cognitive turn)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 299.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The shift from a view of complexity based on the number of component parts to the intricacy of microbehaviors to the current )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 288.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(emphasis on the methodology of complexity suggests the possibility of a cognitive turn in the interpretation of this concept: from )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 276.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(understanding organizational complexity in terms of the structure or the behavior of an organization to its effects on human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 264.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 244.848 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(We want to argue that the very reason that makes complexity important to organizational theory also points to a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 232.944 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(conception of complexity. There is wide agreement that complexity matters because of the resulting difficulties when it comes to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 221.039 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(questions of organizational design and decision making. The multiplicity of subsystems, their diversity, the linkages among )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 209.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(them, and the unpredictable aggregate behavior that results make designing ‘effective’ organizations and taking decisions )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 197.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(involving organizations hard. That is, complexity matters only because of the cognitive problems it gives rise to. It is therefore )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 185.325 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(only natural to define and measure complexity in cognitive terms.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 165.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In other words, this cognitive turn implies that complexity should not be seen as an objective feature of some organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 154.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(characteristic, but rather as relative to a decision problem or to the representation a decision maker has of this problem. Apart )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 142.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(from being an arguably natural part of the organizational theories in which it plays a role, a cognitive conception of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 130.206 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(has got three other advantages.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 110.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(First, it sheds light on various questions that come up when studying the extant literature on organizational complexity, two of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 98.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(which will be presented here. Recall that in the literature on complexity as a feature of organizational structure, there was little )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 86.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(agreement on the measurement of complexity. Some argued that complexity is captured by the number of horizontally arranged )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(units and vertical layers, while others insisted on the type of connections between these units and layers. We illustrate in “…And )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 63.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(what a decision-maker should know” how explicitly taking into account the cognitive requirements an organizational designer )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 51.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(faces may resolve the dilemma of whether numbers or connections matter. A further ambiguity concerns the relationship )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 39.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between complexities as an aspect of organizational structure on the one hand, and complexity as organizational behavior on )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 25.087 577.500 751.913 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(as being at the root of complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(With a slightly different emphasis, Jablin and Daft focus on the number of organizational parts in their definitions of complexity. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 736.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Jablin \(1987: 400-404\) uses complexity to depict “the structural components/units into which organizations and their employees )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(may be categorized”. He distinguishes vertical and horizontal complexity. Vertical complexity is the outcome of vertical )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 712.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(differentiation and “is an indication of the number of different hierarchical levels in an organization relative to its size.” Similarly, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(horizontal complexity measures “the number of department divisions in an organization.” One such measure is the “number of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 688.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different occupational specialities or specialized subunits at a given hierarchical level.” That is, complexity refers to the number )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 676.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of parts in an organization, with each part specializing in some activity. Daft \(1989: 18\) uses very similar definitions.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 657.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In this line of research, complexity matters because the implied differentiation allegedly requires integration for the organization )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to perform well. Lawrence and Lorsch \(1967: 1\) consider )] TJ ET
BT 272.808 645.333 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(differentiation)] TJ ET
BT 331.337 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 353.021 645.333 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(integration)] TJ ET
BT 398.544 645.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( to be antagonistic states, and study )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 633.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ways in which organizations assure integration. Thompson and Galbraith observe that differentiation and heterogeneity make )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 621.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(coordination necessary, with the intensity of coordination being dependent on the type of interdependence. They come up with a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 609.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(classification of complexity on the basis of these differences in the intensity of coordination and the ensuing differences in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information processing demands. Thompson \(1967: 55-59\) distinguishes pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependencies )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between subsystems as the basis for his classification of degrees of complexity. Galbraith \(1973\) distinguishes lateral )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationships of varying intensity. Types of coordination differ in communication and decision load, and Thompson \(1967: 56\) )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(adds, “[t]here are very real costs involved in coordination.”)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 542.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Since the end of the 1980s, a second strand in the literature on organizations has emerged that uses the notion of complexity. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Here, it is related to the behavior originating from the interactions of the many parts of a ‘complex’ system. Building upon early )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(studies on self-organization \(Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977; Prigogine & Prigogine, 1989; Haken, 1983, 1987\), several models )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(investigated the formation of structures between a large number of interacting particles and the ensuing properties of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(behavior of the system as a whole \(Fontana, 1991; Kauffman, 1993\). By analogy, one started to suspect that similar )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(phenomena were widespread in natural and social systems alike. Complexity came to be identified with a special kind of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(behavior, i.e., with intricate aggregate patterns emerging from the interaction of the constituent parts of an organization that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(themselves followed relatively simple behavioral rules. It is evident that these insights and their related methodologies are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relevant to organizational problems \(Anderson, 1999; Frank & Fahrbach, 1999; Lissack, 1999a, 1999b; Marion, 1999; Morel & )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ramanujam, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 416.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(According to this strand of literature, complexity matters to organization theory because it makes organizational behavior subject )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 404.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to surprises and hard to predict \(Anderson, 1999: 216-217\), rendering the attainment of organizational effectiveness )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 392.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(nonobvious. Consequently, decision-makers should become aware of the limits of their knowledge and engage in a learning )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 380.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(process with the complex system they are facing \(Allen, 2000, 2001; Cilliers, 2002; Allen & Strathern, 2003\). Indeed, complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 368.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(is not seen as a set of rules to solve a particular set of problems, but rather a perspective that may provide a new understanding )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to problems \(Lissack & Letiche, 2002\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 319.922 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(A cognitive turn)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 299.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The shift from a view of complexity based on the number of component parts to the intricacy of microbehaviors to the current )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 288.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(emphasis on the methodology of complexity suggests the possibility of a cognitive turn in the interpretation of this concept: from )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 276.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(understanding organizational complexity in terms of the structure or the behavior of an organization to its effects on human )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 264.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognition.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 244.848 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(We want to argue that the very reason that makes complexity important to organizational theory also points to a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 232.944 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(conception of complexity. There is wide agreement that complexity matters because of the resulting difficulties when it comes to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 221.039 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(questions of organizational design and decision making. The multiplicity of subsystems, their diversity, the linkages among )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 209.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(them, and the unpredictable aggregate behavior that results make designing ‘effective’ organizations and taking decisions )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 197.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(involving organizations hard. That is, complexity matters only because of the cognitive problems it gives rise to. It is therefore )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 185.325 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(only natural to define and measure complexity in cognitive terms.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 165.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In other words, this cognitive turn implies that complexity should not be seen as an objective feature of some organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 154.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(characteristic, but rather as relative to a decision problem or to the representation a decision maker has of this problem. Apart )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 142.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(from being an arguably natural part of the organizational theories in which it plays a role, a cognitive conception of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 130.206 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(has got three other advantages.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 110.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(First, it sheds light on various questions that come up when studying the extant literature on organizational complexity, two of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 98.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(which will be presented here. Recall that in the literature on complexity as a feature of organizational structure, there was little )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 86.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(agreement on the measurement of complexity. Some argued that complexity is captured by the number of horizontally arranged )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(units and vertical layers, while others insisted on the type of connections between these units and layers. We illustrate in “…And )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 63.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(what a decision-maker should know” how explicitly taking into account the cognitive requirements an organizational designer )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 51.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(faces may resolve the dilemma of whether numbers or connections matter. A further ambiguity concerns the relationship )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 39.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between complexities as an aspect of organizational structure on the one hand, and complexity as organizational behavior on )] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
<< /Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Oblique
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 40 0 R
>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Length 26185 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 21.992 577.500 755.008 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the other hand. Little has been said about their relationship, though in both cases reference is made to numerous parts that are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(somehow connected. What unites both approaches is the implicit assumption that numerosity and connectedness make )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(understanding more complicated. Thus, moving to the level of cognition allows us to unify these two strands of literature.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Second, support for a cognitive view of complexity in the realm of organizational studies is provided by several conceptions of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 712.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity in general, to begin with Dupuy \(1982\) and Rosen \(1985\) but also including Crutchfield and Young \(1989\) and Gell-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mann \(1994\), who moved from the idea of )] TJ ET
BT 209.959 700.452 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(computational complexity)] TJ ET
BT 319.413 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( \(Solomonoff, 1964; Kolmogorov, 1965; Chaitin, 1966\). )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 688.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(These insights impact on a discipline where it is widely recognized that strategy-making is tightly linked to both cognitive and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 676.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational problems \(Anderson & Paine, 1975\). So among organization theorists, Simon \(1999: 215\) directs our attention to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity as a characteristic of a description instead of complexity as an objectively given characteristic: “[h]ow complex or )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simple a structure is depends critically upon the way in which we describe it”. Rescher \(1998: 1\) is even more explicit about the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(role of cognition in the definition of complexity. Writing within the context of complexity in general, he states “[o]ur best practical )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 629.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(index of an item’s complexity is the effort that has to be expended in coming to cognitive terms with it in matters of description )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 617.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and explanation.”)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Third, explicit recognition of the cognitive nature of complexity fits very well with the use of the word ‘complex’ in common )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(parlance. Suppose one were to find a more cogent, less complicated account of some \(organizational\) phenomenon. Then, in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(common parlance, one would say that the phenomenon itself has become less complex. Even if a phenomenon is not changing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(one may consider it ‘complex’ at a certain point in time and ‘simple’ at a later time, if in the meantime sufficient information has )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(been received and a proper reformulation of the problem allowed to come to grips with it.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In the next two sections, we provide two ways of exploring organizational complexity in a cognitive way. We illustrate how one )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(could operationalize a cognitive approach to complexity in the realm of organization theory. The two models that we expound )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tackle the same problem from different sides and thus provide complementary points of view.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 470.279 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(What a decision-maker does not know…)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 450.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The first approach to operationalize a cognitive view of complexity starts from observing and modeling the way decision-makers )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 438.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(represent problems in their minds. If this representation has been able to suggest the correct behavior, a decision-maker will not )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 426.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(say that he is facing a complex reality. If, however, this representation suggested a behavior that induced an outcome very )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 414.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different from the intended one, then a decision maker may not be confident that s/he has framed the decision-problem in the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 402.705 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(best possible way. To the extent that he doubts his own representation of a decision problem, he will say that this is a complex )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 390.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(one.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 371.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us look more closely at the process by which mental representations of decision problems arise. Options, objectives and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 359.491 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(strategies are not self-evident. Rather, they result from the cognitive processes of information categorization and the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 347.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(construction of causal relations between these categories; processes whose ultimate outcome is a cognitive map \(Hebb, 1949; )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 335.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hayek, 1952\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 316.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A cognitive map is a network of causal relationships between options and objectives that one can safely trust most of the time, if )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(not always. The cognitive map of a company entails the options that it envisions, the objectives that it wants to pursue, and a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 292.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(network of causal links from options to objectives along paths that represent available strategies.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 273.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Corporate cognitive maps can be reconstructed by means of a linguistic analysis of letters to shareholders and other corporate )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 261.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(documents \(Sigismund-Huff 1990\). For instance, Figure 1 illustrates a portion of Chrysler’s cognitive map extracted from )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 249.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(speeches to securities analysts in 1976 \(Sigismund-Huff & Schwenk, 1990\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 229.848 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Observing Figure 1 it is evident that, in 1976, standardization and reduction of parts were high on the agenda. For instance, “to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 217.944 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(reduce the total number of part numbers to about 50,000” is deemed to generate “additional productive capacity without a major )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 206.039 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(investment in brick and mortar.” Here we can see a causal link from the option of reducing parts to the objective of increasing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 194.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(productive capacity, which, taken together with all other causal links, illustrates Chrysler’s strategy. Although Figure 1 also )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 182.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(includes a number of equivalence relations and supportive examples, these are rhetorical devices that have been included in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 170.325 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the speech with the purpose of stressing causal links. Ultimately, causal links constitute the backbone of a cognitive map.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 150.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thus, the structure of a cognitive map can be seen as a set of links between options and objectives as depicted in Figure 2. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 139.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Note that in order to draw Figure 2 from a part of Figure 1, options and objectives had to be compounded using the equivalence )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 127.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and example relations.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 107.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The most important fact about cognitive maps is that causal relations between options and objectives are not conceived )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 95.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(independently of options and objectives themselves. For instance, the causal link between “reducing the number of parts” and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 83.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(“increasing profitability” was not conceived independently of the idea of reducing the number of parts and increasing profitability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 71.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to the levels attained by Japanese competitors. In fact, managers define options by lumping a number of detailed actions at the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 60.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shop-floor level into broad categories \(e.g. “reducing the number of parts”\). Similarly, they define objectives by lumping a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 48.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of accounting variables together \(e.g., into “increasing profitability”\). Options and objectives are mental categories for a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 36.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of actions to undertake and a number of indicators to observe, which are defined having in mind a possible causal link )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 21.992 577.500 755.008 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the other hand. Little has been said about their relationship, though in both cases reference is made to numerous parts that are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(somehow connected. What unites both approaches is the implicit assumption that numerosity and connectedness make )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(understanding more complicated. Thus, moving to the level of cognition allows us to unify these two strands of literature.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Second, support for a cognitive view of complexity in the realm of organizational studies is provided by several conceptions of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 712.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity in general, to begin with Dupuy \(1982\) and Rosen \(1985\) but also including Crutchfield and Young \(1989\) and Gell-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mann \(1994\), who moved from the idea of )] TJ ET
BT 209.959 700.452 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(computational complexity)] TJ ET
BT 319.413 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( \(Solomonoff, 1964; Kolmogorov, 1965; Chaitin, 1966\). )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 688.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(These insights impact on a discipline where it is widely recognized that strategy-making is tightly linked to both cognitive and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 676.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational problems \(Anderson & Paine, 1975\). So among organization theorists, Simon \(1999: 215\) directs our attention to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity as a characteristic of a description instead of complexity as an objectively given characteristic: “[h]ow complex or )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simple a structure is depends critically upon the way in which we describe it”. Rescher \(1998: 1\) is even more explicit about the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(role of cognition in the definition of complexity. Writing within the context of complexity in general, he states “[o]ur best practical )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 629.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(index of an item’s complexity is the effort that has to be expended in coming to cognitive terms with it in matters of description )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 617.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and explanation.”)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Third, explicit recognition of the cognitive nature of complexity fits very well with the use of the word ‘complex’ in common )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(parlance. Suppose one were to find a more cogent, less complicated account of some \(organizational\) phenomenon. Then, in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(common parlance, one would say that the phenomenon itself has become less complex. Even if a phenomenon is not changing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(one may consider it ‘complex’ at a certain point in time and ‘simple’ at a later time, if in the meantime sufficient information has )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(been received and a proper reformulation of the problem allowed to come to grips with it.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In the next two sections, we provide two ways of exploring organizational complexity in a cognitive way. We illustrate how one )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(could operationalize a cognitive approach to complexity in the realm of organization theory. The two models that we expound )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tackle the same problem from different sides and thus provide complementary points of view.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 470.279 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(What a decision-maker does not know…)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 450.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The first approach to operationalize a cognitive view of complexity starts from observing and modeling the way decision-makers )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 438.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(represent problems in their minds. If this representation has been able to suggest the correct behavior, a decision-maker will not )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 426.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(say that he is facing a complex reality. If, however, this representation suggested a behavior that induced an outcome very )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 414.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different from the intended one, then a decision maker may not be confident that s/he has framed the decision-problem in the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 402.705 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(best possible way. To the extent that he doubts his own representation of a decision problem, he will say that this is a complex )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 390.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(one.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 371.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us look more closely at the process by which mental representations of decision problems arise. Options, objectives and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 359.491 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(strategies are not self-evident. Rather, they result from the cognitive processes of information categorization and the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 347.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(construction of causal relations between these categories; processes whose ultimate outcome is a cognitive map \(Hebb, 1949; )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 335.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hayek, 1952\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 316.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A cognitive map is a network of causal relationships between options and objectives that one can safely trust most of the time, if )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(not always. The cognitive map of a company entails the options that it envisions, the objectives that it wants to pursue, and a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 292.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(network of causal links from options to objectives along paths that represent available strategies.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 273.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Corporate cognitive maps can be reconstructed by means of a linguistic analysis of letters to shareholders and other corporate )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 261.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(documents \(Sigismund-Huff 1990\). For instance, Figure 1 illustrates a portion of Chrysler’s cognitive map extracted from )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 249.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(speeches to securities analysts in 1976 \(Sigismund-Huff & Schwenk, 1990\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 229.848 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Observing Figure 1 it is evident that, in 1976, standardization and reduction of parts were high on the agenda. For instance, “to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 217.944 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(reduce the total number of part numbers to about 50,000” is deemed to generate “additional productive capacity without a major )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 206.039 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(investment in brick and mortar.” Here we can see a causal link from the option of reducing parts to the objective of increasing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 194.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(productive capacity, which, taken together with all other causal links, illustrates Chrysler’s strategy. Although Figure 1 also )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 182.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(includes a number of equivalence relations and supportive examples, these are rhetorical devices that have been included in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 170.325 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the speech with the purpose of stressing causal links. Ultimately, causal links constitute the backbone of a cognitive map.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 150.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thus, the structure of a cognitive map can be seen as a set of links between options and objectives as depicted in Figure 2. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 139.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Note that in order to draw Figure 2 from a part of Figure 1, options and objectives had to be compounded using the equivalence )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 127.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and example relations.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 107.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The most important fact about cognitive maps is that causal relations between options and objectives are not conceived )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 95.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(independently of options and objectives themselves. For instance, the causal link between “reducing the number of parts” and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 83.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(“increasing profitability” was not conceived independently of the idea of reducing the number of parts and increasing profitability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 71.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to the levels attained by Japanese competitors. In fact, managers define options by lumping a number of detailed actions at the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 60.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shop-floor level into broad categories \(e.g. “reducing the number of parts”\). Similarly, they define objectives by lumping a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 48.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of accounting variables together \(e.g., into “increasing profitability”\). Options and objectives are mental categories for a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 36.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of actions to undertake and a number of indicators to observe, which are defined having in mind a possible causal link )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 21.992 577.500 755.008 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the other hand. Little has been said about their relationship, though in both cases reference is made to numerous parts that are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(somehow connected. What unites both approaches is the implicit assumption that numerosity and connectedness make )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(understanding more complicated. Thus, moving to the level of cognition allows us to unify these two strands of literature.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Second, support for a cognitive view of complexity in the realm of organizational studies is provided by several conceptions of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 712.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity in general, to begin with Dupuy \(1982\) and Rosen \(1985\) but also including Crutchfield and Young \(1989\) and Gell-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mann \(1994\), who moved from the idea of )] TJ ET
BT 209.959 700.452 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(computational complexity)] TJ ET
BT 319.413 700.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( \(Solomonoff, 1964; Kolmogorov, 1965; Chaitin, 1966\). )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 688.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(These insights impact on a discipline where it is widely recognized that strategy-making is tightly linked to both cognitive and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 676.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational problems \(Anderson & Paine, 1975\). So among organization theorists, Simon \(1999: 215\) directs our attention to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity as a characteristic of a description instead of complexity as an objectively given characteristic: “[h]ow complex or )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simple a structure is depends critically upon the way in which we describe it”. Rescher \(1998: 1\) is even more explicit about the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(role of cognition in the definition of complexity. Writing within the context of complexity in general, he states “[o]ur best practical )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 629.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(index of an item’s complexity is the effort that has to be expended in coming to cognitive terms with it in matters of description )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 617.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and explanation.”)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Third, explicit recognition of the cognitive nature of complexity fits very well with the use of the word ‘complex’ in common )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(parlance. Suppose one were to find a more cogent, less complicated account of some \(organizational\) phenomenon. Then, in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(common parlance, one would say that the phenomenon itself has become less complex. Even if a phenomenon is not changing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(one may consider it ‘complex’ at a certain point in time and ‘simple’ at a later time, if in the meantime sufficient information has )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(been received and a proper reformulation of the problem allowed to come to grips with it.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In the next two sections, we provide two ways of exploring organizational complexity in a cognitive way. We illustrate how one )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(could operationalize a cognitive approach to complexity in the realm of organization theory. The two models that we expound )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tackle the same problem from different sides and thus provide complementary points of view.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 470.279 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(What a decision-maker does not know…)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 450.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The first approach to operationalize a cognitive view of complexity starts from observing and modeling the way decision-makers )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 438.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(represent problems in their minds. If this representation has been able to suggest the correct behavior, a decision-maker will not )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 426.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(say that he is facing a complex reality. If, however, this representation suggested a behavior that induced an outcome very )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 414.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different from the intended one, then a decision maker may not be confident that s/he has framed the decision-problem in the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 402.705 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(best possible way. To the extent that he doubts his own representation of a decision problem, he will say that this is a complex )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 390.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(one.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 371.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us look more closely at the process by which mental representations of decision problems arise. Options, objectives and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 359.491 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(strategies are not self-evident. Rather, they result from the cognitive processes of information categorization and the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 347.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(construction of causal relations between these categories; processes whose ultimate outcome is a cognitive map \(Hebb, 1949; )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 335.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hayek, 1952\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 316.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A cognitive map is a network of causal relationships between options and objectives that one can safely trust most of the time, if )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(not always. The cognitive map of a company entails the options that it envisions, the objectives that it wants to pursue, and a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 292.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(network of causal links from options to objectives along paths that represent available strategies.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 273.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Corporate cognitive maps can be reconstructed by means of a linguistic analysis of letters to shareholders and other corporate )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 261.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(documents \(Sigismund-Huff 1990\). For instance, Figure 1 illustrates a portion of Chrysler’s cognitive map extracted from )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 249.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(speeches to securities analysts in 1976 \(Sigismund-Huff & Schwenk, 1990\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 229.848 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Observing Figure 1 it is evident that, in 1976, standardization and reduction of parts were high on the agenda. For instance, “to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 217.944 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(reduce the total number of part numbers to about 50,000” is deemed to generate “additional productive capacity without a major )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 206.039 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(investment in brick and mortar.” Here we can see a causal link from the option of reducing parts to the objective of increasing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 194.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(productive capacity, which, taken together with all other causal links, illustrates Chrysler’s strategy. Although Figure 1 also )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 182.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(includes a number of equivalence relations and supportive examples, these are rhetorical devices that have been included in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 170.325 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the speech with the purpose of stressing causal links. Ultimately, causal links constitute the backbone of a cognitive map.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 150.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thus, the structure of a cognitive map can be seen as a set of links between options and objectives as depicted in Figure 2. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 139.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Note that in order to draw Figure 2 from a part of Figure 1, options and objectives had to be compounded using the equivalence )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 127.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and example relations.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 107.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The most important fact about cognitive maps is that causal relations between options and objectives are not conceived )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 95.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(independently of options and objectives themselves. For instance, the causal link between “reducing the number of parts” and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 83.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(“increasing profitability” was not conceived independently of the idea of reducing the number of parts and increasing profitability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 71.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to the levels attained by Japanese competitors. In fact, managers define options by lumping a number of detailed actions at the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 60.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shop-floor level into broad categories \(e.g. “reducing the number of parts”\). Similarly, they define objectives by lumping a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 48.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of accounting variables together \(e.g., into “increasing profitability”\). Options and objectives are mental categories for a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 36.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of actions to undertake and a number of indicators to observe, which are defined having in mind a possible causal link )] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Annots [ 43 0 R 45 0 R 47 0 R 49 0 R 51 0 R 53 0 R 55 0 R 57 0 R 59 0 R ]
