LEARNING ABOUT COMPLEXITY SCIENCE

Although new as a paradigm as applied to health care, complexity science is

revolutionizing how we see the world. Our traditional views of cause-and-effect assume a linear
worldview in which the output of a system is proportional to its input. This predictable
perspective derives from an additive model in which the system is the sum of its parts. Such a
reductionistic paradigm has dominated medical thought and is the basis for most of our
research and statistical methods.
But complexity science says that such Newtonian characteristics are rare in systems
composed of diverse, interconnected, adaptive agents. Indeed, reality in such a complex world
is dynamic and unpredictable, exhibiting nonlinear patterns. This module will integrate online
resources from three complexity science organizations to help familiarize you with concepts and
terminology used in complexity science and will describe how complexity science relates to
health care and the health care system.

Basics About Complexity Science

To understand what we mean by complex adaptive systems and why complexity science
is relevant, we suggest reading the Primer on Complexity Science which follows.

A Complexity Science Primer:

What is Complexity Science and Why Should I Learn About It?

Adapted From: Edgeware: Lessons From Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders,
by Brenda Zimmerman, Curt Lindberg, and Paul Plsek, 1998, Dallas, TX: VHA Inc.
(available by calling toll-free 866-822-5571 or through Amazon.com)

This paper is called a 'primer' because it is intended to be a first step in understanding

complexity science. In house painting, the primer or prime coat is not the finished surface. A
room with a primer on the walls often looks worse than before the painting began. The patchy
surface allows us to see some of the old paint but the new paint is not yet obvious. It is not the
completed image we want to create. But it creates the conditions for a smoother application of
the other coats of paint, for a deeper or richer color, and a more coherent and consistent finish.
As you read this primer, keep this image in mind. This paper is not the finished product. Ideas
and concepts are mentioned but only given a quick brush stroke in this primer. You will need to
look to the other resources in this kit to get a richer color of complexity.

Complexity science reframes our view of many systems which are only partially understood by
traditional scientific insights. Systems as apparently diverse as stock markets, human bodies,
forest ecosystems, manufacturing businesses, immune systems, termite colonies, and hospitals
seem to share some patterns of behavior. These shared patterns of behavior provide insights into
sustainability, viability, health, and innovation. Leaders and managers in organizations of all
types are using complexity science to discover new ways of working.

NAPCRG Resources 1
August, 2009
Why would leaders be "At first learning about complexity science and what it suggested
interested in complexity about leadership was confusing, even stressful. Once I began to
learn it, to understand it, and to discuss it with other professionals,
science? In a recent it began to make sense... I really believe in it... In complexity science
research project with I'm learning that leaders of modern organizations have got to take
health care executives, on a different roles - especially in this health care revolution."
we uncovered two inter-
related reasons for the John Kopicki, CEO,
interest: frustration and Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center,
resonance. Plainfield, NJ.

There is a frustration with some of the traditional clinical and organizational interventions in
health care. The health care leaders in the study said they no longer trusted many of the methods
of management they had been taught and practiced. They didn't believe in the strategic plans they
wrote because the future was not as predictable as it was depicted in the plans. They saw
intensive processes of information gathering and consensus building in their organizations where
nothing of substance changed. They were working harder and feeling like much of their hard
work had little or no impact. Complexity science offered an opportunity to explore an alternative
world view. Complexity science held a promise of relief from stress but also suggested options
for new interventions or ways of interacting in a leadership role.

The second "hook" for health care leaders was resonance. Complexity science resonated with or
articulated what they were already doing. It provided the language and models to explain their
intuitive actions. By having a theory to explain what they 'knew' already, they felt they could get
better leverage from their intuitive knowledge and use it more confidently.

Although we are in the early days of deliberately applying complexity science inspired
approaches in organizations, we are gathering evidence of leaders applying the ideas to general
management and leadership, planning, quality improvement, and new service development.
Some of the application projects have generated positive results while others are still works in
progress. Complexity science holds promise to have an important impact on organizational
performance.