/Contents 42 0 R
>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Length 24226 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 24.367 577.500 752.633 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between them. Thus, the categories employed by a decision-maker cannot be investigated in isolation from one another, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(rather within the network in which they are embedded.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 736.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Since causal links are tailored to specific options and objectives, emergence of novelties is detected when the chosen option did )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(not reach the expected objective.)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 594.004 555.000 120.377 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 714.381 m 581.250 714.381 l 581.250 713.631 l 26.250 713.631 l f
26.250 594.004 m 581.250 594.004 l 581.250 594.754 l 26.250 594.754 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 695.612 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 669.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 659.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485-300x191.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 597.754 537.000 52.877 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 641.107 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 1: Chrysler cognitive map, 1976)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 621.737 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Positive causal links are denoted by a ‘+’, negative causal links are denoted by a ‘-’, equivalences are denoted by a ‘=’ and )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 608.001 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(10 examples are denoted by an ‘e’. Dashed lines denote inferred relationships)] TJ ET
BT 371.791 608.001 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 576.980 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(For instance, Chrysler’s experience after restructuring was that, although its reorganization program brought it close to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 565.075 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(standards of its Japanese competitors, lack of standardized communication procedures kept it short from reaching their levels of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 553.170 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(performance \(Sobek, )] TJ ET
BT 119.996 553.170 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 141.134 553.170 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1998\). In other words, novelties call attention upon themselves because causal links appear, that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 541.266 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(are different from the expected ones. This observation is crucial for the concept of complexity presented in this section.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 521.861 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In fact, let us define complexity as the extent to which empirical experience runs contrary to the expectations embedded in a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 509.956 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive map. It is when novelties emerge that the causal relations that one expects may not hold. On these occasions, a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 498.051 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decision-maker is likely to say that he is facing a ‘complex’ environment.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 478.647 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Given this definition, complexity can be measured by looking at the structure of causal links in a cognitive map. At a first glance, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 466.742 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(it may seem straightforward to measure complexity by means of an index of the extent to which empirical experiences make a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 454.837 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive map intertwined: the more distant from a simple network of one-to-one correspondences, the higher the complexity is. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 442.932 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(However, a second factor should be considered, namely, that a cognitive map where highly intertwined blocks are separated by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 431.028 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(sparse links should yield a lower complexity than one where even blocks are not distinguishable. For instance, Figure 3 )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 419.123 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(illustrates a situation where complexity should be zero \(left\), maximum \(center\) and intermediate \(right\). In this last case, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 407.218 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity is lower because intertwined causal links are arranged in blocks. Although Figure 1 does not depict a very )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 395.313 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(intertwined cognitive map, we can distinguish blocks of linkages: the largest one refers to parts reduction and standardization, a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 383.409 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(second one focuses on the merger with a South African car manufacturer, and two other blocks are concerned with compact )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 371.504 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and midsize cars, respectively. A detailed mathematical account of the proposed measure can be found in Appendix A.)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 276.218 555.000 85.405 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 361.623 m 581.250 361.623 l 581.250 360.873 l 26.250 360.873 l f
26.250 276.218 m 581.250 276.218 l 581.250 276.968 l 26.250 276.968 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 342.854 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 316.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 306.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790-300x105.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 279.968 537.000 17.905 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 288.349 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 2: A portion of the causal links depicted in Figure 1, after compounding some of the items)] TJ ET
Q
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 134.605 555.000 134.114 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 268.718 m 581.250 268.718 l 581.250 267.968 l 26.250 267.968 l f
26.250 134.605 m 581.250 134.605 l 581.250 135.355 l 26.250 135.355 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 249.949 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 223.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 213.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324-300x146.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 138.355 537.000 66.614 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 195.444 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 3: Three cognitive maps illustrating causal links between options and objectives)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 176.074 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(From left to right, a cognitive map that works perfectly envisions a simple world, a cognitive map that is not able to provide )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 162.338 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(any orientation envisions a very complex world, and a cognitive map where causal links have a structure envisions a world )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 148.602 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(of intermediate complexity)] TJ ET
BT 148.496 148.602 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 117.581 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This approach to complexity is useful in order to explain sudden jumps in decision-making, from an established course of action )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 105.676 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to realizing of the importance of breaking from that established course when novel events interrupt our certitudes, requiring a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 93.771 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(novel vision of what are the right things to do. Changing one’s vision corresponds to changing one’s cognitive map, either as a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 81.867 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(consequence of losing faith in an established one or because of restored confidence in a new one \(Sigismund-Huff & Huff, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 69.962 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(2000\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 50.557 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organizations may take a long time in order to realize that their cognitive frame should be changed, and they may take an even )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 38.652 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(longer time in order to change it. Evidence suggests that changing a cognitive map is not triggered automatically by a single )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 24.367 577.500 752.633 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between them. Thus, the categories employed by a decision-maker cannot be investigated in isolation from one another, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(rather within the network in which they are embedded.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 736.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Since causal links are tailored to specific options and objectives, emergence of novelties is detected when the chosen option did )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(not reach the expected objective.)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 594.004 555.000 120.377 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 714.381 m 581.250 714.381 l 581.250 713.631 l 26.250 713.631 l f
26.250 594.004 m 581.250 594.004 l 581.250 594.754 l 26.250 594.754 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 695.612 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 669.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 659.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485-300x191.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 597.754 537.000 52.877 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 641.107 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 1: Chrysler cognitive map, 1976)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 621.737 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Positive causal links are denoted by a ‘+’, negative causal links are denoted by a ‘-’, equivalences are denoted by a ‘=’ and )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 608.001 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(10 examples are denoted by an ‘e’. Dashed lines denote inferred relationships)] TJ ET
BT 371.791 608.001 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 576.980 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(For instance, Chrysler’s experience after restructuring was that, although its reorganization program brought it close to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 565.075 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(standards of its Japanese competitors, lack of standardized communication procedures kept it short from reaching their levels of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 553.170 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(performance \(Sobek, )] TJ ET
BT 119.996 553.170 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 141.134 553.170 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1998\). In other words, novelties call attention upon themselves because causal links appear, that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 541.266 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(are different from the expected ones. This observation is crucial for the concept of complexity presented in this section.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 521.861 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In fact, let us define complexity as the extent to which empirical experience runs contrary to the expectations embedded in a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 509.956 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive map. It is when novelties emerge that the causal relations that one expects may not hold. On these occasions, a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 498.051 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decision-maker is likely to say that he is facing a ‘complex’ environment.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 478.647 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Given this definition, complexity can be measured by looking at the structure of causal links in a cognitive map. At a first glance, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 466.742 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(it may seem straightforward to measure complexity by means of an index of the extent to which empirical experiences make a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 454.837 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive map intertwined: the more distant from a simple network of one-to-one correspondences, the higher the complexity is. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 442.932 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(However, a second factor should be considered, namely, that a cognitive map where highly intertwined blocks are separated by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 431.028 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(sparse links should yield a lower complexity than one where even blocks are not distinguishable. For instance, Figure 3 )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 419.123 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(illustrates a situation where complexity should be zero \(left\), maximum \(center\) and intermediate \(right\). In this last case, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 407.218 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity is lower because intertwined causal links are arranged in blocks. Although Figure 1 does not depict a very )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 395.313 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(intertwined cognitive map, we can distinguish blocks of linkages: the largest one refers to parts reduction and standardization, a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 383.409 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(second one focuses on the merger with a South African car manufacturer, and two other blocks are concerned with compact )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 371.504 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and midsize cars, respectively. A detailed mathematical account of the proposed measure can be found in Appendix A.)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 276.218 555.000 85.405 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 361.623 m 581.250 361.623 l 581.250 360.873 l 26.250 360.873 l f
26.250 276.218 m 581.250 276.218 l 581.250 276.968 l 26.250 276.968 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 342.854 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 316.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 306.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790-300x105.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 279.968 537.000 17.905 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 288.349 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 2: A portion of the causal links depicted in Figure 1, after compounding some of the items)] TJ ET
Q
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 134.605 555.000 134.114 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 268.718 m 581.250 268.718 l 581.250 267.968 l 26.250 267.968 l f
26.250 134.605 m 581.250 134.605 l 581.250 135.355 l 26.250 135.355 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 249.949 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 223.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 213.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324-300x146.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 138.355 537.000 66.614 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 195.444 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 3: Three cognitive maps illustrating causal links between options and objectives)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 176.074 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(From left to right, a cognitive map that works perfectly envisions a simple world, a cognitive map that is not able to provide )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 162.338 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(any orientation envisions a very complex world, and a cognitive map where causal links have a structure envisions a world )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 148.602 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(of intermediate complexity)] TJ ET
BT 148.496 148.602 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 117.581 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This approach to complexity is useful in order to explain sudden jumps in decision-making, from an established course of action )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 105.676 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to realizing of the importance of breaking from that established course when novel events interrupt our certitudes, requiring a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 93.771 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(novel vision of what are the right things to do. Changing one’s vision corresponds to changing one’s cognitive map, either as a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 81.867 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(consequence of losing faith in an established one or because of restored confidence in a new one \(Sigismund-Huff & Huff, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 69.962 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(2000\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 50.557 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organizations may take a long time in order to realize that their cognitive frame should be changed, and they may take an even )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 38.652 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(longer time in order to change it. Evidence suggests that changing a cognitive map is not triggered automatically by a single )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 24.367 577.500 752.633 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(between them. Thus, the categories employed by a decision-maker cannot be investigated in isolation from one another, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(rather within the network in which they are embedded.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 736.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Since causal links are tailored to specific options and objectives, emergence of novelties is detected when the chosen option did )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 724.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(not reach the expected objective.)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 594.004 555.000 120.377 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 714.381 m 581.250 714.381 l 581.250 713.631 l 26.250 713.631 l f
26.250 594.004 m 581.250 594.004 l 581.250 594.754 l 26.250 594.754 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 695.612 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 669.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 659.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485-300x191.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 597.754 537.000 52.877 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 641.107 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 1: Chrysler cognitive map, 1976)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 621.737 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Positive causal links are denoted by a ‘+’, negative causal links are denoted by a ‘-’, equivalences are denoted by a ‘=’ and )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 608.001 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(10 examples are denoted by an ‘e’. Dashed lines denote inferred relationships)] TJ ET
BT 371.791 608.001 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 576.980 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(For instance, Chrysler’s experience after restructuring was that, although its reorganization program brought it close to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 565.075 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(standards of its Japanese competitors, lack of standardized communication procedures kept it short from reaching their levels of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 553.170 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(performance \(Sobek, )] TJ ET
BT 119.996 553.170 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 141.134 553.170 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1998\). In other words, novelties call attention upon themselves because causal links appear, that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 541.266 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(are different from the expected ones. This observation is crucial for the concept of complexity presented in this section.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 521.861 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In fact, let us define complexity as the extent to which empirical experience runs contrary to the expectations embedded in a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 509.956 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive map. It is when novelties emerge that the causal relations that one expects may not hold. On these occasions, a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 498.051 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decision-maker is likely to say that he is facing a ‘complex’ environment.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 478.647 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Given this definition, complexity can be measured by looking at the structure of causal links in a cognitive map. At a first glance, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 466.742 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(it may seem straightforward to measure complexity by means of an index of the extent to which empirical experiences make a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 454.837 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cognitive map intertwined: the more distant from a simple network of one-to-one correspondences, the higher the complexity is. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 442.932 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(However, a second factor should be considered, namely, that a cognitive map where highly intertwined blocks are separated by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 431.028 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(sparse links should yield a lower complexity than one where even blocks are not distinguishable. For instance, Figure 3 )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 419.123 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(illustrates a situation where complexity should be zero \(left\), maximum \(center\) and intermediate \(right\). In this last case, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 407.218 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complexity is lower because intertwined causal links are arranged in blocks. Although Figure 1 does not depict a very )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 395.313 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(intertwined cognitive map, we can distinguish blocks of linkages: the largest one refers to parts reduction and standardization, a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 383.409 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(second one focuses on the merger with a South African car manufacturer, and two other blocks are concerned with compact )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 371.504 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and midsize cars, respectively. A detailed mathematical account of the proposed measure can be found in Appendix A.)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 276.218 555.000 85.405 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 361.623 m 581.250 361.623 l 581.250 360.873 l 26.250 360.873 l f
26.250 276.218 m 581.250 276.218 l 581.250 276.968 l 26.250 276.968 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 342.854 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 316.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 306.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790-300x105.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 279.968 537.000 17.905 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 288.349 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 2: A portion of the causal links depicted in Figure 1, after compounding some of the items)] TJ ET
Q
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 134.605 555.000 134.114 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 268.718 m 581.250 268.718 l 581.250 267.968 l 26.250 267.968 l f
26.250 134.605 m 581.250 134.605 l 581.250 135.355 l 26.250 135.355 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 249.949 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 223.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 213.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324-300x146.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 138.355 537.000 66.614 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 195.444 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 3: Three cognitive maps illustrating causal links between options and objectives)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 176.074 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(From left to right, a cognitive map that works perfectly envisions a simple world, a cognitive map that is not able to provide )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 162.338 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(any orientation envisions a very complex world, and a cognitive map where causal links have a structure envisions a world )] TJ ET
BT 35.250 148.602 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(of intermediate complexity)] TJ ET
BT 148.496 148.602 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 117.581 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This approach to complexity is useful in order to explain sudden jumps in decision-making, from an established course of action )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 105.676 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to realizing of the importance of breaking from that established course when novel events interrupt our certitudes, requiring a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 93.771 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(novel vision of what are the right things to do. Changing one’s vision corresponds to changing one’s cognitive map, either as a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 81.867 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(consequence of losing faith in an established one or because of restored confidence in a new one \(Sigismund-Huff & Huff, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 69.962 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(2000\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 50.557 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Organizations may take a long time in order to realize that their cognitive frame should be changed, and they may take an even )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 38.652 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(longer time in order to change it. Evidence suggests that changing a cognitive map is not triggered automatically by a single )] TJ ET
Q
BT 35.250 695.612 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 669.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 659.231 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485-300x191.png)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 342.854 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 316.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 306.473 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790-300x105.png)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 249.949 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 223.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 213.568 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324-300x146.png)] TJ ET
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(4)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
43 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 44 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 656.6310 83.2500 704.6310 ]
>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485.png)
>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 46 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 303.8730 83.2500 351.8730 ]
>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790.png)
>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 48 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 210.9682 83.2500 258.9682 ]
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324.png)
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 50 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 656.6310 83.2500 704.6310 ]
>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485.png)
>>
endobj
51 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 52 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 303.8730 83.2500 351.8730 ]
>>
endobj
52 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790.png)
>>
endobj
53 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 54 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 210.9682 83.2500 258.9682 ]
>>
endobj
54 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324.png)
>>
endobj
55 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 56 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 656.6310 83.2500 704.6310 ]
>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/c8bb1e2e-486f-e05b-7fee-042b7610f485.png)
>>
endobj
57 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 58 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 303.8730 83.2500 351.8730 ]
>>
endobj
58 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f1aee437-3507-7ba6-3d32-a8d5c0899790.png)
>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 60 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 210.9682 83.2500 258.9682 ]
>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fe6b96e9-d99f-bdcf-e24a-0e3d8ff27324.png)
>>
endobj
61 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 62 0 R
>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Length 28453 >>
stream
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
q
15.000 29.491 577.500 747.509 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(instance of an unexpected reaction of competitors, or by other changes in the environment. Organizations go through phases of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shock and defensive retreat; continue doing the same, but more; wanting to “weather the storm” before acknowledging changes )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and adapting to the new reality by “unlearning yesterday” and “inventing tomorrow” \(Fink, )] TJ ET
BT 412.077 743.667 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 433.215 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1971; Hedberg, )] TJ ET
BT 508.553 743.667 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 529.691 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1976; see )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(also Ford, 1985; Ford & Baucus, 1987; Mone, )] TJ ET
BT 226.232 731.762 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 247.370 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1998\). For instance, the first reaction of the US automotive industry to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(entrance of Japanese rivals in the US market was to blame its difficulties “on the government, on unfair trade, on brickheaded )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(workers, on snooty American consumers, and \(…\) on the ‘congenital sickos’ in the media” \(Ingrassia & White, 1994: 456; see )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(also Womack, )] TJ ET
BT 90.181 696.048 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 111.319 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1990\). Only after years of irregular and dwindling profits was it realized that Detroit’s view of a reasonably )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 684.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(predictable world and competitive advantages built on economies of scale had given way.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Realizing that one’s cognitive map is not providing the right guidelines is the stimulus that triggers a search for a new one. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Recognizing the inadequacy of a cognitive map to deal with novel phenomena, stopping decision-making in order to formulate a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(new cognitive map and starting again as soon as it has become available, is a continuous, never ending process.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 621.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(On the one hand, a cognitive map makes sense as far as it is able to provide simple and reliable guidance to decision-making. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 609.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Being simple, in the sense of providing clear-cut directions of causality, is part of the very nature of a cognitive map \(Axelrod, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(1976\). On the other hand, simplicity and coarseness make a cognitive map obsolete when novelties appear. When the causal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(links that a cognitive map proposes in order to interpret reality are at odds with real experiences, then a decision-maker has a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complicated, intertwined map, one that says that for as a consequence of any option anything may happen. Such a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(map is useless. When managers do not know what to do – when they prefer waiting to acting – then they would say that the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(situation is complex. It is wiser to wait and see, postponing decision-making until a new, reliable cognitive map has become )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(available. It is the source of liquidity preference in the face of too uncertain investment prospects \(Keynes, 1936\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A cognitive map that is able to provide a sensible orientation in decision-making is a simple one, one that connects options to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objectives with a few, clear-cut causal links. Novelties may emerge, that eventually generate additional causal relationships. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This means that it becomes very difficult for managers to make a decision, since they foresee many different, even opposite )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(outcomes for each single option. Decisions are likely not to be made until a new cognitive map has been developed. Clearly, we )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cannot predict the new map that will be conceived, but we can measure )] TJ ET
BT 337.314 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(the extent to which the present one is far from being )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(simple)] TJ ET
BT 54.418 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, and call this magnitude )] TJ ET
BT 162.263 459.262 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(complexity)] TJ ET
BT 208.312 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 439.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Complexity, as it has been expounded in this section, denotes a mismatch between the world as it is envisioned by decision-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 427.953 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(makers and reality as it actually is. A basic tenet of organization theory is that an organization’s information processing capacity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 416.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(should be tailored to the information processing requirements of its environment \(Tushman & Nadler, 1978\). This is not the case )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 404.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(when an organization views its environment as complex.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 367.541 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(…And what a decision-maker should know)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 347.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In the previous section complexity is defined in terms of key managers lacking confidence in the cognitive map that they had )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 335.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(been using hitherto. Sooner or later action should be taken in order to solve this problem. As we shall see, this observation )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 323.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(suggests a second and complementary view of complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Through collection of new data, brainstorming and discussion, managers sooner or later will be able to construct a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 292.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(map that provides an explanation for confusing facts. It is not our purpose to describe the creative aspects of the process by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 280.563 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(which a novel cognitive map is formulated. Rather, we pick the point in time when a novel cognitive map has just been )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 268.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(conceived and we focus on its implementation. Once a new cognitive map is there, managers face well-defined organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 256.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(problems in search for relevant information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 237.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Supposing that a just-forged cognitive map must be applied to concrete situations, one can think of organizational complexity as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 225.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of )] TJ ET
BT 37.092 225.444 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(the amount of information that is necessary in order to solve a given class of decision problems)] TJ ET