Comparing complexity science with traditional science

Complexity science addresses aspects of living systems which are neglected or understated in
traditional approaches. Existing models in economics, management and physics were built on the
foundation of Newtonian scientific principles. The dominant metaphor in Newtonian science is
the machine. The universe and all its subsystems were seen as giant clocks or inanimate
machines. The clocks or machines can be explained using reductionism - by understanding each
part separately. The whole of the machine is the sum of the parts. The clockware perspective has
led to great discoveries by focusing on the attributes and functioning of the 'parts' - whether of a
human body or a human organization. The parts are controlled by a few immutable external
forces or laws. The parts are not seen to have choice or self determination. The 'machines' are
simple and predictable - you need only understand the few guiding external rules which
determine how the parts will behave. There are limits to this perspective when understanding
living systems, and in particular human organizations. Clearly humans are not machine parts

NAPCRG Resources 2
August, 2009
without individual choice and so clockware is a necessary but not sufficient way of
understanding complex systems.

The Newtonian perspective assumes that all can be explained by the careful examination of the
parts. Yet that does not work for many aspects of human behavior. We have all experienced
situations in which the whole is not the sum of the parts - where we cannot explain the outcomes
of a situation by studying the individual elements. For example, when a natural disaster strikes a
community, we have seen spontaneous organization where there is no obvious leader, controller
or designer. In these contexts, we find groups of people create outcomes and have impacts which
are far greater than would have been predicted by summing up the resources and skills available
within the group. In these cases, there is self-organization in which outcomes emerge which are
highly dependent on the relationships and context rather than merely the parts. Stuart Kauffman
calls this "order for free" and Kevin Kelly refers to it as "creating something out of nothing."

Complexity science is not a single theory. It is the

study of complex adaptive systems - the patterns of "I found a lot of what we did [in
management] was really dumb. It was
relationships within them, how they are sustained,
very impersonal. We treated people as
how they self-organize and how outcomes emerge. if they were one-dimensional. If you
Within the science there are many theories and figure them out, give them strict rules,
concepts. The science encompasses more than one put money in front of them, they will
theoretical framework. Complexity science is highly perform better...it was very linear."
interdisciplinary including biologists,
anthropologists, economists, sociologists, James Taylor
management theorists and many others in a quest to President and CEO
answer some fundamental questions about living, University of Louisville Hospital
adaptable, changeable systems. Louisville, Kentucky

From physics envy to biology envy

There has been an implicit hierarchy of sciences with physics as the most respectable and
biology as the conceptually poor cousin. Physics is enviable because of its rigor and immutable
laws. Biology on the other hand is rooted in the messiness of real life and therefore did not create
as many elegantly simple equations, models or predictable solutions to problems. Even within
biology there was a hierarchy of studies. Mapping the genome was more elegant, precise and
physics -like, hence respectable, whereas evolutionary biology was "softer," dealing with
interactions, context and other dimensions which made prediction less precise. Physics envy was
not only evident in the physical and natural sciences but also in the social sciences. Economics
and management theory borrowed concepts from physics and created organizational structures
and forms which tried (at some level at least) to follow the laws of physics. These were clearly
limited in their application and "exceptions to the rules" had to be made constantly. In spite of
the limitations, an implicit physics envy permeated management and organization theories.

Recently, we have seen physics envy replaced with biology envy. Physicists are looking to
biological models for insight and explanation. Biological metaphors are being used to understand
everything from urban planning, organization design, and technologically advanced computer
systems. Technology is now mimicking life - or biology - in its design. The poor cousin in

NAPCRG Resources 3
August, 2009
science has now become highly respectable and central to many disciplines. Complexity science
is a key area where we witness this bridging of the disciplines with the study of life (or biology)
as the connecting glue or area of common interest.

For organizational leaders and managers, the shift from physics envy to biology envy provides
an opportunity to build systems which are sustainable because of their capacity to "live". Living
organizations, living computer systems, living communities and living health care systems are
important because of our interest in sustainability and adaptability. Where better to learn lessons
about sustainability and adaptability than from life itself.

Complexity questions

The questions asked by complexity scientists in the physical, natural and social sciences are not
little questions. They are deep questions about how life happens and how it evolves. The
questions are not new. Indeed, some of the 'answers' proposed by complexity science are not
new. But in many contexts, these 'answers' were not explainable by theory . They were the
intuitive responses that were known by many but appeared illogical or at least idiosyncratic when
viewed through out traditional scientific theories. Complexity science provides the language, the
metaphors, the conceptual frameworks, the models and the theories which help make the
idiosyncrasies non-idiosyncratic and the illogical logical. For some leaders who are studying
complexity, the science is counterintuitive because of the stark contrast with what they had been
taught about how organizations should operate. Complexity science describes how systems
actually behave rather than how they should behave.