BT 446.767 225.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. One can think of a collection )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 213.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of tasks, employees, or structural features that can be arranged in different ways in order to perform adequately in the situations )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 201.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that are envisaged by the accepted cognitive map. For the purpose of this paper, )] TJ ET
BT 376.899 201.634 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(organizational structure)] TJ ET
BT 478.231 201.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( refers to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 189.729 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment of tasks and authority to employees; to the grouping of these employees in organizational units and other work )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 177.825 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationships; and to the connections between these units and their overall arrangement. The goal is to attain a good fit between )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 165.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the elements that make up an organizational structure and its environment.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 146.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(An organization will need information about certain characteristics of its tasks, its employees and its own structural features in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 134.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(order to fit its employees with the tasks they face in particular organizational positions. However, the required information on the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 122.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(specific abilities of single employees may well depend on the many possible ways of arranging these employees. Moreover, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 110.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information produced by individual employees who are dispersed throughout the organization will have to be aggregated in one )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 98.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of many possible ways in order to be useful to top managers. Thus, the amount of information that is required, and the number )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 86.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of employees that should be consulted in order to solve a decision problem, is likely to be affected by organizational structure. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Two examples illustrate these points.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 55.682 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Example 1)] TJ ET
BT 74.483 55.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(: In a production process where various tasks must be performed sequentially, inventories reduce the amount of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 43.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information concerning the timing of individual tasks that is required to run the overall process smoothly. On the contrary, Just-in-)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 29.491 577.500 747.509 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(instance of an unexpected reaction of competitors, or by other changes in the environment. Organizations go through phases of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shock and defensive retreat; continue doing the same, but more; wanting to “weather the storm” before acknowledging changes )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and adapting to the new reality by “unlearning yesterday” and “inventing tomorrow” \(Fink, )] TJ ET
BT 412.077 743.667 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 433.215 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1971; Hedberg, )] TJ ET
BT 508.553 743.667 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 529.691 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1976; see )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(also Ford, 1985; Ford & Baucus, 1987; Mone, )] TJ ET
BT 226.232 731.762 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 247.370 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1998\). For instance, the first reaction of the US automotive industry to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(entrance of Japanese rivals in the US market was to blame its difficulties “on the government, on unfair trade, on brickheaded )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(workers, on snooty American consumers, and \(…\) on the ‘congenital sickos’ in the media” \(Ingrassia & White, 1994: 456; see )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(also Womack, )] TJ ET
BT 90.181 696.048 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 111.319 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1990\). Only after years of irregular and dwindling profits was it realized that Detroit’s view of a reasonably )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 684.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(predictable world and competitive advantages built on economies of scale had given way.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Realizing that one’s cognitive map is not providing the right guidelines is the stimulus that triggers a search for a new one. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Recognizing the inadequacy of a cognitive map to deal with novel phenomena, stopping decision-making in order to formulate a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(new cognitive map and starting again as soon as it has become available, is a continuous, never ending process.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 621.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(On the one hand, a cognitive map makes sense as far as it is able to provide simple and reliable guidance to decision-making. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 609.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Being simple, in the sense of providing clear-cut directions of causality, is part of the very nature of a cognitive map \(Axelrod, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(1976\). On the other hand, simplicity and coarseness make a cognitive map obsolete when novelties appear. When the causal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(links that a cognitive map proposes in order to interpret reality are at odds with real experiences, then a decision-maker has a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complicated, intertwined map, one that says that for as a consequence of any option anything may happen. Such a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(map is useless. When managers do not know what to do – when they prefer waiting to acting – then they would say that the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(situation is complex. It is wiser to wait and see, postponing decision-making until a new, reliable cognitive map has become )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(available. It is the source of liquidity preference in the face of too uncertain investment prospects \(Keynes, 1936\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A cognitive map that is able to provide a sensible orientation in decision-making is a simple one, one that connects options to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objectives with a few, clear-cut causal links. Novelties may emerge, that eventually generate additional causal relationships. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This means that it becomes very difficult for managers to make a decision, since they foresee many different, even opposite )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(outcomes for each single option. Decisions are likely not to be made until a new cognitive map has been developed. Clearly, we )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cannot predict the new map that will be conceived, but we can measure )] TJ ET
BT 337.314 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(the extent to which the present one is far from being )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(simple)] TJ ET
BT 54.418 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, and call this magnitude )] TJ ET
BT 162.263 459.262 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(complexity)] TJ ET
BT 208.312 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 439.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Complexity, as it has been expounded in this section, denotes a mismatch between the world as it is envisioned by decision-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 427.953 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(makers and reality as it actually is. A basic tenet of organization theory is that an organization’s information processing capacity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 416.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(should be tailored to the information processing requirements of its environment \(Tushman & Nadler, 1978\). This is not the case )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 404.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(when an organization views its environment as complex.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 367.541 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(…And what a decision-maker should know)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 347.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In the previous section complexity is defined in terms of key managers lacking confidence in the cognitive map that they had )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 335.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(been using hitherto. Sooner or later action should be taken in order to solve this problem. As we shall see, this observation )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 323.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(suggests a second and complementary view of complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Through collection of new data, brainstorming and discussion, managers sooner or later will be able to construct a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 292.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(map that provides an explanation for confusing facts. It is not our purpose to describe the creative aspects of the process by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 280.563 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(which a novel cognitive map is formulated. Rather, we pick the point in time when a novel cognitive map has just been )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 268.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(conceived and we focus on its implementation. Once a new cognitive map is there, managers face well-defined organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 256.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(problems in search for relevant information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 237.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Supposing that a just-forged cognitive map must be applied to concrete situations, one can think of organizational complexity as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 225.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of )] TJ ET
BT 37.092 225.444 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(the amount of information that is necessary in order to solve a given class of decision problems)] TJ ET
BT 446.767 225.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. One can think of a collection )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 213.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of tasks, employees, or structural features that can be arranged in different ways in order to perform adequately in the situations )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 201.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that are envisaged by the accepted cognitive map. For the purpose of this paper, )] TJ ET
BT 376.899 201.634 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(organizational structure)] TJ ET
BT 478.231 201.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( refers to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 189.729 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment of tasks and authority to employees; to the grouping of these employees in organizational units and other work )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 177.825 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationships; and to the connections between these units and their overall arrangement. The goal is to attain a good fit between )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 165.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the elements that make up an organizational structure and its environment.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 146.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(An organization will need information about certain characteristics of its tasks, its employees and its own structural features in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 134.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(order to fit its employees with the tasks they face in particular organizational positions. However, the required information on the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 122.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(specific abilities of single employees may well depend on the many possible ways of arranging these employees. Moreover, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 110.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information produced by individual employees who are dispersed throughout the organization will have to be aggregated in one )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 98.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of many possible ways in order to be useful to top managers. Thus, the amount of information that is required, and the number )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 86.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of employees that should be consulted in order to solve a decision problem, is likely to be affected by organizational structure. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Two examples illustrate these points.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 55.682 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Example 1)] TJ ET
BT 74.483 55.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(: In a production process where various tasks must be performed sequentially, inventories reduce the amount of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 43.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information concerning the timing of individual tasks that is required to run the overall process smoothly. On the contrary, Just-in-)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 29.491 577.500 747.509 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(instance of an unexpected reaction of competitors, or by other changes in the environment. Organizations go through phases of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shock and defensive retreat; continue doing the same, but more; wanting to “weather the storm” before acknowledging changes )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and adapting to the new reality by “unlearning yesterday” and “inventing tomorrow” \(Fink, )] TJ ET
BT 412.077 743.667 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 433.215 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1971; Hedberg, )] TJ ET
BT 508.553 743.667 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 529.691 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1976; see )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(also Ford, 1985; Ford & Baucus, 1987; Mone, )] TJ ET
BT 226.232 731.762 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 247.370 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1998\). For instance, the first reaction of the US automotive industry to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(entrance of Japanese rivals in the US market was to blame its difficulties “on the government, on unfair trade, on brickheaded )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(workers, on snooty American consumers, and \(…\) on the ‘congenital sickos’ in the media” \(Ingrassia & White, 1994: 456; see )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(also Womack, )] TJ ET
BT 90.181 696.048 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(et al.)] TJ ET
BT 111.319 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, 1990\). Only after years of irregular and dwindling profits was it realized that Detroit’s view of a reasonably )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 684.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(predictable world and competitive advantages built on economies of scale had given way.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Realizing that one’s cognitive map is not providing the right guidelines is the stimulus that triggers a search for a new one. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Recognizing the inadequacy of a cognitive map to deal with novel phenomena, stopping decision-making in order to formulate a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(new cognitive map and starting again as soon as it has become available, is a continuous, never ending process.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 621.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(On the one hand, a cognitive map makes sense as far as it is able to provide simple and reliable guidance to decision-making. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 609.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Being simple, in the sense of providing clear-cut directions of causality, is part of the very nature of a cognitive map \(Axelrod, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 597.714 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(1976\). On the other hand, simplicity and coarseness make a cognitive map obsolete when novelties appear. When the causal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 585.810 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(links that a cognitive map proposes in order to interpret reality are at odds with real experiences, then a decision-maker has a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(complicated, intertwined map, one that says that for as a consequence of any option anything may happen. Such a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(map is useless. When managers do not know what to do – when they prefer waiting to acting – then they would say that the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(situation is complex. It is wiser to wait and see, postponing decision-making until a new, reliable cognitive map has become )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(available. It is the source of liquidity preference in the face of too uncertain investment prospects \(Keynes, 1936\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A cognitive map that is able to provide a sensible orientation in decision-making is a simple one, one that connects options to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objectives with a few, clear-cut causal links. Novelties may emerge, that eventually generate additional causal relationships. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This means that it becomes very difficult for managers to make a decision, since they foresee many different, even opposite )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(outcomes for each single option. Decisions are likely not to be made until a new cognitive map has been developed. Clearly, we )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(cannot predict the new map that will be conceived, but we can measure )] TJ ET
BT 337.314 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(the extent to which the present one is far from being )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(simple)] TJ ET
BT 54.418 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, and call this magnitude )] TJ ET
BT 162.263 459.262 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(complexity)] TJ ET
BT 208.312 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 439.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Complexity, as it has been expounded in this section, denotes a mismatch between the world as it is envisioned by decision-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 427.953 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(makers and reality as it actually is. A basic tenet of organization theory is that an organization’s information processing capacity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 416.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(should be tailored to the information processing requirements of its environment \(Tushman & Nadler, 1978\). This is not the case )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 404.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(when an organization views its environment as complex.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 367.541 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(…And what a decision-maker should know)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 347.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In the previous section complexity is defined in terms of key managers lacking confidence in the cognitive map that they had )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 335.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(been using hitherto. Sooner or later action should be taken in order to solve this problem. As we shall see, this observation )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 323.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(suggests a second and complementary view of complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Through collection of new data, brainstorming and discussion, managers sooner or later will be able to construct a cognitive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 292.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(map that provides an explanation for confusing facts. It is not our purpose to describe the creative aspects of the process by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 280.563 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(which a novel cognitive map is formulated. Rather, we pick the point in time when a novel cognitive map has just been )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 268.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(conceived and we focus on its implementation. Once a new cognitive map is there, managers face well-defined organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 256.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(problems in search for relevant information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 237.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Supposing that a just-forged cognitive map must be applied to concrete situations, one can think of organizational complexity as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 225.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of )] TJ ET
BT 37.092 225.444 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(the amount of information that is necessary in order to solve a given class of decision problems)] TJ ET
BT 446.767 225.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. One can think of a collection )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 213.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of tasks, employees, or structural features that can be arranged in different ways in order to perform adequately in the situations )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 201.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that are envisaged by the accepted cognitive map. For the purpose of this paper, )] TJ ET
BT 376.899 201.634 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(organizational structure)] TJ ET
BT 478.231 201.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( refers to the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 189.729 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment of tasks and authority to employees; to the grouping of these employees in organizational units and other work )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 177.825 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(relationships; and to the connections between these units and their overall arrangement. The goal is to attain a good fit between )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 165.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the elements that make up an organizational structure and its environment.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 146.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(An organization will need information about certain characteristics of its tasks, its employees and its own structural features in )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 134.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(order to fit its employees with the tasks they face in particular organizational positions. However, the required information on the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 122.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(specific abilities of single employees may well depend on the many possible ways of arranging these employees. Moreover, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 110.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information produced by individual employees who are dispersed throughout the organization will have to be aggregated in one )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 98.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of many possible ways in order to be useful to top managers. Thus, the amount of information that is required, and the number )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 86.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of employees that should be consulted in order to solve a decision problem, is likely to be affected by organizational structure. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.087 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Two examples illustrate these points.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 55.682 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Example 1)] TJ ET
BT 74.483 55.682 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(: In a production process where various tasks must be performed sequentially, inventories reduce the amount of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 43.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information concerning the timing of individual tasks that is required to run the overall process smoothly. On the contrary, Just-in-)] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(5)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
63 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 64 0 R
>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/Length 33718 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 30.929 577.500 746.071 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Time production systems require transmission of detailed information between production units \()] TJ ET
BT 440.781 767.476 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(kanban)] TJ ET
BT 472.761 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\), but also that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(managers have detailed knowledge of the features of each production unit. In fact, to the extent that production units cannot be )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(made as flexible as to perform any task and process lots of any size, the set of possible sequencing paths has to be planned by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(management in much greater detail than in the case where inventories are there to buffer mistakes and suboptimal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(arrangements. Thus, the particular decision problem of managing production can be solved by organizational arrangements that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(choose different combinations of the amount of inventories and the amount of information needed to eliminate inventories. This )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(is akin to Galbraith’s \(1973: 14-19\) account of the effects of, on the one hand, the introduction of slack resources on the need )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 684.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(for information processing and, on the other hand, the creation of lateral relations on the capacity to process information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Example 2)] TJ ET
BT 74.483 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(: According to Alfred Chandler \(1962\), the main reason the functional form gave way to the multi-divisional form was )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that the latter structure solved two problems the former created: information overload at the top management level, and lack of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information on product line profitability. Relevant information on product profitability could actually be produced by functional )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 629.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures, but only at a very high cost since it had to be pulled out of many functions. On the contrary, within a multi-divisional )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 617.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structure such information is readily generated as part of the financial information on which divisional managers base their )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 605.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decisions. Ultimately, the multi-divisional structure allowed to solve decision problems related to product lines by means of less )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 593.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information, because it only produced the required one.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In general, since employees differ from one another with respect to the ability by which they perform a specific task, their )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment to positions in an organizational structure is likely to determine its overall performance. However, correct )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment of employees requires information on their specific abilities, generally in varying degrees of detail depending on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational structure. Therefore, the amount of information on the abilities of employees that is required by an organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 526.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer in order to solve his assignment problem induces an ordering of organizational structures. This amount of information )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 514.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(can be used as a measure of organizational complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(To show how one could operationalize such an approach, consider the problem of a firm that contemplates the introduction of a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(new product. As it is unclear whether this product will be good \()] TJ ET
BT 298.821 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 304.242 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) and give rise to a profit, X, or bad \()] TJ ET
BT 459.774 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 465.195 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) and lead to a loss, –)] TJ ET
BT 558.415 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Y)] TJ ET
BT 564.918 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different departments of the firm run a number of tests, )] TJ ET
BT 264.696 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 267.406 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. There is an a )] TJ ET
BT 332.439 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(priori)] TJ ET
BT 354.103 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( probability of a product being good. All tests are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(imperfect in that bad products may pass a test favorably \(A or Accept\), while good products may receive a negative verdict \(R or )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Reject\). That is, a test )] TJ ET
BT 123.789 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 126.499 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( can be described by the pair \()] TJ ET
BT 257.647 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 264.150 451.246 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 268.969 445.293 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 271.378 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(, P)] TJ ET
BT 283.302 451.246 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 288.121 445.293 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 290.530 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\), the probabilities with which it accepts bad and good projects. Let )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(us call a test )] TJ ET
BT 83.151 435.453 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 85.862 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( better than t’ if t correctly rejects more bad projects than t’, and good products also pass more often favorably )] TJ ET
BT 561.125 435.453 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 423.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(than t’. To reduce errors, test results obtained by the departments are combined. The goal of the firm is to maximize profits on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 411.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(products offered. Let us assume that the firm can choose from the sequential structures depicted in Figure 4.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 392.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The firm then faces the twin problems of \(a\) determining for every structure which department should first run a test, which next, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 380.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and \(b\) which of the structures to use. As the purpose of this example is to illustrate the use of a cognitive notion of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 368.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(we focus on the first question – the second question, and the interplay of performance with complexity and robustness, is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(addressed in Visser \(2002\). The formal proofs for the statements made in this section can be found in Appendix B.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 337.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The complexity of this decision problem is measured by the level of detail of information about the individual tests that is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 325.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(necessary and sufficient to determine the optimal ordering. It can be shown that it is not so much the number of tests, but rather )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 313.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the way in which tests are run consecutively by the departments that determines the kind of information that the firm needs to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 301.405 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(possess about the qualities of the test in order to position them correctly.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 282.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If departments are organized in a simple sequence like the ones depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\), where a department runs a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 270.096 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(test only if preceding departments have either all accepted or all rejected the product, no information about the qualities of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 258.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(individual tests is required to attain the best performance. This is easy to see for the sequence of Figure 4\(a\), as the probability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 246.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of final implementation is simply the product of acceptance of individual tests, \()] TJ ET
BT 364.936 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 371.439 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t1)] TJ ET
BT 378.667 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 385.170 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t2)] TJ ET
BT 392.398 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 398.901 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t3)] TJ ET
BT 406.129 246.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) . Changing the order of departments )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 234.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(leaves the overall probability of acceptance unaffected as multiplication is a commutative operator. The same applies to Figure )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(4\(e\), where the probability of acceptance equals 1 – \(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 272.291 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 278.794 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t1)] TJ ET
BT 286.023 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\)\(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 308.779 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 315.282 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t2)] TJ ET
BT 322.510 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\)\(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 345.267 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 351.770 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t3)] TJ ET
BT 358.998 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 203.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If, however, departments are arranged like in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\), with alternating connections between departments, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 191.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(where any test can still be final, profit maximization requires the firm to be able to order tests in terms of their characteristics as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 179.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the best test should be used first. That is, the firm needs ordinal information about the quality of the tests run by its departments. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 167.358 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If tests cannot be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion because, say, a test t run by a department has a higher probability of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 155.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(accepting both good and bad projects than some other test t’, the firm needs cardinal information, i.e., information about the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 143.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(numerical values of the characteristics of the tests.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 124.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, in structures like the one depicted in Figure 4 – where at least one test t is always followed by some other test t’, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 112.239 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(irrespective of the outcome of test, t – cardinal information is required. That is, the firm needs not only to be able to order the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 100.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tests in terms of their characteristics, but also to know the precise probabilities of acceptance. Clearly, by moving from the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 88.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\) through those in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\) to the one in Figure 4 \(c\), the firm’s problem )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 76.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(becomes more complex since cardinal information is more detailed than ordinal information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 57.120 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Once an ordinal/cardinal distinction has been made, the amount of information required to solve an organizational problem can )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 45.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(be measured in terms of number of items to be measured. Within structures that require, say, ordinal information, one may )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 30.929 577.500 746.071 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Time production systems require transmission of detailed information between production units \()] TJ ET
BT 440.781 767.476 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(kanban)] TJ ET
BT 472.761 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\), but also that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(managers have detailed knowledge of the features of each production unit. In fact, to the extent that production units cannot be )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(made as flexible as to perform any task and process lots of any size, the set of possible sequencing paths has to be planned by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(management in much greater detail than in the case where inventories are there to buffer mistakes and suboptimal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(arrangements. Thus, the particular decision problem of managing production can be solved by organizational arrangements that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(choose different combinations of the amount of inventories and the amount of information needed to eliminate inventories. This )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(is akin to Galbraith’s \(1973: 14-19\) account of the effects of, on the one hand, the introduction of slack resources on the need )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 684.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(for information processing and, on the other hand, the creation of lateral relations on the capacity to process information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Example 2)] TJ ET
BT 74.483 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(: According to Alfred Chandler \(1962\), the main reason the functional form gave way to the multi-divisional form was )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that the latter structure solved two problems the former created: information overload at the top management level, and lack of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information on product line profitability. Relevant information on product profitability could actually be produced by functional )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 629.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures, but only at a very high cost since it had to be pulled out of many functions. On the contrary, within a multi-divisional )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 617.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structure such information is readily generated as part of the financial information on which divisional managers base their )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 605.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decisions. Ultimately, the multi-divisional structure allowed to solve decision problems related to product lines by means of less )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 593.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information, because it only produced the required one.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In general, since employees differ from one another with respect to the ability by which they perform a specific task, their )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment to positions in an organizational structure is likely to determine its overall performance. However, correct )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment of employees requires information on their specific abilities, generally in varying degrees of detail depending on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational structure. Therefore, the amount of information on the abilities of employees that is required by an organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 526.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer in order to solve his assignment problem induces an ordering of organizational structures. This amount of information )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 514.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(can be used as a measure of organizational complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(To show how one could operationalize such an approach, consider the problem of a firm that contemplates the introduction of a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(new product. As it is unclear whether this product will be good \()] TJ ET
BT 298.821 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 304.242 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) and give rise to a profit, X, or bad \()] TJ ET
BT 459.774 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 465.195 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) and lead to a loss, –)] TJ ET
BT 558.415 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Y)] TJ ET
BT 564.918 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different departments of the firm run a number of tests, )] TJ ET
BT 264.696 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 267.406 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. There is an a )] TJ ET
BT 332.439 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(priori)] TJ ET
BT 354.103 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( probability of a product being good. All tests are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(imperfect in that bad products may pass a test favorably \(A or Accept\), while good products may receive a negative verdict \(R or )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Reject\). That is, a test )] TJ ET
BT 123.789 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 126.499 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( can be described by the pair \()] TJ ET
BT 257.647 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 264.150 451.246 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 268.969 445.293 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 271.378 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(, P)] TJ ET
BT 283.302 451.246 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 288.121 445.293 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 290.530 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\), the probabilities with which it accepts bad and good projects. Let )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(us call a test )] TJ ET
BT 83.151 435.453 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 85.862 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( better than t’ if t correctly rejects more bad projects than t’, and good products also pass more often favorably )] TJ ET
BT 561.125 435.453 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 423.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(than t’. To reduce errors, test results obtained by the departments are combined. The goal of the firm is to maximize profits on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 411.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(products offered. Let us assume that the firm can choose from the sequential structures depicted in Figure 4.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 392.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The firm then faces the twin problems of \(a\) determining for every structure which department should first run a test, which next, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 380.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and \(b\) which of the structures to use. As the purpose of this example is to illustrate the use of a cognitive notion of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 368.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(we focus on the first question – the second question, and the interplay of performance with complexity and robustness, is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(addressed in Visser \(2002\). The formal proofs for the statements made in this section can be found in Appendix B.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 337.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The complexity of this decision problem is measured by the level of detail of information about the individual tests that is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 325.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(necessary and sufficient to determine the optimal ordering. It can be shown that it is not so much the number of tests, but rather )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 313.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the way in which tests are run consecutively by the departments that determines the kind of information that the firm needs to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 301.405 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(possess about the qualities of the test in order to position them correctly.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 282.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If departments are organized in a simple sequence like the ones depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\), where a department runs a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 270.096 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(test only if preceding departments have either all accepted or all rejected the product, no information about the qualities of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 258.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(individual tests is required to attain the best performance. This is easy to see for the sequence of Figure 4\(a\), as the probability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 246.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of final implementation is simply the product of acceptance of individual tests, \()] TJ ET
BT 364.936 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 371.439 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t1)] TJ ET
BT 378.667 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 385.170 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t2)] TJ ET
BT 392.398 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 398.901 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t3)] TJ ET
BT 406.129 246.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) . Changing the order of departments )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 234.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(leaves the overall probability of acceptance unaffected as multiplication is a commutative operator. The same applies to Figure )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(4\(e\), where the probability of acceptance equals 1 – \(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 272.291 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 278.794 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t1)] TJ ET
BT 286.023 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\)\(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 308.779 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 315.282 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t2)] TJ ET
BT 322.510 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\)\(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 345.267 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 351.770 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t3)] TJ ET
BT 358.998 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 203.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If, however, departments are arranged like in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\), with alternating connections between departments, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 191.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(where any test can still be final, profit maximization requires the firm to be able to order tests in terms of their characteristics as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 179.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the best test should be used first. That is, the firm needs ordinal information about the quality of the tests run by its departments. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 167.358 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If tests cannot be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion because, say, a test t run by a department has a higher probability of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 155.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(accepting both good and bad projects than some other test t’, the firm needs cardinal information, i.e., information about the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 143.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(numerical values of the characteristics of the tests.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 124.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, in structures like the one depicted in Figure 4 – where at least one test t is always followed by some other test t’, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 112.239 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(irrespective of the outcome of test, t – cardinal information is required. That is, the firm needs not only to be able to order the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 100.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tests in terms of their characteristics, but also to know the precise probabilities of acceptance. Clearly, by moving from the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 88.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\) through those in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\) to the one in Figure 4 \(c\), the firm’s problem )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 76.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(becomes more complex since cardinal information is more detailed than ordinal information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 57.120 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Once an ordinal/cardinal distinction has been made, the amount of information required to solve an organizational problem can )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 45.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(be measured in terms of number of items to be measured. Within structures that require, say, ordinal information, one may )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 30.929 577.500 746.071 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Time production systems require transmission of detailed information between production units \()] TJ ET
BT 440.781 767.476 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(kanban)] TJ ET
BT 472.761 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\), but also that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 755.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(managers have detailed knowledge of the features of each production unit. In fact, to the extent that production units cannot be )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 743.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(made as flexible as to perform any task and process lots of any size, the set of possible sequencing paths has to be planned by )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 731.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(management in much greater detail than in the case where inventories are there to buffer mistakes and suboptimal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(arrangements. Thus, the particular decision problem of managing production can be solved by organizational arrangements that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(choose different combinations of the amount of inventories and the amount of information needed to eliminate inventories. This )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 696.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(is akin to Galbraith’s \(1973: 14-19\) account of the effects of, on the one hand, the introduction of slack resources on the need )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 684.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(for information processing and, on the other hand, the creation of lateral relations on the capacity to process information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 664.738 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Example 2)] TJ ET
BT 74.483 664.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(: According to Alfred Chandler \(1962\), the main reason the functional form gave way to the multi-divisional form was )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 652.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that the latter structure solved two problems the former created: information overload at the top management level, and lack of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 640.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information on product line profitability. Relevant information on product profitability could actually be produced by functional )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 629.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures, but only at a very high cost since it had to be pulled out of many functions. On the contrary, within a multi-divisional )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 617.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structure such information is readily generated as part of the financial information on which divisional managers base their )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 605.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decisions. Ultimately, the multi-divisional structure allowed to solve decision problems related to product lines by means of less )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 593.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information, because it only produced the required one.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In general, since employees differ from one another with respect to the ability by which they perform a specific task, their )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 562.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment to positions in an organizational structure is likely to determine its overall performance. However, correct )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 550.095 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assignment of employees requires information on their specific abilities, generally in varying degrees of detail depending on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 538.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational structure. Therefore, the amount of information on the abilities of employees that is required by an organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 526.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer in order to solve his assignment problem induces an ordering of organizational structures. This amount of information )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 514.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(can be used as a measure of organizational complexity.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 494.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(To show how one could operationalize such an approach, consider the problem of a firm that contemplates the introduction of a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(new product. As it is unclear whether this product will be good \()] TJ ET
BT 298.821 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 304.242 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) and give rise to a profit, X, or bad \()] TJ ET
BT 459.774 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 465.195 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) and lead to a loss, –)] TJ ET
BT 558.415 483.072 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Y)] TJ ET
BT 564.918 483.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(different departments of the firm run a number of tests, )] TJ ET
BT 264.696 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 267.406 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. There is an a )] TJ ET
BT 332.439 471.167 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(priori)] TJ ET
BT 354.103 471.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( probability of a product being good. All tests are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 459.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(imperfect in that bad products may pass a test favorably \(A or Accept\), while good products may receive a negative verdict \(R or )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Reject\). That is, a test )] TJ ET
BT 123.789 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 126.499 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( can be described by the pair \()] TJ ET
BT 257.647 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 264.150 451.246 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 268.969 445.293 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 271.378 447.357 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(, P)] TJ ET
BT 283.302 451.246 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 288.121 445.293 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 290.530 447.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\), the probabilities with which it accepts bad and good projects. Let )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(us call a test )] TJ ET
BT 83.151 435.453 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 85.862 435.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( better than t’ if t correctly rejects more bad projects than t’, and good products also pass more often favorably )] TJ ET
BT 561.125 435.453 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 423.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(than t’. To reduce errors, test results obtained by the departments are combined. The goal of the firm is to maximize profits on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 411.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(products offered. Let us assume that the firm can choose from the sequential structures depicted in Figure 4.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 392.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The firm then faces the twin problems of \(a\) determining for every structure which department should first run a test, which next, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 380.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and \(b\) which of the structures to use. As the purpose of this example is to illustrate the use of a cognitive notion of complexity )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 368.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(we focus on the first question – the second question, and the interplay of performance with complexity and robustness, is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 356.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(addressed in Visser \(2002\). The formal proofs for the statements made in this section can be found in Appendix B.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 337.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The complexity of this decision problem is measured by the level of detail of information about the individual tests that is )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 325.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(necessary and sufficient to determine the optimal ordering. It can be shown that it is not so much the number of tests, but rather )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 313.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the way in which tests are run consecutively by the departments that determines the kind of information that the firm needs to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 301.405 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(possess about the qualities of the test in order to position them correctly.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 282.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If departments are organized in a simple sequence like the ones depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\), where a department runs a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 270.096 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(test only if preceding departments have either all accepted or all rejected the product, no information about the qualities of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 258.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(individual tests is required to attain the best performance. This is easy to see for the sequence of Figure 4\(a\), as the probability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 246.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of final implementation is simply the product of acceptance of individual tests, \()] TJ ET
BT 364.936 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 371.439 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t1)] TJ ET
BT 378.667 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 385.170 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t2)] TJ ET
BT 392.398 246.286 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 398.901 244.222 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t3)] TJ ET
BT 406.129 246.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) . Changing the order of departments )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 234.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(leaves the overall probability of acceptance unaffected as multiplication is a commutative operator. The same applies to Figure )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(4\(e\), where the probability of acceptance equals 1 – \(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 272.291 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 278.794 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t1)] TJ ET
BT 286.023 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\)\(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 308.779 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 315.282 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t2)] TJ ET
BT 322.510 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\)\(1 – )] TJ ET
BT 345.267 222.477 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(P)] TJ ET
BT 351.770 220.412 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(t3)] TJ ET
BT 358.998 222.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 203.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If, however, departments are arranged like in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\), with alternating connections between departments, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 191.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(where any test can still be final, profit maximization requires the firm to be able to order tests in terms of their characteristics as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 179.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the best test should be used first. That is, the firm needs ordinal information about the quality of the tests run by its departments. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 167.358 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If tests cannot be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion because, say, a test t run by a department has a higher probability of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 155.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(accepting both good and bad projects than some other test t’, the firm needs cardinal information, i.e., information about the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 143.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(numerical values of the characteristics of the tests.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 124.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, in structures like the one depicted in Figure 4 – where at least one test t is always followed by some other test t’, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 112.239 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(irrespective of the outcome of test, t – cardinal information is required. That is, the firm needs not only to be able to order the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 100.334 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tests in terms of their characteristics, but also to know the precise probabilities of acceptance. Clearly, by moving from the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 88.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\) through those in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\) to the one in Figure 4 \(c\), the firm’s problem )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 76.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(becomes more complex since cardinal information is more detailed than ordinal information.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 57.120 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Once an ordinal/cardinal distinction has been made, the amount of information required to solve an organizational problem can )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 45.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(be measured in terms of number of items to be measured. Within structures that require, say, ordinal information, one may )] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(6)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Annots [ 67 0 R 69 0 R 71 0 R ]
/Contents 66 0 R
>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<<
/Length 25554 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 46.825 577.500 730.175 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(usefully)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 672.190 555.000 85.405 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 757.595 m 581.250 757.595 l 581.250 756.845 l 26.250 756.845 l f
26.250 672.191 m 581.250 672.191 l 581.250 672.941 l 26.250 672.941 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 738.827 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 712.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 702.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50-300x262.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 675.940 537.000 17.905 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 684.321 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 4: Five structures)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 655.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(distinguish between numbers of tests to be ordered. Recall that in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\) one only needed to be able to identify )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 643.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the best test. That is, one had to be able to distinguish two specific groups of tests: the best test, and the others. In larger )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures that have different connections between successive desks, like the ones depicted in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\), the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 619.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of groups of tests that one should be able to identify can easily grow. Although ordinal information is still sufficient, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 607.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(increase in the number of groups that one needs to identify does imply a correspondingly harder task for the firm. In this sense, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 595.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the size of the organization affects the difficulty of the organizational design problem. In other words, one could think of the type )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 583.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of connections to induce a qualitative classification of required information, and the size of the organization as inducing a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 571.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(quantitative refinement of that classification. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 559.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Among those who approached organizational complexity as a characteristic of the structure of an organization there is wide )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 548.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(agreement that this characteristic is in fact objectively given and that it captures differences among organizational units, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 536.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(there is little agreement regarding the details. This comes clearly to the fore when discussing degrees of complexity and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 524.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operational measures of it. Both Thompson and Galbraith emphasize relationships between units, not their mere number, as a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 512.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measure of complexity. For instance, Thompson \(1967: 74\) claims that “size alone does not result in complexity”. Also for Scott )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 500.405 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(2002\) organizational complexity has to be identified with the type of relationships among organizational parts. The contrast )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 488.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with, e.g., Jablin \(1987\) and Daft \(1989\), could hardly be starker: they express horizontal and vertical complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 476.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(numbers of units and layers, respectively.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 457.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(We claim that this issue can be addressed within the framework developed above. As in Thompson and Galbraith, it is the type )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 445.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of relationships between successive units that determines complexity when this is measured in terms of the organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer needing ordinal or cardinal information in order to arrange the parts. As in Jablin, it is the size of an organization that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 421.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(determines complexity when this is measured in terms of its designer needing information on a number of tests in order to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 409.572 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(arrange them. If we stipulate that any amount of cardinal complexity is larger than any amount of ordinal complexity, these two )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 397.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measures do not contradict one another.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 378.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Clearly, we have presented a very stylized model. However, one could conceivably expand the above scheme to tests or agents )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 366.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that classify projects on the basis of higher dimension categories, providing judgements richer than a simple accept/reject )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 354.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(dichotomy. In the case of decision makers, the combination of individual mental categories would yield a cognitive map of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 342.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(kind illustrated in Figure 1, which would explicitly depend on organizational structure.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 305.945 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Concluding remarks)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The two approaches presented above are distinct yet not opposite to one another. In fact, in section “What a decision-maker )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 274.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(does not know…” we defined complexity in terms of inadequacy of )] TJ ET
BT 315.084 274.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(what is currently known in order to solve an ill-defined )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 262.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(problem)] TJ ET
BT 61.467 262.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. Subsequently, in section “…and what a decision-maker should know” we defined complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 514.481 262.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(what should )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 250.277 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(be known in order to solve a well-defined problem)] TJ ET
BT 240.838 250.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. In between, the task of transforming ill-defined problems into well-defined )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 238.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(problems by means of the new interpretation provided by a novel cognitive map, was left unspecified. However, in spite of a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 226.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(missing link the above approaches are complementary in the sense that the first one aims at assessing improper framing of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 214.563 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decision problems, whereas the second one attempts to provide operative solutions once problems have been reframed.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 195.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(These perspectives are not independent of one another, because problem framing depends on organizational structure. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 183.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Consider that the cognitive map of an organization is the result of organizational interpretation and information processing with a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 171.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(view to building causal relationships needed to guide decision-making. Both interpretation and information processing are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 159.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(intimately tight up with organizational structure. It determines how information is aggregated, coded and classified; it influences )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 147.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the options considered and the criteria used in such considerations by decision makers throughout the organization; and it )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 135.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(regulates how and which conflicts over interpretation, decision, and implementation are referred to higher levels for resolution, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.729 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(thereby affecting in turn what is being learned by whom \(Hammond, 1994\). This is likely to strongly affect the organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 111.825 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(view on causation, on the relationships between the options open to the organization on the one hand, and the envisioned )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 99.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(outcomes on the other hand; in short, on the cognitive map.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 80.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This also suggests that the relationship between the two concepts of complexity is perhaps not as simple as depicted above. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 68.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hammond’s analysis directs attention to the convoluted nature of this relationship, with the organizational structure influencing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 56.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the cognitive map, and the cognitive map influencing the search for an adequate structure in its turn.)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 46.825 577.500 730.175 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(usefully)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 672.190 555.000 85.405 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 757.595 m 581.250 757.595 l 581.250 756.845 l 26.250 756.845 l f
26.250 672.191 m 581.250 672.191 l 581.250 672.941 l 26.250 672.941 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 738.827 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 712.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 702.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50-300x262.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 675.940 537.000 17.905 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 684.321 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 4: Five structures)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 655.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(distinguish between numbers of tests to be ordered. Recall that in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\) one only needed to be able to identify )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 643.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the best test. That is, one had to be able to distinguish two specific groups of tests: the best test, and the others. In larger )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures that have different connections between successive desks, like the ones depicted in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\), the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 619.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of groups of tests that one should be able to identify can easily grow. Although ordinal information is still sufficient, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 607.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(increase in the number of groups that one needs to identify does imply a correspondingly harder task for the firm. In this sense, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 595.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the size of the organization affects the difficulty of the organizational design problem. In other words, one could think of the type )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 583.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of connections to induce a qualitative classification of required information, and the size of the organization as inducing a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 571.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(quantitative refinement of that classification. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 559.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Among those who approached organizational complexity as a characteristic of the structure of an organization there is wide )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 548.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(agreement that this characteristic is in fact objectively given and that it captures differences among organizational units, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 536.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(there is little agreement regarding the details. This comes clearly to the fore when discussing degrees of complexity and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 524.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operational measures of it. Both Thompson and Galbraith emphasize relationships between units, not their mere number, as a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 512.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measure of complexity. For instance, Thompson \(1967: 74\) claims that “size alone does not result in complexity”. Also for Scott )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 500.405 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(2002\) organizational complexity has to be identified with the type of relationships among organizational parts. The contrast )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 488.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with, e.g., Jablin \(1987\) and Daft \(1989\), could hardly be starker: they express horizontal and vertical complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 476.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(numbers of units and layers, respectively.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 457.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(We claim that this issue can be addressed within the framework developed above. As in Thompson and Galbraith, it is the type )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 445.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of relationships between successive units that determines complexity when this is measured in terms of the organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer needing ordinal or cardinal information in order to arrange the parts. As in Jablin, it is the size of an organization that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 421.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(determines complexity when this is measured in terms of its designer needing information on a number of tests in order to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 409.572 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(arrange them. If we stipulate that any amount of cardinal complexity is larger than any amount of ordinal complexity, these two )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 397.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measures do not contradict one another.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 378.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Clearly, we have presented a very stylized model. However, one could conceivably expand the above scheme to tests or agents )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 366.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that classify projects on the basis of higher dimension categories, providing judgements richer than a simple accept/reject )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 354.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(dichotomy. In the case of decision makers, the combination of individual mental categories would yield a cognitive map of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 342.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(kind illustrated in Figure 1, which would explicitly depend on organizational structure.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 305.945 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Concluding remarks)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The two approaches presented above are distinct yet not opposite to one another. In fact, in section “What a decision-maker )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 274.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(does not know…” we defined complexity in terms of inadequacy of )] TJ ET
BT 315.084 274.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(what is currently known in order to solve an ill-defined )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 262.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(problem)] TJ ET
BT 61.467 262.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. Subsequently, in section “…and what a decision-maker should know” we defined complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 514.481 262.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(what should )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 250.277 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(be known in order to solve a well-defined problem)] TJ ET