"It is a curious thing... at least for me it has been. It is both mind expanding because of new
notions but it also seems like it is affirming of stuff you already know. It is quite paradoxical."

James Roberts, MD,

Senior Vice-President,
VHA Inc., Irving, Texas

Complexity science provides more than just explanations for some of our intuitive
understandings. It also provides a rigorous approach to study some of the key dimensions of
organizational life. How does change happen? What are the conditions for innovation? What
allows some things to be sustained even when they are no longer viable? What creates
adaptability? What is leadership in systems where there is no direct authority or control?

What does strategic planning mean in highly turbulent times? How do creativity and potential get
released? How do they get trapped? Traditional management theories have focused on the
predictable and controllable dimensions of management. Although these dimensions are critical
in organizations, they provide only a partial explanation of the reality of organizations.
Complexity science invites us to examine the unpredictable, disorderly and unstable aspects of
organizations. Complexity complements our traditional understanding of organizations to
provide us with a more complete picture.

NAPCRG Resources 4
August, 2009
That is the good news about complexity science. There is also some bad news. Complexity
science is in its infancy. It is an emerging field of study. There are few proven theories in the
field. It has not yet stood the test of time. But it has become a movement. Unlike some other
movements in the management arena, the complexity science movement spans almost every
discipline in the physical, natural and social sciences. There is often a huge schism between
those who study the world using quantitative approaches and those who use qualitative methods.

"Out of nothing, nature makes

Complexity has created a bridge or a merger of
something. How do you make something quantitative and qualitative explanations of life. It
from nothing? Although nature knows has attracted some of the greatest thinkers in the
this trick, we haven't learned much just world including some of the most highly
by watching... [Life's] reign of constant respected organization theorists and Nobel prize
evolution, perpetual novelty, and an winners in physics, mathematics and economics.
agenda out of our control... is far more It has also attracted poets, artists and theologians
rewarding than a world of clocks, gears, who see the optimism implicit in the science. By
and predictable simplicity." examining how life happens from a complexity
perspective, we seem to have increased our
Kevin Kelly
reverence for life - the more we understand, the
Out of Control
more we are amazed.

Definition of Complex Adaptive System

The next two sections of the paper need a "warning to reader" label. They are filled with the new
jargon of complexity science. Each new term is a quick brush stroke in this primer but is
explained in greater detail in other sections of this resource kit. For the reader new to the field of
complexity, read the next two sections to get the overall sense of complexity science. You do not
need to understand every term at the outset to start the journey into understanding complexity.

Complex adaptive systems are ubiquitous. Stock markets, human bodies, forest ecosystems,
manufacturing businesses, immune systems and hospitals are all examples of CAS. What is a
complex adaptive system (CAS)? The three words in the name are each significant in the
definition. 'Complex' implies diversity - a great number of connections between a wide variety of
elements. 'Adaptive' suggests the capacity to alter or change - the ability to learn from
experience. A 'system' is a set of connected or interdependent things. The 'things' in a CAS are
independent agents. An agent may be a person, a molecule, a species, or an organization among
many others. These agents act based on local knowledge and conditions. Their individual moves
are not controlled by a central body, master neuron or CEO. A CAS has a densely connected web
of interacting agents each operating from their own schema or local knowledge. In human
systems, schemata are the mental models which an individual uses to make sense of their world.

Description of complex adaptive systems

CAS have a number of linked attributes or properties. Because the attributes are all linked, it is
impossible to identify the starting point for the list of attributes. Each attribute can be seen to be
both a cause and effect of the other attributes. The attributes listed are all in stark contrast to the
implicit assumptions underlying traditional management and Newtonian science.

NAPCRG Resources 5
August, 2009
CAS are embedded or nested in other CAS. Each individual agent in a CAS is itself a CAS. In an
ecosystem, a tree in a forest is a CAS and is also an agent in the CAS of the forest which is an
agent in the larger ecosystem of the island and so forth. In health care, a doctor is a CAS and also
an agent in the department which is a CAS and an agent in the hospital which is a CAS and an
agent in health care which is a CAS and an agent in society. The agents co-evolve with the CAS
of which they are a part. The cause and effect is mutual rather than one-way. In the health care
system, we see how the system is co-evolving with the health care organizations and
practitioners which make up the whole. The entire system is emerging from a dense pattern of
interactions.