BT 240.838 250.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. In between, the task of transforming ill-defined problems into well-defined )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 238.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(problems by means of the new interpretation provided by a novel cognitive map, was left unspecified. However, in spite of a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 226.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(missing link the above approaches are complementary in the sense that the first one aims at assessing improper framing of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 214.563 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decision problems, whereas the second one attempts to provide operative solutions once problems have been reframed.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 195.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(These perspectives are not independent of one another, because problem framing depends on organizational structure. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 183.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Consider that the cognitive map of an organization is the result of organizational interpretation and information processing with a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 171.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(view to building causal relationships needed to guide decision-making. Both interpretation and information processing are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 159.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(intimately tight up with organizational structure. It determines how information is aggregated, coded and classified; it influences )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 147.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the options considered and the criteria used in such considerations by decision makers throughout the organization; and it )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 135.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(regulates how and which conflicts over interpretation, decision, and implementation are referred to higher levels for resolution, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.729 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(thereby affecting in turn what is being learned by whom \(Hammond, 1994\). This is likely to strongly affect the organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 111.825 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(view on causation, on the relationships between the options open to the organization on the one hand, and the envisioned )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 99.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(outcomes on the other hand; in short, on the cognitive map.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 80.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This also suggests that the relationship between the two concepts of complexity is perhaps not as simple as depicted above. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 68.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hammond’s analysis directs attention to the convoluted nature of this relationship, with the organizational structure influencing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 56.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the cognitive map, and the cognitive map influencing the search for an adequate structure in its turn.)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 46.825 577.500 730.175 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(usefully)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 672.190 555.000 85.405 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 757.595 m 581.250 757.595 l 581.250 756.845 l 26.250 756.845 l f
26.250 672.191 m 581.250 672.191 l 581.250 672.941 l 26.250 672.941 l f
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 738.827 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 712.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 702.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50-300x262.png)] TJ ET
q
35.250 675.940 537.000 17.905 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 35.250 684.321 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(Fig. 4: Five structures)] TJ ET
Q
BT 26.250 655.167 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(distinguish between numbers of tests to be ordered. Recall that in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\) one only needed to be able to identify )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 643.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the best test. That is, one had to be able to distinguish two specific groups of tests: the best test, and the others. In larger )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(structures that have different connections between successive desks, like the ones depicted in Figures 4 \(b\) and \(d\), the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 619.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(number of groups of tests that one should be able to identify can easily grow. Although ordinal information is still sufficient, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 607.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(increase in the number of groups that one needs to identify does imply a correspondingly harder task for the firm. In this sense, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 595.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the size of the organization affects the difficulty of the organizational design problem. In other words, one could think of the type )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 583.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of connections to induce a qualitative classification of required information, and the size of the organization as inducing a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 571.833 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(quantitative refinement of that classification. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 559.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Among those who approached organizational complexity as a characteristic of the structure of an organization there is wide )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 548.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(agreement that this characteristic is in fact objectively given and that it captures differences among organizational units, but )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 536.119 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(there is little agreement regarding the details. This comes clearly to the fore when discussing degrees of complexity and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 524.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(operational measures of it. Both Thompson and Galbraith emphasize relationships between units, not their mere number, as a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 512.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measure of complexity. For instance, Thompson \(1967: 74\) claims that “size alone does not result in complexity”. Also for Scott )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 500.405 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(2002\) organizational complexity has to be identified with the type of relationships among organizational parts. The contrast )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 488.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with, e.g., Jablin \(1987\) and Daft \(1989\), could hardly be starker: they express horizontal and vertical complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 476.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(numbers of units and layers, respectively.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 457.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(We claim that this issue can be addressed within the framework developed above. As in Thompson and Galbraith, it is the type )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 445.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of relationships between successive units that determines complexity when this is measured in terms of the organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(designer needing ordinal or cardinal information in order to arrange the parts. As in Jablin, it is the size of an organization that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 421.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(determines complexity when this is measured in terms of its designer needing information on a number of tests in order to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 409.572 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(arrange them. If we stipulate that any amount of cardinal complexity is larger than any amount of ordinal complexity, these two )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 397.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(measures do not contradict one another.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 378.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Clearly, we have presented a very stylized model. However, one could conceivably expand the above scheme to tests or agents )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 366.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that classify projects on the basis of higher dimension categories, providing judgements richer than a simple accept/reject )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 354.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(dichotomy. In the case of decision makers, the combination of individual mental categories would yield a cognitive map of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 342.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(kind illustrated in Figure 1, which would explicitly depend on organizational structure.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 305.945 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Concluding remarks)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The two approaches presented above are distinct yet not opposite to one another. In fact, in section “What a decision-maker )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 274.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(does not know…” we defined complexity in terms of inadequacy of )] TJ ET
BT 315.084 274.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(what is currently known in order to solve an ill-defined )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 262.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(problem)] TJ ET
BT 61.467 262.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. Subsequently, in section “…and what a decision-maker should know” we defined complexity in terms of )] TJ ET
BT 514.481 262.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(what should )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 250.277 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(be known in order to solve a well-defined problem)] TJ ET
BT 240.838 250.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. In between, the task of transforming ill-defined problems into well-defined )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 238.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(problems by means of the new interpretation provided by a novel cognitive map, was left unspecified. However, in spite of a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 226.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(missing link the above approaches are complementary in the sense that the first one aims at assessing improper framing of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 214.563 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(decision problems, whereas the second one attempts to provide operative solutions once problems have been reframed.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 195.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(These perspectives are not independent of one another, because problem framing depends on organizational structure. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 183.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Consider that the cognitive map of an organization is the result of organizational interpretation and information processing with a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 171.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(view to building causal relationships needed to guide decision-making. Both interpretation and information processing are )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 159.444 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(intimately tight up with organizational structure. It determines how information is aggregated, coded and classified; it influences )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 147.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the options considered and the criteria used in such considerations by decision makers throughout the organization; and it )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 135.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(regulates how and which conflicts over interpretation, decision, and implementation are referred to higher levels for resolution, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.729 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(thereby affecting in turn what is being learned by whom \(Hammond, 1994\). This is likely to strongly affect the organizational )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 111.825 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(view on causation, on the relationships between the options open to the organization on the one hand, and the envisioned )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 99.920 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(outcomes on the other hand; in short, on the cognitive map.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 80.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This also suggests that the relationship between the two concepts of complexity is perhaps not as simple as depicted above. )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 68.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hammond’s analysis directs attention to the convoluted nature of this relationship, with the organizational structure influencing )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 56.706 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the cognitive map, and the cognitive map influencing the search for an adequate structure in its turn.)] TJ ET
Q
BT 35.250 738.827 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50)] TJ ET
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 712.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 702.445 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50-300x262.png)] TJ ET
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(7)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 68 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 699.8452 83.2500 747.8452 ]
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50.png)
>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 70 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 699.8452 83.2500 747.8452 ]
>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50.png)
>>
endobj
71 0 obj
<< /Type /Annot
/Subtype /Link
/A 72 0 R
/Border [0 0 0]
/H /I
/Rect [ 35.2500 699.8452 83.2500 747.8452 ]
>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<< /Type /Action
/S /URI
/URI (https://journal.emergentpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fb671e15-71c1-5b28-388d-a28fde9d9d50.png)
>>
endobj
73 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 74 0 R
>>
endobj
74 0 obj
<<
/Length 41665 >>
stream
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
q
15.000 -29.149 577.500 806.149 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 750.278 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Appendix A)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 730.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This appendix expounds the mathematics for measuring complexity as it has been defined in section “What a decision-maker )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 718.419 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(does not know…” It is based on a seminal work by Robert Atkin \(1974, 1981\), subsequently adapted to cognitive maps \(Fioretti )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 706.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,1998, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let ? = {A)] TJ ET
BT 68.809 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 70.733 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} and ? = {B)] TJ ET
BT 121.969 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 123.893 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} denote the options and the objectives envisaged by managers, respectively. Let ?)] TJ ET
BT 481.591 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 483.515 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the subset of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objectives that are connected to option A)] TJ ET
BT 202.393 673.141 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 204.317 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, with )] TJ ET
BT 229.784 675.205 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 231.949 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1,2,…n.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 655.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A )] TJ ET
BT 35.464 655.800 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(simplicial complex)] TJ ET
BT 114.010 655.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( can be used in order to represent the connections between options and objectives. It is composed of as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 643.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(many simplices as the number of options and as many vertices as the number of objectives. For instance, the vertices of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simplex Ai are the elements of ?)] TJ ET
BT 164.973 629.927 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 166.897 631.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 612.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If empirical experience confirms a cognitive map, i.e. if the correspondences between options and objectives are all one-to-one, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 600.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simplices are isolated points and no simplicial complex exists: complexity is zero. On the contrary, if at least two simplices have )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 588.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(at least one vertex in common, a simplicial complex arises: complexity is greater than zero.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 569.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us define an incidence matrix ? of dimensions n×n, whose generic element l)] TJ ET
BT 369.557 567.308 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 373.405 569.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( takes the values:)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(?)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 35.519 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(= 1 )] TJ ET
BT 52.055 549.967 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(if)] TJ ET
BT 56.930 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( B)] TJ ET
BT 66.144 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 68.068 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( ? )] TJ ET
BT 78.910 549.967 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(B)] TJ ET
BT 85.949 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 87.873 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( , 0 otherwise)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Element \()] TJ ET
BT 67.970 530.562 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(i,j)] TJ ET
BT 75.010 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) of matrix ??)] TJ ET
BT 131.901 534.451 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 137.196 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is the number of vertices that simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 317.094 528.498 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 319.018 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and Aj have in common. Thus, element l)] TJ ET
BT 495.678 528.498 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 499.526 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( of matrix ?= ??)] TJ ET
BT 566.996 534.451 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 572.291 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(11)] TJ ET
BT 37.092 522.546 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 42.387 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is the dimension of the eventual common face between simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 335.014 516.593 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 336.938 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 365.125 516.593 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 367.049 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. If this number is negative, simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 535.568 516.593 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 537.492 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 565.680 516.593 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(have no common vertex.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 487.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Two simplices that have no vertex in common may nonetheless be connected by a chain of simplices having common vertices )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with one another. Let us say that simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 219.173 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 221.097 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 249.285 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 251.209 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( are )] TJ ET
BT 270.718 475.443 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q-connected)] TJ ET
BT 324.373 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( if there exists a chain of simplices {A)] TJ ET
BT 484.770 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(u)] TJ ET
BT 489.588 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 498.802 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(v)] TJ ET
BT 503.136 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,…A)] TJ ET
BT 522.099 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(w)] TJ ET
BT 528.357 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} such that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 463.539 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(:= min {l)] TJ ET
BT 66.625 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(iu)] TJ ET
BT 73.367 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,l)] TJ ET
BT 78.242 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(uv)] TJ ET
BT 87.394 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,…l)] TJ ET
BT 102.019 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(wj)] TJ ET
BT 110.201 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is not less than zero. In particular, two contiguous simplices are connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 473.281 463.539 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 478.702 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( if they have a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 451.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(common face of dimension )] TJ ET
BT 145.463 451.634 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 150.884 451.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 432.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us consider common faces between simplices and let us focus on the face of largest dimension: let )] TJ ET
BT 471.162 432.229 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Q)] TJ ET
BT 478.748 432.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the dimension )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of this face. Note that )] TJ ET
BT 121.098 420.324 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Q)] TJ ET
BT 128.683 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is not necessarily the largest possible dimension of a common face: given )] TJ ET
BT 451.652 420.324 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 457.073 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( objectives, the largest )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(possible dimension of a common face is )] TJ ET
BT 201.818 408.420 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 207.239 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-1 and this only occurs when two simplices of dimension )] TJ ET
BT 452.159 408.420 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 457.580 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-1 coincide.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 389.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(By inspection of matrix )] TJ ET
BT 127.036 389.015 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(L)] TJ ET
BT 132.993 389.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( we can partition the set of simplices that compose the simplicial complex according to connection level )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. Let us introduce a structure vector s of dimensions \(Q+1\) ×1, and let us denote its )] TJ ET
BT 392.060 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 397.481 380.998 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(th)] TJ ET
BT 404.709 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( component by )] TJ ET
BT 471.370 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 476.245 375.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 481.064 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. In general, for any )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 365.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(connection level )] TJ ET
BT 98.868 365.205 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 104.289 365.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( there exist classes of simplices such that the simplices belonging to a class are connected at that level. Let )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the )] TJ ET
BT 42.513 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 47.934 357.189 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(th)] TJ ET
BT 55.162 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( component of structure vector )] TJ ET
BT 189.556 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 194.431 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the number of disjoint classes of simplices that are connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 531.508 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 536.929 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 333.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In order to avoid repetitions in the calculus of complexity, we do not consider a class of simplices connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 526.425 333.896 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 531.846 333.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( to be also )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(a class of simplices connected at levels )] TJ ET
BT 199.108 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 204.529 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( – 1, )] TJ ET
BT 226.213 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 231.634 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( – 2, etc. For example, let simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 393.649 319.927 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 398.468 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 426.655 319.927 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 431.474 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( be connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 529.033 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 534.454 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 2, and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(let simplex A)] TJ ET
BT 81.513 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 86.332 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( be connected with A)] TJ ET
BT 176.841 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 181.660 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( at level )] TJ ET
BT 217.969 310.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 223.390 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1. Then, {A)] TJ ET
BT 282.748 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 287.566 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, A)] TJ ET
BT 299.490 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 304.309 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is a class of simplices connected at )] TJ ET
BT 465.252 310.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 470.673 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 2 and {A)] TJ ET
BT 518.653 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 523.472 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 532.686 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 537.504 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 546.718 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 551.537 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(class of simplices connected at )] TJ ET
BT 163.345 298.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 168.766 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1. However, {A)] TJ ET
BT 244.367 296.117 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 249.186 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, A)] TJ ET
BT 261.110 296.117 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 265.929 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is not a class of simplices connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 465.892 298.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 471.313 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 0.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 278.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Once structure vector is available, complexity can be measured as:)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 201.396 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 268.896 m 581.250 268.896 l 581.250 268.146 l 26.250 268.146 l f
26.250 201.396 m 581.250 201.396 l 581.250 202.146 l 26.250 202.146 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 211.146 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 251.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 241.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5BC%20%3D%200%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dif%5CLambda%20%20%3D%20I%2C%5Csum%5Climits_%7Bq%20%3D%200%7D%5EQ%20%7B%7B%7B\(q%20%2B%201\)%7D%20%5Cover%20%7B%7Bs_q%7D%7D%7D%7D%20%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dotherwise%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 184.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(where the sum extends only to the terms such that )] TJ ET
BT 246.815 184.372 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 251.690 182.308 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 256.508 184.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( <> 0. Finally, it is stipulated that the complexity of two or more )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 172.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(disconnected simplicial complexes is the sum of their complexities.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 143.365 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Appendix B)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.411 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In this appendix a formal proof is given of the relationship between the level of detail of information that is necessary and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 111.506 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(sufficient to establish the correct order of departments running tests, and the type of organizational structure. It was already )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 99.601 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shown in the text that the structures depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\) do not require any knowledge about the qualities of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 87.696 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(individual tests. We will therefore limit ourselves to the remaining structures as represented by Figures 4 \(b\), \(c\), and \(d\). Note )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that the expected profit on implemented projects equals a)] TJ ET
BT 273.919 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Xp)] TJ ET
BT 285.844 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 290.662 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(Org\) – \(1-a\))] TJ ET
BT 344.833 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Yp)] TJ ET
BT 356.758 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 361.576 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(Org\), where )] TJ ET
BT 419.004 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(p)] TJ ET
BT 424.425 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 429.243 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( \(Org\) stands for the probability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 63.887 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with which a particular arrangement of departments accepts a project of quality q ?{g,b}.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 44.482 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Consider the arrangement of departments as depicted in Figure 4 \(b\). Here,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 -29.149 555.000 63.750 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 34.601 m 581.250 34.601 l 581.250 33.851 l 26.250 33.851 l f
Q
q
15.000 -29.149 577.500 806.149 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 750.278 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Appendix A)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 730.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This appendix expounds the mathematics for measuring complexity as it has been defined in section “What a decision-maker )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 718.419 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(does not know…” It is based on a seminal work by Robert Atkin \(1974, 1981\), subsequently adapted to cognitive maps \(Fioretti )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 706.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,1998, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let ? = {A)] TJ ET
BT 68.809 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 70.733 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} and ? = {B)] TJ ET
BT 121.969 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 123.893 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} denote the options and the objectives envisaged by managers, respectively. Let ?)] TJ ET
BT 481.591 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 483.515 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the subset of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objectives that are connected to option A)] TJ ET
BT 202.393 673.141 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 204.317 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, with )] TJ ET
BT 229.784 675.205 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 231.949 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1,2,…n.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 655.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A )] TJ ET
BT 35.464 655.800 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(simplicial complex)] TJ ET
BT 114.010 655.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( can be used in order to represent the connections between options and objectives. It is composed of as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 643.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(many simplices as the number of options and as many vertices as the number of objectives. For instance, the vertices of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simplex Ai are the elements of ?)] TJ ET
BT 164.973 629.927 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 166.897 631.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 612.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If empirical experience confirms a cognitive map, i.e. if the correspondences between options and objectives are all one-to-one, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 600.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simplices are isolated points and no simplicial complex exists: complexity is zero. On the contrary, if at least two simplices have )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 588.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(at least one vertex in common, a simplicial complex arises: complexity is greater than zero.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 569.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us define an incidence matrix ? of dimensions n×n, whose generic element l)] TJ ET
BT 369.557 567.308 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 373.405 569.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( takes the values:)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(?)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 35.519 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(= 1 )] TJ ET
BT 52.055 549.967 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(if)] TJ ET
BT 56.930 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( B)] TJ ET
BT 66.144 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 68.068 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( ? )] TJ ET
BT 78.910 549.967 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(B)] TJ ET
BT 85.949 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 87.873 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( , 0 otherwise)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Element \()] TJ ET
BT 67.970 530.562 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(i,j)] TJ ET
BT 75.010 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) of matrix ??)] TJ ET
BT 131.901 534.451 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 137.196 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is the number of vertices that simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 317.094 528.498 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 319.018 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and Aj have in common. Thus, element l)] TJ ET
BT 495.678 528.498 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 499.526 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( of matrix ?= ??)] TJ ET
BT 566.996 534.451 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 572.291 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(11)] TJ ET
BT 37.092 522.546 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 42.387 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is the dimension of the eventual common face between simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 335.014 516.593 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 336.938 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 365.125 516.593 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 367.049 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. If this number is negative, simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 535.568 516.593 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 537.492 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 565.680 516.593 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(have no common vertex.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 487.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Two simplices that have no vertex in common may nonetheless be connected by a chain of simplices having common vertices )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with one another. Let us say that simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 219.173 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 221.097 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 249.285 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 251.209 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( are )] TJ ET
BT 270.718 475.443 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q-connected)] TJ ET
BT 324.373 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( if there exists a chain of simplices {A)] TJ ET
BT 484.770 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(u)] TJ ET
BT 489.588 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 498.802 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(v)] TJ ET
BT 503.136 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,…A)] TJ ET
BT 522.099 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(w)] TJ ET
BT 528.357 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} such that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 463.539 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(:= min {l)] TJ ET
BT 66.625 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(iu)] TJ ET
BT 73.367 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,l)] TJ ET
BT 78.242 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(uv)] TJ ET
BT 87.394 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,…l)] TJ ET
BT 102.019 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(wj)] TJ ET
BT 110.201 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is not less than zero. In particular, two contiguous simplices are connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 473.281 463.539 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 478.702 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( if they have a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 451.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(common face of dimension )] TJ ET
BT 145.463 451.634 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 150.884 451.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 432.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us consider common faces between simplices and let us focus on the face of largest dimension: let )] TJ ET
BT 471.162 432.229 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Q)] TJ ET
BT 478.748 432.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the dimension )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of this face. Note that )] TJ ET
BT 121.098 420.324 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Q)] TJ ET
BT 128.683 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is not necessarily the largest possible dimension of a common face: given )] TJ ET
BT 451.652 420.324 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 457.073 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( objectives, the largest )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(possible dimension of a common face is )] TJ ET
BT 201.818 408.420 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 207.239 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-1 and this only occurs when two simplices of dimension )] TJ ET
BT 452.159 408.420 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 457.580 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-1 coincide.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 389.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(By inspection of matrix )] TJ ET
BT 127.036 389.015 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(L)] TJ ET
BT 132.993 389.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( we can partition the set of simplices that compose the simplicial complex according to connection level )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. Let us introduce a structure vector s of dimensions \(Q+1\) ×1, and let us denote its )] TJ ET
BT 392.060 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 397.481 380.998 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(th)] TJ ET
BT 404.709 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( component by )] TJ ET
BT 471.370 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 476.245 375.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 481.064 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. In general, for any )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 365.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(connection level )] TJ ET
BT 98.868 365.205 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 104.289 365.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( there exist classes of simplices such that the simplices belonging to a class are connected at that level. Let )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the )] TJ ET
BT 42.513 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 47.934 357.189 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(th)] TJ ET
BT 55.162 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( component of structure vector )] TJ ET
BT 189.556 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 194.431 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the number of disjoint classes of simplices that are connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 531.508 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 536.929 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 333.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In order to avoid repetitions in the calculus of complexity, we do not consider a class of simplices connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 526.425 333.896 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 531.846 333.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( to be also )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(a class of simplices connected at levels )] TJ ET
BT 199.108 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 204.529 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( – 1, )] TJ ET
BT 226.213 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 231.634 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( – 2, etc. For example, let simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 393.649 319.927 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 398.468 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 426.655 319.927 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 431.474 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( be connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 529.033 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 534.454 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 2, and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(let simplex A)] TJ ET
BT 81.513 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 86.332 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( be connected with A)] TJ ET
BT 176.841 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 181.660 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( at level )] TJ ET
BT 217.969 310.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 223.390 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1. Then, {A)] TJ ET
BT 282.748 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 287.566 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, A)] TJ ET
BT 299.490 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 304.309 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is a class of simplices connected at )] TJ ET
BT 465.252 310.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 470.673 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 2 and {A)] TJ ET
BT 518.653 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 523.472 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 532.686 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 537.504 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 546.718 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 551.537 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(class of simplices connected at )] TJ ET
BT 163.345 298.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 168.766 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1. However, {A)] TJ ET
BT 244.367 296.117 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 249.186 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, A)] TJ ET
BT 261.110 296.117 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 265.929 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is not a class of simplices connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 465.892 298.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 471.313 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 0.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 278.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Once structure vector is available, complexity can be measured as:)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 201.396 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 268.896 m 581.250 268.896 l 581.250 268.146 l 26.250 268.146 l f
26.250 201.396 m 581.250 201.396 l 581.250 202.146 l 26.250 202.146 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 211.146 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 251.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 241.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5BC%20%3D%200%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dif%5CLambda%20%20%3D%20I%2C%5Csum%5Climits_%7Bq%20%3D%200%7D%5EQ%20%7B%7B%7B\(q%20%2B%201\)%7D%20%5Cover%20%7B%7Bs_q%7D%7D%7D%7D%20%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dotherwise%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 184.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(where the sum extends only to the terms such that )] TJ ET
BT 246.815 184.372 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 251.690 182.308 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 256.508 184.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( <> 0. Finally, it is stipulated that the complexity of two or more )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 172.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(disconnected simplicial complexes is the sum of their complexities.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 143.365 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Appendix B)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.411 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In this appendix a formal proof is given of the relationship between the level of detail of information that is necessary and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 111.506 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(sufficient to establish the correct order of departments running tests, and the type of organizational structure. It was already )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 99.601 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shown in the text that the structures depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\) do not require any knowledge about the qualities of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 87.696 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(individual tests. We will therefore limit ourselves to the remaining structures as represented by Figures 4 \(b\), \(c\), and \(d\). Note )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that the expected profit on implemented projects equals a)] TJ ET
BT 273.919 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Xp)] TJ ET
BT 285.844 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 290.662 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(Org\) – \(1-a\))] TJ ET
BT 344.833 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Yp)] TJ ET
BT 356.758 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 361.576 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(Org\), where )] TJ ET
BT 419.004 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(p)] TJ ET
BT 424.425 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 429.243 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( \(Org\) stands for the probability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 63.887 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with which a particular arrangement of departments accepts a project of quality q ?{g,b}.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 44.482 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Consider the arrangement of departments as depicted in Figure 4 \(b\). Here,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 -29.149 555.000 63.750 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 34.601 m 581.250 34.601 l 581.250 33.851 l 26.250 33.851 l f
Q
q
15.000 -29.149 577.500 806.149 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 750.278 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Appendix A)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 730.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This appendix expounds the mathematics for measuring complexity as it has been defined in section “What a decision-maker )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 718.419 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(does not know…” It is based on a seminal work by Robert Atkin \(1974, 1981\), subsequently adapted to cognitive maps \(Fioretti )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 706.515 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,1998, 1999\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let ? = {A)] TJ ET
BT 68.809 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 70.733 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} and ? = {B)] TJ ET
BT 121.969 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 123.893 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} denote the options and the objectives envisaged by managers, respectively. Let ?)] TJ ET
BT 481.591 685.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 483.515 687.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the subset of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(objectives that are connected to option A)] TJ ET
BT 202.393 673.141 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 204.317 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, with )] TJ ET
BT 229.784 675.205 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 231.949 675.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1,2,…n.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 655.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(A )] TJ ET
BT 35.464 655.800 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(simplicial complex)] TJ ET
BT 114.010 655.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( can be used in order to represent the connections between options and objectives. It is composed of as )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 643.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(many simplices as the number of options and as many vertices as the number of objectives. For instance, the vertices of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simplex Ai are the elements of ?)] TJ ET
BT 164.973 629.927 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 166.897 631.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 612.586 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If empirical experience confirms a cognitive map, i.e. if the correspondences between options and objectives are all one-to-one, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 600.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(simplices are isolated points and no simplicial complex exists: complexity is zero. On the contrary, if at least two simplices have )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 588.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(at least one vertex in common, a simplicial complex arises: complexity is greater than zero.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 569.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us define an incidence matrix ? of dimensions n×n, whose generic element l)] TJ ET
BT 369.557 567.308 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 373.405 569.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( takes the values:)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(?)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 35.519 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(= 1 )] TJ ET
BT 52.055 549.967 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(if)] TJ ET
BT 56.930 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( B)] TJ ET
BT 66.144 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 68.068 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( ? )] TJ ET
BT 78.910 549.967 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(B)] TJ ET
BT 85.949 547.903 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 87.873 549.967 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( , 0 otherwise)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Element \()] TJ ET
BT 67.970 530.562 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(i,j)] TJ ET
BT 75.010 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\) of matrix ??)] TJ ET
BT 131.901 534.451 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 137.196 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is the number of vertices that simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 317.094 528.498 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 319.018 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and Aj have in common. Thus, element l)] TJ ET
BT 495.678 528.498 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(ij)] TJ ET
BT 499.526 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( of matrix ?= ??)] TJ ET
BT 566.996 534.451 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 572.291 530.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(11)] TJ ET
BT 37.092 522.546 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(T)] TJ ET
BT 42.387 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is the dimension of the eventual common face between simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 335.014 516.593 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 336.938 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 365.125 516.593 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 367.049 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. If this number is negative, simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 535.568 516.593 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 537.492 518.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 565.680 516.593 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 506.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(have no common vertex.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 487.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Two simplices that have no vertex in common may nonetheless be connected by a chain of simplices having common vertices )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with one another. Let us say that simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 219.173 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(i)] TJ ET
BT 221.097 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 249.285 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(j)] TJ ET
BT 251.209 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( are )] TJ ET
BT 270.718 475.443 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q-connected)] TJ ET
BT 324.373 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( if there exists a chain of simplices {A)] TJ ET
BT 484.770 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(u)] TJ ET
BT 489.588 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 498.802 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(v)] TJ ET
BT 503.136 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,…A)] TJ ET
BT 522.099 473.379 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(w)] TJ ET
BT 528.357 475.443 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} such that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 463.539 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(:= min {l)] TJ ET
BT 66.625 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(iu)] TJ ET
BT 73.367 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,l)] TJ ET
BT 78.242 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(uv)] TJ ET
BT 87.394 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,…l)] TJ ET
BT 102.019 461.474 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(wj)] TJ ET
BT 110.201 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is not less than zero. In particular, two contiguous simplices are connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 473.281 463.539 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 478.702 463.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( if they have a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 451.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(common face of dimension )] TJ ET
BT 145.463 451.634 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 150.884 451.634 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 432.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Let us consider common faces between simplices and let us focus on the face of largest dimension: let )] TJ ET
BT 471.162 432.229 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Q)] TJ ET
BT 478.748 432.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the dimension )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of this face. Note that )] TJ ET
BT 121.098 420.324 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Q)] TJ ET
BT 128.683 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is not necessarily the largest possible dimension of a common face: given )] TJ ET
BT 451.652 420.324 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 457.073 420.324 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( objectives, the largest )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(possible dimension of a common face is )] TJ ET
BT 201.818 408.420 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 207.239 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-1 and this only occurs when two simplices of dimension )] TJ ET
BT 452.159 408.420 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(n)] TJ ET
BT 457.580 408.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(-1 coincide.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 389.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(By inspection of matrix )] TJ ET
BT 127.036 389.015 Td /F4 9.8 Tf [(L)] TJ ET
BT 132.993 389.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( we can partition the set of simplices that compose the simplicial complex according to connection level )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 31.671 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. Let us introduce a structure vector s of dimensions \(Q+1\) ×1, and let us denote its )] TJ ET
BT 392.060 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 397.481 380.998 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(th)] TJ ET
BT 404.709 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( component by )] TJ ET
BT 471.370 377.110 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 476.245 375.046 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 481.064 377.110 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. In general, for any )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 365.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(connection level )] TJ ET
BT 98.868 365.205 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 104.289 365.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( there exist classes of simplices such that the simplices belonging to a class are connected at that level. Let )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(the )] TJ ET
BT 42.513 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 47.934 357.189 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(th)] TJ ET
BT 55.162 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( component of structure vector )] TJ ET
BT 189.556 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 194.431 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( denote the number of disjoint classes of simplices that are connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 531.508 353.301 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 536.929 353.301 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 333.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In order to avoid repetitions in the calculus of complexity, we do not consider a class of simplices connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 526.425 333.896 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 531.846 333.896 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( to be also )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(a class of simplices connected at levels )] TJ ET
BT 199.108 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 204.529 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( – 1, )] TJ ET
BT 226.213 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 231.634 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( – 2, etc. For example, let simplices A)] TJ ET
BT 393.649 319.927 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 398.468 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and A)] TJ ET
BT 426.655 319.927 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 431.474 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( be connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 529.033 321.991 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 534.454 321.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 2, and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(let simplex A)] TJ ET
BT 81.513 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 86.332 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( be connected with A)] TJ ET
BT 176.841 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 181.660 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( at level )] TJ ET
BT 217.969 310.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 223.390 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1. Then, {A)] TJ ET
BT 282.748 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 287.566 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, A)] TJ ET
BT 299.490 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 304.309 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is a class of simplices connected at )] TJ ET
BT 465.252 310.086 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 470.673 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 2 and {A)] TJ ET
BT 518.653 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 523.472 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 532.686 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 537.504 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(,A)] TJ ET
BT 546.718 308.022 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 551.537 310.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(class of simplices connected at )] TJ ET
BT 163.345 298.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 168.766 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 1. However, {A)] TJ ET
BT 244.367 296.117 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 249.186 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, A)] TJ ET
BT 261.110 296.117 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 265.929 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(} is not a class of simplices connected at level )] TJ ET
BT 465.892 298.182 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 471.313 298.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( = 0.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 278.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Once structure vector is available, complexity can be measured as:)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 201.396 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 268.896 m 581.250 268.896 l 581.250 268.146 l 26.250 268.146 l f
26.250 201.396 m 581.250 201.396 l 581.250 202.146 l 26.250 202.146 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 211.146 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 251.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 241.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5BC%20%3D%200%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dif%5CLambda%20%20%3D%20I%2C%5Csum%5Climits_%7Bq%20%3D%200%7D%5EQ%20%7B%7B%7B\(q%20%2B%201\)%7D%20%5Cover%20%7B%7Bs_q%7D%7D%7D%7D%20%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dotherwise%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 184.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(where the sum extends only to the terms such that )] TJ ET
BT 246.815 184.372 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(s)] TJ ET
BT 251.690 182.308 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 256.508 184.372 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( <> 0. Finally, it is stipulated that the complexity of two or more )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 172.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(disconnected simplicial complexes is the sum of their complexities.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 143.365 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(Appendix B)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.411 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(In this appendix a formal proof is given of the relationship between the level of detail of information that is necessary and )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 111.506 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(sufficient to establish the correct order of departments running tests, and the type of organizational structure. It was already )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 99.601 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(shown in the text that the structures depicted in Figures 4 \(a\) and \(e\) do not require any knowledge about the qualities of the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 87.696 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(individual tests. We will therefore limit ourselves to the remaining structures as represented by Figures 4 \(b\), \(c\), and \(d\). Note )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(that the expected profit on implemented projects equals a)] TJ ET
BT 273.919 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Xp)] TJ ET
BT 285.844 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(g)] TJ ET
BT 290.662 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(Org\) – \(1-a\))] TJ ET
BT 344.833 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(Yp)] TJ ET
BT 356.758 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(b)] TJ ET
BT 361.576 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(Org\), where )] TJ ET
BT 419.004 75.792 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(p)] TJ ET
BT 424.425 79.680 Td /F5 8.7 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 429.243 75.792 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( \(Org\) stands for the probability )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 63.887 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(with which a particular arrangement of departments accepts a project of quality q ?{g,b}.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 44.482 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Consider the arrangement of departments as depicted in Figure 4 \(b\). Here,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 -29.149 555.000 63.750 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 34.601 m 581.250 34.601 l 581.250 33.851 l 26.250 33.851 l f
Q
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 211.146 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 251.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 241.746 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5BC%20%3D%200%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dif%5CLambda%20%20%3D%20I%2C%5Csum%5Climits_%7Bq%20%3D%200%7D%5EQ%20%7B%7B%7B\(q%20%2B%201\)%7D%20%5Cover%20%7B%7Bs_q%7D%7D%7D%7D%20%7B%5Crm%7B%20%7D%7Dotherwise%5C%5D)] TJ ET
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(8)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
<<
/Type /XObject
/Subtype /Image
/Width 64
/Height 64
/Filter /FlateDecode
/DecodeParms << /Predictor 15 /Colors 3 /Columns 64 /BitsPerComponent 8>>
/ColorSpace /DeviceRGB
/BitsPerComponent 8
/Length 929>>
stream
hÕš½nâ@Çç¢‰T–RÍ#¸„Î.Ý"Z!ï”®ÒP¡¸Š\!W[Më.ÕŸ±—]ï,öý*@È™ÿÎçùóþþÿ3Ïðöö6¶Ùn·OúM]×#šâÄù|Ö¯/êºÞï÷D4’IÑÇÇ‡ÖpEQ’$UUM\UU•eÙl6ãO~Cã8Îó|²±DDûý>ŽcDÔ>5¿ˆ›Íæëëk‚~Ðgß´Z Š¢ÅbQÅ¤4QY–³gÚ“$™Ž"*Šb±XÜZàª¡,ËÑó#'I’Në¡O bš¦»ÝnD?Qžç‘£éQ×ë±j+Ÿýz½6XfpÏŽ{óÙ3w@#¦kŽ!î›<Û<‘TU•~¶¾¯æÜrßÇRèy‰{½õ`/1Ë²p9Ý×kÍ8€~èœslpW?Èæ4Ç½ëÙ3VIÜ‚ÿLY– ‘Ó®YÛÂÙ"ŠÌ|²¶Å@pí>9=,k[;Ð
u]ßsl’M‘ç%pÉŽûÍfE‘§^`\ç%=ßû["Àe^bë-ç|CHcS[ëº¶ŸÒ,‘ñÃµµ¯OÑn·KÓTv”ýó’¾ˆÄ}aÐ5/ÙßN –M´øxÜ7 "®y\„³Â €óùüóóîùL(Dt:²,ƒÀwQù$¥TžçËåCïŒå(¥ŽÇcsÎ º3ÀÖßÎ9ávÆ’”Rßßß}½6ÐÎXL€Rêt:%Ibèµ!vÆ2ˆèóó“³ÖüMñ±@å³·¿è1HÔV_(¥‡CÇNSšàÎØË\sV«Õ€Sçøùa¸€¾ŠiÈ~i`‘¡bÚc¾Ù0D€ÞçˆÜN8àIÁÜk}–Ó¶øì¥â¾}³¿ÄYå€Å´Çug|_ñ}Ž§ñòéµ>ØïŒMà³LäÜb9/õz€kÎãÏ¾‰Í¼Ô-€ˆŽÇc¸ŠiÏÝßØ;Bˆ{í#³ÖŒ¹O·ðœ¢×ú`˜—þ ”*ŠBvÎ‘¢Ï¿Ók}èôÃ%‰9kÇª˜öèyi>Ÿ³©¯¯¯išNÜzçóùËË¿½˜Ífúa§Oó Ÿ`»ÝŽgŒ/È¡
endstream
endobj
76 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 77 0 R
>>
endobj
77 0 obj
<<
/Length 32385 >>
stream
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
q
15.000 16.346 577.500 760.654 re W n
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 719.250 555.000 57.750 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 719.250 m 581.250 719.250 l 581.250 720.000 l 26.250 720.000 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B%7Bp%5Eq%7D\(Org\)%20%3D%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Clearly, changing the order of tests )] TJ ET
BT 180.154 702.226 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 182.864 700.162 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 187.683 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 209.367 702.226 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 212.077 700.162 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 216.896 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( leaves the probability of acceptance unaffected. Now assume the tests can be )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, and that )] TJ ET
BT 214.844 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 217.555 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 222.373 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is better than )] TJ ET
BT 284.159 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 286.870 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 291.688 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, which is better than )] TJ ET
BT 383.816 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 386.527 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 391.345 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. It is easy to see that the department that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 678.417 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(runs the first test should be the best, as the department that runs it can make a final decision on its own. Changing the order of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tests )] TJ ET
BT 49.552 666.512 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 52.263 664.448 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 57.082 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and, say, )] TJ ET
BT 102.068 666.512 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 104.779 664.448 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 109.597 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, leads to change in the probability of acceptance equal to )] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 596.631 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 664.131 m 581.250 664.131 l 581.250 663.381 l 26.250 663.381 l f
26.250 596.631 m 581.250 596.631 l 581.250 597.381 l 26.250 597.381 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 606.381 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 646.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 636.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%20%3D%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 579.607 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This difference is positive for good projects and negative for bad projects, implying an unequivocal worsening of the composition )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 567.702 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of accepted projects, leading to reduction in expected profits. When tests are ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 555.798 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational designer needs to be able to identify the best test: ordinal information is required \(and sufficient\) to correctly )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 543.893 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assign departments to positions in the organizational structure. Clearly, if the tests are not ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 531.988 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information about the exact probabilities of acceptance are necessary, as the direction of change of expected profit can no )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 520.083 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(longer be established unequivocally.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 500.679 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The same line of reasoning applies to the structure depicted in Figure 4 \(d\): if tests can be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 488.774 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(then ordinal information is necessary and sufficient to determine the order in which departments should run tests. The first test )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 476.869 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to be run should be the best. The order of the second and the third is immaterial. If tests cannot be ordered using the ‘better’ )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 464.964 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(criterion, cardinal information is necessary to correctly assign the departments to organizational positions.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 445.560 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, the structure depicted in Figure 4 \(c\) requires cardinal information, even if the individual tests can be ordered using the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.655 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(‘better’ criterion. The probability of acceptance of a project of quality )] TJ ET
BT 321.051 433.655 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 326.472 433.655 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( equals,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 356.274 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 423.774 m 581.250 423.774 l 581.250 423.024 l 26.250 423.024 l f
26.250 356.274 m 581.250 356.274 l 581.250 357.024 l 26.250 357.024 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 366.024 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 406.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 396.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 339.250 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Switching the position of department 3 and 1 changes the probability of acceptance:)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 261.869 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 329.369 m 581.250 329.369 l 581.250 328.619 l 26.250 328.619 l f
26.250 261.869 m 581.250 261.869 l 581.250 262.619 l 26.250 262.619 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 271.619 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 312.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 302.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%201\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 244.845 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If tests can be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, equation \(1\) is positive for good projects, and negative for bad ones, implying )] TJ ET
BT 575.224 244.845 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 31.069 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 52.753 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 55.463 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 60.282 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( should not be switched. Similarly, tests )] TJ ET
BT 233.140 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 235.850 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 240.669 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 262.353 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 265.063 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 269.882 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( should not be switched. Note that ordinal information is sufficient to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ascertain the correctness of these assignments. However, knowing whether )] TJ ET
BT 355.176 221.036 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 357.887 218.972 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 362.705 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 384.389 221.036 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 387.100 218.972 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 391.918 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( are correctly assigned required cardinal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 209.131 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information. Switching the departments that run these tests gives rise to a change in probability equal to,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 131.750 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 199.250 m 581.250 199.250 l 581.250 198.500 l 26.250 198.500 l f
26.250 131.750 m 581.250 131.750 l 581.250 132.500 l 26.250 132.500 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 141.500 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 182.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 172.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(1%20-%202p_%7B%7Br_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Br_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Br_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Although and )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 86.417 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 86.417 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 86.417 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eg%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eg%20%3E%200%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 134.417 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 156.101 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 156.101 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 156.101 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eb%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eb%20%3C%200%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 204.101 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, it is unclear what the sign of )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 332.538 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 332.538 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 332.538 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B1%20-%202p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 380.538 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( will be for either q= g or b. Hence, ordinal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 66.726 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information is not enough to determine the correct location of the departments that run tests t1 and t2. Even if one were to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 25.945 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assume that a test is better than a purely random device \(such as tossing a fair coin\), i.e., )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 16.346 577.500 760.654 re W n
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 719.250 555.000 57.750 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 719.250 m 581.250 719.250 l 581.250 720.000 l 26.250 720.000 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B%7Bp%5Eq%7D\(Org\)%20%3D%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Clearly, changing the order of tests )] TJ ET
BT 180.154 702.226 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 182.864 700.162 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 187.683 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 209.367 702.226 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 212.077 700.162 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 216.896 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( leaves the probability of acceptance unaffected. Now assume the tests can be )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, and that )] TJ ET
BT 214.844 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 217.555 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 222.373 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is better than )] TJ ET
BT 284.159 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 286.870 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 291.688 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, which is better than )] TJ ET
BT 383.816 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 386.527 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 391.345 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. It is easy to see that the department that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 678.417 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(runs the first test should be the best, as the department that runs it can make a final decision on its own. Changing the order of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tests )] TJ ET
BT 49.552 666.512 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 52.263 664.448 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 57.082 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and, say, )] TJ ET
BT 102.068 666.512 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 104.779 664.448 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 109.597 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, leads to change in the probability of acceptance equal to )] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 596.631 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 664.131 m 581.250 664.131 l 581.250 663.381 l 26.250 663.381 l f
26.250 596.631 m 581.250 596.631 l 581.250 597.381 l 26.250 597.381 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 606.381 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 646.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 636.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%20%3D%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 579.607 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This difference is positive for good projects and negative for bad projects, implying an unequivocal worsening of the composition )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 567.702 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of accepted projects, leading to reduction in expected profits. When tests are ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 555.798 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational designer needs to be able to identify the best test: ordinal information is required \(and sufficient\) to correctly )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 543.893 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assign departments to positions in the organizational structure. Clearly, if the tests are not ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 531.988 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information about the exact probabilities of acceptance are necessary, as the direction of change of expected profit can no )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 520.083 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(longer be established unequivocally.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 500.679 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The same line of reasoning applies to the structure depicted in Figure 4 \(d\): if tests can be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 488.774 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(then ordinal information is necessary and sufficient to determine the order in which departments should run tests. The first test )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 476.869 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to be run should be the best. The order of the second and the third is immaterial. If tests cannot be ordered using the ‘better’ )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 464.964 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(criterion, cardinal information is necessary to correctly assign the departments to organizational positions.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 445.560 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, the structure depicted in Figure 4 \(c\) requires cardinal information, even if the individual tests can be ordered using the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.655 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(‘better’ criterion. The probability of acceptance of a project of quality )] TJ ET