Diversity is necessary for the sustainability of a CAS. Diversity is a source of information or

novelty. As John Holland argues, the diversity of a CAS is the result of progressive adaptations.
Diversity which is the result of adaptation also becomes the source of future adaptations. A
decrease in diversity reduces the potential for future adaptations. It is for this reason that
biologist E.O. Wilson argues that the rain forest is so critical to our planet. It has significantly
more diversity - more potential for adaptation - than any other part of the planet. The planet
needs this source of information and potential for long-term survival. In organizations, diversity
is becoming seen as a key source of sustainability. Psychological profiles which identify
individuals' dominant thinking styles have become popular management tools to ensure there is a
sufficient level of diversity, at least in terms of thinking approaches, within teams in
organizations. Diversity is seen as a key to innovation and long term viability.

Many of us were taught that biological innovation was due in large part to genetic random
mutations. When these random mutations fit the environment better than their predecessor they
had a higher chance of being retained in the gene pool. Adaptation or innovation by random
mutation of genes explains only a small fraction of the biological diversity we experience today.
Crossover of genetic material is a million times more common than mutation in nature according
to John Holland. In essence, crossover suggests a mixing together of the same building blocks or
genetic material into different combinations. Understanding this can lead to profound insights
about CAS. The concept of genetic algorithms is paradoxical in that building blocks, genes or
other raw elements which are recombined in a wide variety of ways are the key to sustainability.
Yet the process of manipulating these blocks only occurs when they are in relationship to each
other. In genetic terms, this means the whole string on a chromosome. Holland argues that
"evolution remembers combinations of building blocks that increase fitness." It is the
relationship between the building blocks which is significant rather than the building blocks
themselves. The focus is on the inter-relationships.

In organizational terms, this suggests that it is not the individual that is most critical but the
relationships between individuals. We see this frequently in team sports. The team with the best
individual players can lose to a team of poorer players. The second team cannot rely on one or
two stars but instead has to focus on creating outcomes which are beyond the talents of any one
individual. They create outcomes based on the interrelationships between the players. This is not
to dismiss individual excellence. It does suggest that individual abilities is not a complete
explanation of success or failure. In management terms, it shifts the attention to focus on the
patterns of interrelationships and on the context of the issue, individual or group.

NAPCRG Resources 6
August, 2009
CAS have distributed control rather than centralized control. Rather than having a command
center which directs all of the agents, control is distributed throughout the system. In a school of
fish, there is no 'boss' which directs the other fishes' behavior. The independent agents (or fish)
have the capacity to learn new strategies and adaptive techniques. The coherence of a CAS'
behavior relates to the interrelationships between the agents. You cannot explain the outcomes or
behavior of a CAS from a thorough understanding of all of the individual parts or agents. The
school of fish reacts to a stimulus, for example the threat of a predator, faster than any individual
fish can react. The school has capacities and attributes which are not explainable by the
capacities and attributes of the individual agents. There is not one fish which is smarter than the
others who is directing the school. If there was a smart 'boss' fish, this form of centralized control
would result in a school of fish reacting at least as slow as the fastest fish could respond.
Centralized control would slow down the school's capacity to react and adapt.

Distributed control means that the outcomes of a complex adaptive system emerge from a
process of self-organization rather than being designed and controlled externally or by a
centralized body. The emergence is a result of the patterns of interrelationships between the
agents. Emergence suggests unpredictability - an inability to state precisely how a system will
evolve.

Rather than trying to predict the specific outcome of emergence, Stuart Kauffman suggests we
think about fitness landscapes for CAS. A CAS or population of CAS are seen to be higher on
the fitness landscape when they have learned better strategies to adapt and co-evolve with their
environment. Being on a peak in a fitness landscape indicates greater success. However, the
fitness landscape itself is not fixed - it is shifting and evolving. Hence a CAS needs to be
continuously learning new strategies. The pattern one is trying to master is the adaptive walk or
capacity of a CAS to move on fitness landscapes towards higher, more secure positions.