BT 321.051 433.655 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 326.472 433.655 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( equals,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 356.274 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 423.774 m 581.250 423.774 l 581.250 423.024 l 26.250 423.024 l f
26.250 356.274 m 581.250 356.274 l 581.250 357.024 l 26.250 357.024 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 366.024 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 406.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 396.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 339.250 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Switching the position of department 3 and 1 changes the probability of acceptance:)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 261.869 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 329.369 m 581.250 329.369 l 581.250 328.619 l 26.250 328.619 l f
26.250 261.869 m 581.250 261.869 l 581.250 262.619 l 26.250 262.619 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 271.619 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 312.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 302.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%201\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 244.845 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If tests can be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, equation \(1\) is positive for good projects, and negative for bad ones, implying )] TJ ET
BT 575.224 244.845 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 31.069 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 52.753 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 55.463 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 60.282 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( should not be switched. Similarly, tests )] TJ ET
BT 233.140 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 235.850 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 240.669 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 262.353 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 265.063 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 269.882 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( should not be switched. Note that ordinal information is sufficient to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ascertain the correctness of these assignments. However, knowing whether )] TJ ET
BT 355.176 221.036 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 357.887 218.972 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 362.705 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 384.389 221.036 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 387.100 218.972 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 391.918 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( are correctly assigned required cardinal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 209.131 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information. Switching the departments that run these tests gives rise to a change in probability equal to,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 131.750 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 199.250 m 581.250 199.250 l 581.250 198.500 l 26.250 198.500 l f
26.250 131.750 m 581.250 131.750 l 581.250 132.500 l 26.250 132.500 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 141.500 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 182.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 172.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(1%20-%202p_%7B%7Br_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Br_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Br_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Although and )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 86.417 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 86.417 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 86.417 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eg%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eg%20%3E%200%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 134.417 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 156.101 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 156.101 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 156.101 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eb%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eb%20%3C%200%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 204.101 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, it is unclear what the sign of )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 332.538 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 332.538 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 332.538 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B1%20-%202p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 380.538 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( will be for either q= g or b. Hence, ordinal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 66.726 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information is not enough to determine the correct location of the departments that run tests t1 and t2. Even if one were to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 25.945 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assume that a test is better than a purely random device \(such as tossing a fair coin\), i.e., )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 16.346 577.500 760.654 re W n
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 719.250 555.000 57.750 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
26.250 719.250 m 581.250 719.250 l 581.250 720.000 l 26.250 720.000 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B%7Bp%5Eq%7D\(Org\)%20%3D%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Clearly, changing the order of tests )] TJ ET
BT 180.154 702.226 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 182.864 700.162 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 187.683 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 209.367 702.226 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 212.077 700.162 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 216.896 702.226 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( leaves the probability of acceptance unaffected. Now assume the tests can be )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, and that )] TJ ET
BT 214.844 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 217.555 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 222.373 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( is better than )] TJ ET
BT 284.159 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 286.870 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 291.688 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, which is better than )] TJ ET
BT 383.816 690.321 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 386.527 688.257 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 391.345 690.321 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(. It is easy to see that the department that )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 678.417 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(runs the first test should be the best, as the department that runs it can make a final decision on its own. Changing the order of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(tests )] TJ ET
BT 49.552 666.512 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 52.263 664.448 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 57.082 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and, say, )] TJ ET
BT 102.068 666.512 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 104.779 664.448 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 109.597 666.512 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, leads to change in the probability of acceptance equal to )] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 596.631 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 664.131 m 581.250 664.131 l 581.250 663.381 l 26.250 663.381 l f
26.250 596.631 m 581.250 596.631 l 581.250 597.381 l 26.250 597.381 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 606.381 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 646.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 636.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%20%3D%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 579.607 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(This difference is positive for good projects and negative for bad projects, implying an unequivocal worsening of the composition )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 567.702 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of accepted projects, leading to reduction in expected profits. When tests are ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 555.798 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizational designer needs to be able to identify the best test: ordinal information is required \(and sufficient\) to correctly )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 543.893 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assign departments to positions in the organizational structure. Clearly, if the tests are not ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 531.988 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information about the exact probabilities of acceptance are necessary, as the direction of change of expected profit can no )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 520.083 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(longer be established unequivocally.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 500.679 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The same line of reasoning applies to the structure depicted in Figure 4 \(d\): if tests can be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 488.774 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(then ordinal information is necessary and sufficient to determine the order in which departments should run tests. The first test )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 476.869 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(to be run should be the best. The order of the second and the third is immaterial. If tests cannot be ordered using the ‘better’ )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 464.964 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(criterion, cardinal information is necessary to correctly assign the departments to organizational positions.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 445.560 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Finally, the structure depicted in Figure 4 \(c\) requires cardinal information, even if the individual tests can be ordered using the )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.655 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(‘better’ criterion. The probability of acceptance of a project of quality )] TJ ET
BT 321.051 433.655 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(q)] TJ ET
BT 326.472 433.655 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( equals,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 356.274 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 423.774 m 581.250 423.774 l 581.250 423.024 l 26.250 423.024 l f
26.250 356.274 m 581.250 356.274 l 581.250 357.024 l 26.250 357.024 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 366.024 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 406.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 396.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 339.250 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Switching the position of department 3 and 1 changes the probability of acceptance:)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 261.869 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 329.369 m 581.250 329.369 l 581.250 328.619 l 26.250 328.619 l f
26.250 261.869 m 581.250 261.869 l 581.250 262.619 l 26.250 262.619 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 271.619 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 312.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 302.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%201\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 244.845 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(If tests can be ordered using the ‘better’ criterion, equation \(1\) is positive for good projects, and negative for bad ones, implying )] TJ ET
BT 575.224 244.845 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 31.069 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 52.753 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 55.463 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 60.282 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( should not be switched. Similarly, tests )] TJ ET
BT 233.140 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 235.850 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(3)] TJ ET
BT 240.669 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 262.353 232.941 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 265.063 230.876 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 269.882 232.941 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( should not be switched. Note that ordinal information is sufficient to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(ascertain the correctness of these assignments. However, knowing whether )] TJ ET
BT 355.176 221.036 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 357.887 218.972 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(1)] TJ ET
BT 362.705 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
BT 384.389 221.036 Td /F5 9.8 Tf [(t)] TJ ET
BT 387.100 218.972 Td /F1 8.7 Tf [(2)] TJ ET
BT 391.918 221.036 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( are correctly assigned required cardinal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 209.131 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information. Switching the departments that run these tests gives rise to a change in probability equal to,)] TJ ET
0.965 0.965 0.965 rg
26.250 131.750 555.000 67.500 re f
0.267 0.267 0.267 rg
26.250 199.250 m 581.250 199.250 l 581.250 198.500 l 26.250 198.500 l f
26.250 131.750 m 581.250 131.750 l 581.250 132.500 l 26.250 132.500 l f
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 141.500 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 182.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 172.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(1%20-%202p_%7B%7Br_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Br_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Br_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Although and )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 86.417 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 86.417 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 86.417 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eg%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eg%20%3E%200%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 134.417 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( and )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 156.101 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 156.101 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 156.101 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eb%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eb%20%3C%200%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 204.101 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, it is unclear what the sign of )] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 332.538 76.250 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 332.538 116.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 332.538 106.850 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B1%20-%202p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 380.538 85.850 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [( will be for either q= g or b. Hence, ordinal )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 66.726 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(information is not enough to determine the correct location of the departments that run tests t1 and t2. Even if one were to )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 25.945 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(assume that a test is better than a purely random device \(such as tossing a fair coin\), i.e., )] TJ ET
Q
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 35.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B%7Bp%5Eq%7D\(Org\)%20%3D%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 606.381 cm /I1 Do
Q
BT 35.250 646.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 636.981 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%20%3D%20\(p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 366.024 cm /I1 Do
Q
BT 35.250 406.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 396.624 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5Bp_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eqp_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20%2B%20\(1%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq%5C%5D)] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 271.619 cm /I1 Do
Q
BT 35.250 312.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 302.219 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Bt_1%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Bt_2%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%201\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 35.250 141.500 cm /I1 Do
Q
BT 35.250 182.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 35.250 172.100 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B\(1%20-%202p_%7B%7Br_3%7D%7D%5Eq\)\(p_%7B%7Br_1%7D%7D%5Eq%20-%20p_%7B%7Br_2%7D%7D%5Eq\)%5C%5D)] TJ ET
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(9)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 79 0 R
>>
endobj
79 0 obj
<<
/Length 20747 >>
stream
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
0.267 0.267 0.267 RG
q
15.000 41.372 577.500 735.628 re W n
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 26.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 26.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B0%20%3C%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eb%20%3C%201%2F2%20%3C%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eg%20%3C%201%2C%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 74.250 738.600 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, then one would still require knowledge of the exact qualities of the tests to determine the correct order of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(departments: both the probability of acceptance of good and of bad projects decrease as a consequence of switching these )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(departments. This completes the proof. In Visser \(2001\), it is shown how these results can be extended so that apply to a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 695.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(general class of structures. The model used is inspired by Sah and Stiglitz \(1986\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 659.064 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(References)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(1.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 631.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. \(2000\)• “Knowledge, ignorance, and learning, Emergence,” 2\(4\): 78-103.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 612.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(2.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 612.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. \(2001\). “What is complexity science? Knowledge of the limits to knowledge,” Emergence, 3\(1\): 24-42.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 592.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(3.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 592.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. and Strathern, M. \(2003\). “Evolution, emergence, and learning in complex systems,” Emergence, 5\(4\): 8-33.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(4.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 573.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Anderson, P. \(1999\). “Complexity theory and organization science,” Organization Science, 10: 216-232.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 553.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(5.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 553.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Anderson, P. and Paine, F. T. \(1975\). “Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior,” Academy of Management Journal, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 542.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(18: 811-823.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 522.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(6.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 522.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Atkin, R. \(1974\). Mathematical structures in human affairs, New York, NY: Crane, Russak and Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 503.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(7.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 503.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Atkin, R. \(1981\) Multidimensional man, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(8.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 483.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Axelrod, R. \(1976\). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites, Princeton: Princeton University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 464.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(9.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 464.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Chaitin, G. J. \(1966\). “On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences,” Journal of the Associationfor )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 452.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Computing Machinery, 13: 547-69.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(10.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 433.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Chandler, A. \(1962\). Strategy and structure. Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 413.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(11.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 413.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Cilliers, P. \(2002\). “Why we cannot know complex things completely,” Emergence, 4\(1/2\): 77-84.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 394.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(12.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 394.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Crutchfield, J. P. and Young, K. \(1989\). “Inferring statistical complexity,” Physical Review Letters, 63: 105-8.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 374.943 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(13.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 374.943 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Daft, R. L. \(1989\). Organization theory and design, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 355.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(14.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 355.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Dupuy, J. P. \(1982\). Ordres et désordres, Paris: Editions du Seuil.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 336.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(15.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 336.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fink, S., Beak, J. and Taddeo, K. \(1971\). “Organizational crisis and change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 :15-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 324.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(27.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.824 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(16.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 304.824 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti, G. \(1998\). “A concept of complexity for the social sciences,” R’evue Inter-nationale de Syst’emique, 12: 285-312.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(17.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 285.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti, G. \(1999\). “A subjective measure of complexity,” Advances in Complex Systems, 4: 349-70.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 266.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(18.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 266.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fontana, W. \(1991\). “Algorithmic chemistry,” in C. G.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 246.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(19.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 246.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen \(eds.\), Artificial Life II : Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 234.705 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Held February, 1990 in Santa Fe, New Mexico \(Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Proceedings\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 222.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Redwood City: Addison-Wesley, pp. 159-209.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 203.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(20.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 203.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ford, J. D. \(1985\). “The effects of causal attributions on decision makers’ responses to performance downturns,” Academy )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 191.491 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of Management Review, 10: 770-786.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 172.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(21.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 172.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ford, J. D. and Baucus, D. A. \(1987\).” Organizational adaptation to performance downturns: An interpretation- based )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 160.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 12: 366-380.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 140.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(22.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 140.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Frank, K. A. and Fahrbach, K. \(1999\). “Organization culture as a complex system: Balance and information in models of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 128.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(influence and selection,” Organization Science, 10\(3\): 253-277.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 109.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(23.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 109.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Galbraith, J. \(1973\). Designing complex organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 90.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(24.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 90.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Gell-Mann, M. \(1994\). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex, New York, NY: Freeman.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 70.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(25.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 70.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Haken, H. \(1983\). Synergetics: An introduction, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 51.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(26.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 51.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Haken, H. \(1987\). Advanced synergetics, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 41.372 577.500 735.628 re W n
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 26.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 26.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B0%20%3C%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eb%20%3C%201%2F2%20%3C%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eg%20%3C%201%2C%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 74.250 738.600 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, then one would still require knowledge of the exact qualities of the tests to determine the correct order of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(departments: both the probability of acceptance of good and of bad projects decrease as a consequence of switching these )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(departments. This completes the proof. In Visser \(2001\), it is shown how these results can be extended so that apply to a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 695.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(general class of structures. The model used is inspired by Sah and Stiglitz \(1986\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 659.064 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(References)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(1.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 631.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. \(2000\)• “Knowledge, ignorance, and learning, Emergence,” 2\(4\): 78-103.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 612.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(2.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 612.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. \(2001\). “What is complexity science? Knowledge of the limits to knowledge,” Emergence, 3\(1\): 24-42.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 592.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(3.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 592.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. and Strathern, M. \(2003\). “Evolution, emergence, and learning in complex systems,” Emergence, 5\(4\): 8-33.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(4.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 573.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Anderson, P. \(1999\). “Complexity theory and organization science,” Organization Science, 10: 216-232.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 553.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(5.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 553.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Anderson, P. and Paine, F. T. \(1975\). “Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior,” Academy of Management Journal, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 542.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(18: 811-823.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 522.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(6.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 522.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Atkin, R. \(1974\). Mathematical structures in human affairs, New York, NY: Crane, Russak and Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 503.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(7.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 503.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Atkin, R. \(1981\) Multidimensional man, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(8.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 483.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Axelrod, R. \(1976\). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites, Princeton: Princeton University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 464.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(9.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 464.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Chaitin, G. J. \(1966\). “On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences,” Journal of the Associationfor )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 452.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Computing Machinery, 13: 547-69.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(10.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 433.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Chandler, A. \(1962\). Strategy and structure. Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 413.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(11.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 413.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Cilliers, P. \(2002\). “Why we cannot know complex things completely,” Emergence, 4\(1/2\): 77-84.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 394.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(12.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 394.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Crutchfield, J. P. and Young, K. \(1989\). “Inferring statistical complexity,” Physical Review Letters, 63: 105-8.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 374.943 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(13.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 374.943 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Daft, R. L. \(1989\). Organization theory and design, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 355.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(14.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 355.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Dupuy, J. P. \(1982\). Ordres et désordres, Paris: Editions du Seuil.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 336.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(15.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 336.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fink, S., Beak, J. and Taddeo, K. \(1971\). “Organizational crisis and change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 :15-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 324.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(27.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.824 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(16.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 304.824 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti, G. \(1998\). “A concept of complexity for the social sciences,” R’evue Inter-nationale de Syst’emique, 12: 285-312.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(17.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 285.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti, G. \(1999\). “A subjective measure of complexity,” Advances in Complex Systems, 4: 349-70.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 266.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(18.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 266.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fontana, W. \(1991\). “Algorithmic chemistry,” in C. G.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 246.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(19.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 246.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen \(eds.\), Artificial Life II : Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 234.705 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Held February, 1990 in Santa Fe, New Mexico \(Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Proceedings\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 222.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Redwood City: Addison-Wesley, pp. 159-209.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 203.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(20.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 203.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ford, J. D. \(1985\). “The effects of causal attributions on decision makers’ responses to performance downturns,” Academy )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 191.491 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of Management Review, 10: 770-786.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 172.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(21.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 172.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ford, J. D. and Baucus, D. A. \(1987\).” Organizational adaptation to performance downturns: An interpretation- based )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 160.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 12: 366-380.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 140.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(22.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 140.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Frank, K. A. and Fahrbach, K. \(1999\). “Organization culture as a complex system: Balance and information in models of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 128.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(influence and selection,” Organization Science, 10\(3\): 253-277.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 109.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(23.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 109.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Galbraith, J. \(1973\). Designing complex organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 90.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(24.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 90.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Gell-Mann, M. \(1994\). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex, New York, NY: Freeman.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 70.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(25.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 70.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Haken, H. \(1983\). Synergetics: An introduction, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 51.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(26.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 51.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Haken, H. \(1987\). Advanced synergetics, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 41.372 577.500 735.628 re W n
q
48.000 0 0 48.000 26.250 729.000 cm /I1 Do
Q
0.500 0.500 0.500 rg
BT 26.250 769.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(Image not readable or empty)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 759.600 Td /F1 8.0 Tf [(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=tx&chf=bg,s,FFFFFF00&chco=000000&chl=%5C%5B0%20%3C%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eb%20%3C%201%2F2%20%3C%20p_%7B%7Bt_3%7D%7D%5Eg%20%3C%201%2C%5C%5D)] TJ ET
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 74.250 738.600 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(, then one would still require knowledge of the exact qualities of the tests to determine the correct order of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 719.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(departments: both the probability of acceptance of good and of bad projects decrease as a consequence of switching these )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 707.571 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(departments. This completes the proof. In Visser \(2001\), it is shown how these results can be extended so that apply to a )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 695.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(general class of structures. The model used is inspired by Sah and Stiglitz \(1986\).)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 659.064 Td /F4 12.0 Tf [(References)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 631.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(1.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 631.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. \(2000\)• “Knowledge, ignorance, and learning, Emergence,” 2\(4\): 78-103.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 612.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(2.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 612.205 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. \(2001\). “What is complexity science? Knowledge of the limits to knowledge,” Emergence, 3\(1\): 24-42.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 592.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(3.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 592.800 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Allen, P. M. and Strathern, M. \(2003\). “Evolution, emergence, and learning in complex systems,” Emergence, 5\(4\): 8-33.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 573.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(4.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 573.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Anderson, P. \(1999\). “Complexity theory and organization science,” Organization Science, 10: 216-232.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 553.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(5.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 553.991 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Anderson, P. and Paine, F. T. \(1975\). “Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior,” Academy of Management Journal, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 542.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(18: 811-823.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 522.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(6.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 522.681 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Atkin, R. \(1974\). Mathematical structures in human affairs, New York, NY: Crane, Russak and Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 503.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(7.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 503.277 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Atkin, R. \(1981\) Multidimensional man, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 483.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(8.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 483.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Axelrod, R. \(1976\). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites, Princeton: Princeton University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 464.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(9.)] TJ ET