The co-evolution of a CAS and its "Some people really want to stop controlling, but are
environment is difficult to map because afraid. Everywhere things are changing, creating high
it is non-linear. Linearity implies that the degrees of uncertainty and anxiety. And the more
size of the change is correlated with the anxious you are, the more in control you need to be.
magnitude of the input to the system. A Making all this even worse, we've bought into the
small input will have a small effect and a myth that leaders have all the answers. Managers who
large input will have a large effect in a accept this myth have their levels of anxiety ratcheted
linear system. A CAS is a non-linear up again. ...If complexity theory can begin freeing
managers from this myth of control, I think you'll see
system. The size of the outcome may not
people a whole lot more comfortable."
be correlated to the size of the input. A
large push to the system may not move it Linda Rusch
at all. In many non-linear systems, you Vice President of Patient Care
cannot accurately predict the effect of Hunterdon Medical Center
the change by the size of the input to the New Jersey
system.

Weather systems are often cited as examples of this phenomenon of nonlinearity. The butterfly
effect, a term coined by meteorologist Edward Lorenz, is created, in part, by the huge number of

NAPCRG Resources 7
August, 2009
non-linear interactions in weather. The butterfly effect suggests that sometimes a seemingly
insignificant difference can make a huge impact. Lorenz found that in simulated weather
forecasting, two almost identical simulations could result in radically different weather patterns.
A very tiny change to the initial variables, metaphorically something as small as a butterfly
flapping its wings, can radically alter the outcome. The weather system is very sensitive to the
initial conditions or to its history.

An example in an organizational setting of non-linearity is the huge effort put into a staff retreat
or strategic planning exercise where everything stays the same after the 'big push'. In contrast,
there are many examples of one small whisper of gossip - one small push - which creates a
radical and rapid change in organizations.

Non-linearity, distributed control and independent agents create conditions for perpetual novelty
and innovation. CAS learn new strategies from experience. Their unique history helps shape the
path they take. Newtonian science is a historical - the resting point or attractor of the system is
independent of its history. This is the basis of neo-classical economics and is the antithesis of
complexity.

Complex adaptive systems are history dependent. They are shaped and influenced by where they
have been. This may seem obvious and trivial. But much of our traditional science and
management theory ignore this point. What is good in one context, makes sense in all contexts.
Marketers talk about rolling out programs that were effective in one place and hence should be
effective in all. In traditional neo-classical economics, there is an assumption of equifinality - it
does not matter where the system has come from, it will head towards the equilibrium point.
Outliers or minor differences in the starting point or history of the system are ignored. The
outlier or difference from the normal pattern is assumed to be dampened and hence a 'blip' is not
important. Brian Arthur's work in economics has radically altered this viewpoint. For example,
he cites evidence of small differences fundamentally altering the shape of an industry. The
differences are not always dampened but may indeed grow to reshape the whole. Lorenz referred
to this in meteorology as sensitive dependence to initial conditions which was discussed earlier
as the butterfly effect. In economics, in nature, in weather and in human organizations, we see
many examples where understanding history is key to understanding the current position and
potential movement of a CAS.

CAS are naturally drawn to attractors. In Newtonian science, an attractor can be the resting point
for a pendulum. Unlike traditional attractors in Newtonian science which are a fixed point or
repeated rhythm, the attractors for a CAS may be strange because they may have an overall
shape and boundaries but one cannot predict exactly how or where the shape will form. They are
formed in part by non-linear interactions. The attractor is a pattern or area that draws the energy
of the system to it. It is a boundary of behavior for the system. The system will operate within
this boundary, but at a local level - we cannot predict where the system will be within this overall
attractor.

A dominant theme in the change management literature is how to overcome resistance to change.
Using the concept of attractors, the idea of change is flipped to look at sources of attraction. In
other words, to use the natural energy of the system rather than to fight against it. The non-

NAPCRG Resources 8
August, 2009
linearity property of a CAS means that attractors may not be the biggest most obvious issues.
Looking for the subtle attractors becomes a new challenge for managers.

"In the past, when managers have tried to implement change, they'd find themselves
wasting energy fighting off resistors who felt threatened. Complexity science suggests that
we can create small, non-threatening changes that attract people, instead of implementing
large-scale change that excites resistance. We work with the attractors."

Mary Anne Keyes, R.N.