BT 38.132 464.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Chaitin, G. J. \(1966\). “On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences,” Journal of the Associationfor )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 452.562 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Computing Machinery, 13: 547-69.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 433.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(10.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 433.158 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Chandler, A. \(1962\). Strategy and structure. Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 413.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(11.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 413.753 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Cilliers, P. \(2002\). “Why we cannot know complex things completely,” Emergence, 4\(1/2\): 77-84.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 394.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(12.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 394.348 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Crutchfield, J. P. and Young, K. \(1989\). “Inferring statistical complexity,” Physical Review Letters, 63: 105-8.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 374.943 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(13.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 374.943 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Daft, R. L. \(1989\). Organization theory and design, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 355.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(14.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 355.539 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Dupuy, J. P. \(1982\). Ordres et désordres, Paris: Editions du Seuil.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 336.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(15.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 336.134 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fink, S., Beak, J. and Taddeo, K. \(1971\). “Organizational crisis and change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 :15-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 324.229 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(27.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 304.824 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(16.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 304.824 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti, G. \(1998\). “A concept of complexity for the social sciences,” R’evue Inter-nationale de Syst’emique, 12: 285-312.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 285.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(17.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 285.420 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fioretti, G. \(1999\). “A subjective measure of complexity,” Advances in Complex Systems, 4: 349-70.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 266.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(18.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 266.015 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Fontana, W. \(1991\). “Algorithmic chemistry,” in C. G.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 246.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(19.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 246.610 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen \(eds.\), Artificial Life II : Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 234.705 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Held February, 1990 in Santa Fe, New Mexico \(Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Proceedings\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 222.801 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Redwood City: Addison-Wesley, pp. 159-209.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 203.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(20.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 203.396 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ford, J. D. \(1985\). “The effects of causal attributions on decision makers’ responses to performance downturns,” Academy )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 191.491 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(of Management Review, 10: 770-786.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 172.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(21.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 172.086 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ford, J. D. and Baucus, D. A. \(1987\).” Organizational adaptation to performance downturns: An interpretation- based )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 160.182 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 12: 366-380.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 140.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(22.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 140.777 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Frank, K. A. and Fahrbach, K. \(1999\). “Organization culture as a complex system: Balance and information in models of )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 128.872 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(influence and selection,” Organization Science, 10\(3\): 253-277.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 109.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(23.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 109.467 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Galbraith, J. \(1973\). Designing complex organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 90.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(24.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 90.063 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Gell-Mann, M. \(1994\). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex, New York, NY: Freeman.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 70.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(25.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 70.658 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Haken, H. \(1983\). Synergetics: An introduction, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 51.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(26.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 51.253 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Haken, H. \(1987\). Advanced synergetics, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.)] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(10)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 81 0 R
>>
endobj
81 0 obj
<<
/Length 21908 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 38.786 577.500 738.214 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 759.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(27.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 759.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hammond, T. H. \(1994\). “Structure, strategy, and the agenda of the firm,” in R. P. Rumelt, D. E. Schendel and D. J. Teece )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(eds.\), Fundamental issues in strategy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 97-154.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(28.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(von Hayek, F. \(1952\). The sensory order, London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 709.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(29.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 709.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hebb, D. O. \(1949\). The organization of behavior, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 689.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(30.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 689.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. \(1976\). “Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 677.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 41-65.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 658.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(31.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 658.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ingrassia, P. and White, J. B. \(1994\). Comeback: The fall and rise of the American automobile industry, New York, NY: )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Simon and Schuster.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 627.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(32.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 627.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Jablin, F. M. \(1987\). “Formal organization structure,” in F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. Roberts and L. Porter \(eds.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Handbook of organizational communication. An interdisciplinary perspective, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp. 389-419.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 595.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(33.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 595.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Kauffman, S. \(1993\). The origins of order, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 576.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(34.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 576.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Keynes, J. M. \(1936\). The general theory of employment, interest and money, London, UK: MacMillan, reprinted in 1973, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 564.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The collected writings of J. M. Keynes, vol. VII.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 545.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(35.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 545.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Kolmogorov, A. N. \(1965\). “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information, problems of information )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 533.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(transmission,” 1: 1-7, reprinted in 1968, International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 2: 157-68.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 513.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(36.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 513.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. \(1967\). “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations,” Administrative Science )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 502.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Quarterly, 12: 1-30.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 482.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(37.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 482.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. \(1999a\). “Complexity and management: It is more than jargon,” in M. R. Lissack and H. P. Gunz \(eds.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 470.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Managing complexity in organizations: A view in many directions, Westport, CT: Quorum Books, pp. 11-28.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 451.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(38.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 451.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. \(1999b\). “Complexity: The science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations”, Emergence, 1\(1\): 110-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 439.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(126.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 419.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(39.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 419.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. and Letiche, H. \(2002\). “Complexity, emergence, resilience, and coherence: Gaining perspective on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 408.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizations and their study,” Emergence, 4\(3\): 72-94.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 388.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(40.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 388.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Marion, R. \(1999\). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems, Thousand Oaks: )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 376.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(SAGE Publications.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 357.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(41.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 357.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mone, M. A., McKinley, W. and Barker III, V. L. \(1998\). “Organizational decline and innovation: A contingency framework,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 345.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Academy of Management Review, 23:115-132.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 326.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(42.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 326.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Morel, B. and Ramanujam, R. \(1999\). “Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 314.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and evolving systems,” Organization Science, 10\(3\): 278-293.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 294.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(43.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 294.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. \(1977\). Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 282.834 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(through fluctuations, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 263.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(44.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 263.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Prigogine, I. and Prigogine, G. \(1989\). Exploring complexity: An introduction, New York, NY: Freeman & Co.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 244.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(45.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 244.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Rescher, N. \(1998\). Complexity: A philosophical overview, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 224.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(46.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 224.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Rosen, R. \(1985\). Anticipatory systems, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 205.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(47.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 205.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sah, R. K. and Stiglitz, J. E. \(1986\). “The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies,” American )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 193.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Economic Review, 76: 716-727.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 173.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(48.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 173.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Scott, W. R. \(2002\). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, 5th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 154.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(49.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 154.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. \(1990\). “Mapping strategic thought,” in A. Sigismund-Huff \(ed.\), Mapping strategic thought, Chichester, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 142.596 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 11-49.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(50.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 123.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. and Huff, J. O. \(2000\). When firms change direction \(with P. Barr\), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 103.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(51.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 103.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. and Schwenk, C. R. \(1990\). “Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad,” in A. Sigismund- Huff \(ed.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 91.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mapping strategic thought, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 89-108.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 72.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(52.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 72.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Simon, H. A. \(1999\). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 53.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(53.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 53.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sobek II, D. K., Liker, J. K. and Ward, A. C. \(1998\). “Another look at how Toyota integrates product development,” Harvard )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 38.786 577.500 738.214 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 759.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(27.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 759.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hammond, T. H. \(1994\). “Structure, strategy, and the agenda of the firm,” in R. P. Rumelt, D. E. Schendel and D. J. Teece )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(eds.\), Fundamental issues in strategy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 97-154.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(28.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(von Hayek, F. \(1952\). The sensory order, London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 709.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(29.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 709.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hebb, D. O. \(1949\). The organization of behavior, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 689.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(30.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 689.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. \(1976\). “Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 677.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 41-65.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 658.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(31.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 658.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ingrassia, P. and White, J. B. \(1994\). Comeback: The fall and rise of the American automobile industry, New York, NY: )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Simon and Schuster.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 627.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(32.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 627.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Jablin, F. M. \(1987\). “Formal organization structure,” in F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. Roberts and L. Porter \(eds.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Handbook of organizational communication. An interdisciplinary perspective, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp. 389-419.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 595.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(33.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 595.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Kauffman, S. \(1993\). The origins of order, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 576.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(34.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 576.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Keynes, J. M. \(1936\). The general theory of employment, interest and money, London, UK: MacMillan, reprinted in 1973, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 564.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The collected writings of J. M. Keynes, vol. VII.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 545.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(35.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 545.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Kolmogorov, A. N. \(1965\). “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information, problems of information )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 533.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(transmission,” 1: 1-7, reprinted in 1968, International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 2: 157-68.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 513.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(36.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 513.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. \(1967\). “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations,” Administrative Science )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 502.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Quarterly, 12: 1-30.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 482.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(37.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 482.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. \(1999a\). “Complexity and management: It is more than jargon,” in M. R. Lissack and H. P. Gunz \(eds.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 470.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Managing complexity in organizations: A view in many directions, Westport, CT: Quorum Books, pp. 11-28.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 451.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(38.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 451.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. \(1999b\). “Complexity: The science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations”, Emergence, 1\(1\): 110-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 439.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(126.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 419.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(39.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 419.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. and Letiche, H. \(2002\). “Complexity, emergence, resilience, and coherence: Gaining perspective on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 408.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizations and their study,” Emergence, 4\(3\): 72-94.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 388.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(40.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 388.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Marion, R. \(1999\). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems, Thousand Oaks: )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 376.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(SAGE Publications.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 357.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(41.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 357.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mone, M. A., McKinley, W. and Barker III, V. L. \(1998\). “Organizational decline and innovation: A contingency framework,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 345.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Academy of Management Review, 23:115-132.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 326.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(42.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 326.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Morel, B. and Ramanujam, R. \(1999\). “Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 314.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and evolving systems,” Organization Science, 10\(3\): 278-293.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 294.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(43.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 294.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. \(1977\). Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 282.834 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(through fluctuations, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 263.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(44.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 263.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Prigogine, I. and Prigogine, G. \(1989\). Exploring complexity: An introduction, New York, NY: Freeman & Co.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 244.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(45.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 244.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Rescher, N. \(1998\). Complexity: A philosophical overview, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 224.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(46.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 224.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Rosen, R. \(1985\). Anticipatory systems, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 205.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(47.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 205.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sah, R. K. and Stiglitz, J. E. \(1986\). “The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies,” American )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 193.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Economic Review, 76: 716-727.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 173.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(48.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 173.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Scott, W. R. \(2002\). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, 5th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 154.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(49.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 154.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. \(1990\). “Mapping strategic thought,” in A. Sigismund-Huff \(ed.\), Mapping strategic thought, Chichester, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 142.596 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 11-49.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(50.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 123.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. and Huff, J. O. \(2000\). When firms change direction \(with P. Barr\), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 103.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(51.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 103.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. and Schwenk, C. R. \(1990\). “Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad,” in A. Sigismund- Huff \(ed.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 91.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mapping strategic thought, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 89-108.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 72.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(52.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 72.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Simon, H. A. \(1999\). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 53.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(53.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 53.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sobek II, D. K., Liker, J. K. and Ward, A. C. \(1998\). “Another look at how Toyota integrates product development,” Harvard )] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 38.786 577.500 738.214 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 759.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(27.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 759.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hammond, T. H. \(1994\). “Structure, strategy, and the agenda of the firm,” in R. P. Rumelt, D. E. Schendel and D. J. Teece )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(\(eds.\), Fundamental issues in strategy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 97-154.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(28.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(von Hayek, F. \(1952\). The sensory order, London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 709.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(29.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 709.262 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hebb, D. O. \(1949\). The organization of behavior, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 689.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(30.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 689.857 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. \(1976\). “Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 677.952 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 41-65.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 658.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(31.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 658.548 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Ingrassia, P. and White, J. B. \(1994\). Comeback: The fall and rise of the American automobile industry, New York, NY: )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Simon and Schuster.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 627.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(32.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 627.238 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Jablin, F. M. \(1987\). “Formal organization structure,” in F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. Roberts and L. Porter \(eds.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Handbook of organizational communication. An interdisciplinary perspective, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp. 389-419.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 595.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(33.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 595.929 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Kauffman, S. \(1993\). The origins of order, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 576.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(34.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 576.524 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Keynes, J. M. \(1936\). The general theory of employment, interest and money, London, UK: MacMillan, reprinted in 1973, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 564.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(The collected writings of J. M. Keynes, vol. VII.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 545.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(35.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 545.214 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Kolmogorov, A. N. \(1965\). “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information, problems of information )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 533.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(transmission,” 1: 1-7, reprinted in 1968, International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 2: 157-68.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 513.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(36.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 513.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. \(1967\). “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations,” Administrative Science )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 502.000 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Quarterly, 12: 1-30.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 482.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(37.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 482.595 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. \(1999a\). “Complexity and management: It is more than jargon,” in M. R. Lissack and H. P. Gunz \(eds.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 470.691 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Managing complexity in organizations: A view in many directions, Westport, CT: Quorum Books, pp. 11-28.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 451.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(38.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 451.286 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. \(1999b\). “Complexity: The science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations”, Emergence, 1\(1\): 110-)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 439.381 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(126.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 419.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(39.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 419.976 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Lissack, M. R. and Letiche, H. \(2002\). “Complexity, emergence, resilience, and coherence: Gaining perspective on )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 408.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(organizations and their study,” Emergence, 4\(3\): 72-94.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 388.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(40.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 388.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Marion, R. \(1999\). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems, Thousand Oaks: )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 376.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(SAGE Publications.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 357.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(41.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 357.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mone, M. A., McKinley, W. and Barker III, V. L. \(1998\). “Organizational decline and innovation: A contingency framework,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 345.453 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Academy of Management Review, 23:115-132.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 326.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(42.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 326.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Morel, B. and Ramanujam, R. \(1999\). “Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 314.143 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(and evolving systems,” Organization Science, 10\(3\): 278-293.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 294.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(43.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 294.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. \(1977\). Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 282.834 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(through fluctuations, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 263.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(44.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 263.429 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Prigogine, I. and Prigogine, G. \(1989\). Exploring complexity: An introduction, New York, NY: Freeman & Co.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 244.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(45.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 244.024 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Rescher, N. \(1998\). Complexity: A philosophical overview, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 224.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(46.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 224.619 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Rosen, R. \(1985\). Anticipatory systems, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 205.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(47.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 205.215 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sah, R. K. and Stiglitz, J. E. \(1986\). “The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies,” American )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 193.310 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Economic Review, 76: 716-727.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 173.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(48.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 173.905 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Scott, W. R. \(2002\). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, 5th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 154.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(49.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 154.500 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. \(1990\). “Mapping strategic thought,” in A. Sigismund-Huff \(ed.\), Mapping strategic thought, Chichester, )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 142.596 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 11-49.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 123.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(50.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 123.191 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. and Huff, J. O. \(2000\). When firms change direction \(with P. Barr\), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 103.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(51.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 103.786 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sigismund-Huff, A. and Schwenk, C. R. \(1990\). “Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad,” in A. Sigismund- Huff \(ed.\), )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 91.881 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Mapping strategic thought, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 89-108.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 72.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(52.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 72.477 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Simon, H. A. \(1999\). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 53.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(53.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 53.072 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Sobek II, D. K., Liker, J. K. and Ward, A. C. \(1998\). “Another look at how Toyota integrates product development,” Harvard )] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(11)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
82 0 obj
<< /Type /Page
/Parent 3 0 R
/Contents 83 0 R
>>
endobj
83 0 obj
<<
/Length 4934 >>
stream
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
q
15.000 597.952 577.500 179.048 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Business Review, 76: 36-49.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(54.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Solomonoff, R. J. \(1964\). A formal theory of inductive inference, information and control, 7: 1-22, 224-54.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(55.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thompson, J. D. \(1967\). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory, New York, NY: McGraw- Hill )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 716.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Book Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 697.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(56.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 697.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. \(1978\). “Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 685.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Academy of Management Review, 3: 613-624.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 666.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(57.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 666.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Visser, B. \(2001\). Classifying organizations of boundedly rational agents, Mimeo: Erasmus University Rotterdam.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(58.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Visser, B. \(2002\). “Complexity, robustness, performance: Trade-offs in organizational design,” Tinbergen Institute )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 634.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(discussion paper.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(59.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. \(1990\). The machine that changed the world, New York, NY: Rawson Associates.)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 597.952 577.500 179.048 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Business Review, 76: 36-49.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(54.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Solomonoff, R. J. \(1964\). A formal theory of inductive inference, information and control, 7: 1-22, 224-54.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(55.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thompson, J. D. \(1967\). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory, New York, NY: McGraw- Hill )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 716.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Book Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 697.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(56.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 697.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. \(1978\). “Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 685.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Academy of Management Review, 3: 613-624.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 666.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(57.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 666.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Visser, B. \(2001\). Classifying organizations of boundedly rational agents, Mimeo: Erasmus University Rotterdam.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(58.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Visser, B. \(2002\). “Complexity, robustness, performance: Trade-offs in organizational design,” Tinbergen Institute )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 634.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(discussion paper.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(59.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. \(1990\). The machine that changed the world, New York, NY: Rawson Associates.)] TJ ET
Q
q
15.000 597.952 577.500 179.048 re W n
0.271 0.267 0.267 rg
BT 26.250 767.476 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Business Review, 76: 36-49.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(54.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 748.071 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Solomonoff, R. J. \(1964\). A formal theory of inductive inference, information and control, 7: 1-22, 224-54.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(55.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 728.667 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Thompson, J. D. \(1967\). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory, New York, NY: McGraw- Hill )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 716.762 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Book Company.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 697.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(56.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 697.357 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. \(1978\). “Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design,” )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 685.452 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Academy of Management Review, 3: 613-624.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 666.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(57.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 666.048 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Visser, B. \(2001\). Classifying organizations of boundedly rational agents, Mimeo: Erasmus University Rotterdam.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(58.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 646.643 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Visser, B. \(2002\). “Complexity, robustness, performance: Trade-offs in organizational design,” Tinbergen Institute )] TJ ET
BT 26.250 634.738 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(discussion paper.)] TJ ET
BT 26.250 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(59.)] TJ ET
BT 43.553 615.333 Td /F1 9.8 Tf [(Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. \(1990\). The machine that changed the world, New York, NY: Rawson Associates.)] TJ ET
Q
q
0.000 0.000 0.000 rg
BT 291.710 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(12)] TJ ET
BT 25.000 19.825 Td /F1 11.0 Tf [(Emergence: Complexity and Organization)] TJ ET
Q
endstream
endobj
xref
0 84
0000000000 65535 f
0000000008 00000 n
0000000073 00000 n
0000000119 00000 n
0000000421 00000 n
0000000458 00000 n
0000000678 00000 n
0000000837 00000 n
0000025393 00000 n
0000025500 00000 n
0000025608 00000 n
0000025719 00000 n
0000025832 00000 n
0000025959 00000 n
0000026116 00000 n
0000026243 00000 n
0000026366 00000 n
0000026492 00000 n
0000026607 00000 n
0000026734 00000 n
0000026847 00000 n
0000026974 00000 n
0000027131 00000 n
0000027258 00000 n
0000027381 00000 n
0000027507 00000 n
0000027622 00000 n
0000027749 00000 n
0000027862 00000 n
0000027989 00000 n
0000028146 00000 n
0000028273 00000 n
0000028396 00000 n
0000028522 00000 n
0000028637 00000 n
0000028764 00000 n
0000028877 00000 n
0000028942 00000 n
0000055778 00000 n
0000055894 00000 n
0000055959 00000 n
0000082198 00000 n
0000082338 00000 n
0000106618 00000 n
0000106744 00000 n
0000106904 00000 n
0000107030 00000 n
0000107190 00000 n
0000107316 00000 n
0000107476 00000 n
0000107602 00000 n
0000107762 00000 n
0000107888 00000 n
0000108048 00000 n
0000108174 00000 n
0000108334 00000 n
0000108460 00000 n
0000108620 00000 n
0000108746 00000 n
0000108906 00000 n
0000109032 00000 n
0000109192 00000 n
0000109257 00000 n
0000137764 00000 n
0000137829 00000 n
0000171601 00000 n
0000171699 00000 n
0000197307 00000 n
0000197433 00000 n
0000197593 00000 n
0000197719 00000 n
0000197879 00000 n
0000198005 00000 n
0000198165 00000 n
0000198230 00000 n
0000239949 00000 n
0000241119 00000 n
0000241184 00000 n
0000273623 00000 n
0000273688 00000 n
0000294489 00000 n
0000294554 00000 n
0000316516 00000 n
0000316581 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 84
/Root 1 0 R
/Info 5 0 R
>>
startxref
321568
%%EOF