Vice President, Patient Care
Muhlenberg Regional Mediacal Center
Plainfield, NJ

CAS thrive in an area of bounded instability on the border or edge of chaos. In this region, there
is not enough stability to have repetition or prediction, but not enough instability to create
anarchy or to disperse the system. Life for a CAS is a dance on the border between death by
equilibrium or death by dissipation. In organizational settings, this is a region of highly creative
energy.

Why is complexity science relevant now?

The seeds for complexity science have been around for a long time. The founding parents of
complexity science were often far ahead of their time. Why is now the right time for complexity
science? More specifically, why is this the time for complexity science studies of human
organizations? Turbulence, change, adaptability and connectedness are not new to the late 20th
century. There are at least four reasons why now is the time for complexity science:

1. the limit to the machine metaphor

2. the coming together of biology and technology
3. the connections between studies of "micro" and "macro" phenomena,
4. the apparent compressions of space and time.

The first three reasons will be outlined briefly in this section. The last reason, the compression of
space and time, will be described in the next section.

Complexity science is a direct challenge to the dominance of the machine metaphor. Since
Newton, the machine metaphor has been used as the lens to make sense of our physical and
social worlds, including human organizations. The machine metaphor has been a powerful force
in creating manufacturing, medical and organizational advances. However, its limits are now
becoming more obvious. It is as if we have collectively learned all we can from the machine
metaphor and will continue to use that knowledge where appropriate. But we have more and
more instances where the machine metaphor is simply not helpful. For example, it does not
explain the emergent aspects of an organization's strategy or the evolution of an industry.
Complexity science, with its focus on emergence, self-organization, inter-dependencies,
unpredictability and nonlinearity provides a useful alternative to the machine metaphor.

NAPCRG Resources 9
August, 2009
In addition to changing the metaphor to interpret events, complexity science is gaining
momentum because of the coming together of biology and technology. Biologists are using
technology to understand biology, for example, in biotechnology. Computer technologists are
using biology to create computer software which has some life-like characteristics. Without the
technological advancements, due in part from the machine metaphor, we would not be able to
replicate nature's fractal forms, or understand the implicit process rules that allow flocks of birds
to move as one, or explain the chaotic heart rates of healthy humans. Complexity science is
understandable to us now because of both the advances in technology and the increased respect
for biological lessons.

Complexity science brings together the two solitudes of micro-studies and macro-analysis. For
example, the micro studies of the human genome and the macro studies of evolutionary biology
are coming together with complexity science. The lessons from the micro studies are informing
the macro analysis and the lessons from the macro studies are informing the micro. This second
learning - the macro informing the micro - has been underplayed in our search for applying
Newtonian scientific thinking to life. A Newtonian perspective suggests that the parts can
explain the whole. Therefore, the quest is to study the parts in greater and greater detail.
Complexity science suggests that the whole is not the sum of the parts. Emergent properties of
the whole are inexplicable by the parts. In complexity, studies of natural and human systems are
explained by both kinds of analysis - micro (or analysis of the parts) and macro (or holistic
analysis).

Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel Prize winner, discovered and named the quark - clearly a study of
micro parts. But his journey of discovery into the tiniest parts led him to a path of holistic
understanding and an appreciation for ecology. His book "The Quark and the Jaguar"
exemplifies this coming together of the appreciation of the micro and macro analysis. E.O.
Wilson, a renowned biologist, argued that we are seeing the confluence of the two major
foundations of biology: (1) the molecular basis of life, and (2) the evolutionary basis for human
(and ecosystem) behavior. This has profound impacts on our understanding of organizational
health. Some interventions are seen to be context dependent - we cannot explain the micro
functioning without understanding the macro context. The health of a community or organization
impacts the well-being of the individuals within them. Complexity provides us with the
opportunity to look at problems with multiple perspectives, studying the micro and macro issues
and understanding how they are interdependent.

This section provided some explanations for the complexity science movement in the physical
and natural sciences. But there is an additional explanation for its power in social systems - the
compression of time and space. The next section describes this seemingly esoteric issue. Some
readers may not feel the need to understand the roots of complexity from this perspective and
may skip ahead to the section which addresses the paradoxes of complexity.

The compression of time and space

One of the unique dimensions of the late 20th century is the apparent compression of space and
time. Why should health care leaders care about something as seemingly esoteric as the
compression of space and time? Most of the models of organization, methods to improve

NAPCRG Resources 10
August, 2009
performance, and measurement concepts which dominate the management field today were
created with the implicit assumption of space and time lags. In other words, they were designed
for a world which in many instances no longer exists. When these approaches are tried in
contexts where there is this space-time compression, the results are often frustration, stress and
lack of improvement. This section of the paper will demonstrate the compression of space in
time using examples from manufacturing, banking and health care.

Dee Hock, the founding CEO of VISA, refers to the major impact the compression of time has
had in financial markets. In the past, there was an expectation of a time lag (or 'float') between
the initiation and completion of most financial transactions. For example, if you purchase an item
on credit there is a time lag between when you make the transaction and when the cash is paid to
the supplier. We have elaborate systems designed to take advantage of this float. This luxury of a
time lag (or 'float') disappears with the use of debit cards or equivalent systems of real-time
transfer of funds.

Hock argues this same reduction of time lags happens with information today. We used to have
the luxury of a time lag between the discovery of an idea and the application into practice. This
time lag is almost non-existent in many aspects of society today. In health care, medical research
is reported on (often in 'sound bites' on the news). The public access to medical research has
often created a push to put the ideas into application immediately.

An example of a time lag reduction that has had a remarkable impact on manufacturing around
the world is the idea of 'just in time' inventory systems. The idea was a simple one, eliminate the
need for storing, financing and managing inventories by creating real-time order and delivery
systems between suppliers and producers. When the concept was first introduced there were
many skeptics. Yet in a very short period of time, this was standard practice in many (perhaps
most) manufacturing industries. Just in time inventory changed the relationship between
suppliers and producers. It was both facilitated by the improvement in technology and shaped
new improvements in technology to get the most benefit from the concept. Boundaries became
blurry between what was "in the organization" and what was "outside". Networks were created to
minimize the potential problems if a supplier could not provide the needed goods on time. The
definition of success for a supplier was altered and new skills of flexibility were needed in the
employees and the physical production systems.

Case Study: Time & Space Compression

At a large hospital in Montreal, a change in procedures demonstrates this compression of time

and space. Recently the hospital administrators made a decision to eliminate all radiology film
from the hospital. Instead, x-ray images were stored in computer files and doctors viewed
them on their computer screens. Films which traditionally needed to be handled, processed
and delivered through intermediaries were now directly available from the radiology
department to the surgeons or other direct service providers. After hearing how quickly and
radically this changed the ability of the radiology department to serve the patient care
physicians, several hospitals in Toronto are planning to eliminate radiology film. In this
example, film and all of its associated people and systems were intermediaries which created
both time and space lags between the tests and the reading or interpretation of the tests.

NAPCRG Resources 11
August, 2009
In terms of compression of space, we can now bypass many of the intermediaries in our society.
Intermediaries play the role of a bridge between organizations or individuals. When we can
access the organization or individual directly rather than through an intermediary, we are again
witnessing a compression of space.

The financial service industry is another case where this compression of time and space can be
demonstrated. Technology has allowed us to bridge huge distances and create connections which
permit simultaneous creation and dissemination of information. We see this reduction of time
lags in banking where the currency float of a few years ago has shrunk to a point of being
virtually non-existent. Money can be transferred instantly between individuals, organizations and
countries. The increased degree of connectedness aided by technology has eliminated some of
the intermediaries in our society. One of the banks' prime roles was to be the intermediary
between those who had money to loan and those who had need to borrow money. For a price,
the banks would match the players. Today, this is becoming less significant. When the
information of who has money and who needs money is more widely available, many
corporations are bypassing the intermediary role of the bank. This is not unique to financial
services. Due to the technology which allows increased connectedness, in many industries one
can go directly to the source of the information, product or service.

In our organizations, intermediaries are often layers of management or supervision. Part of their
job is to bridge the gap between the providers of service or front-line workers and upper
management. Bridging the gap creates time lags in our organizations. These lags provide the
information float and hence the luxury (and sometimes the frustration) of time delays. But these
intermediary positions are being eliminated in many industries through downsizing. If the
positions are eliminated but the role of intermediation and the expectation of float still exist as
old mental models, we will simply see over-worked employees trying to fulfill the same roles but
with less resources and less success.

Intermediaries also imply external 'designers'

"The tendency of people in positions of power is
to believe that they can control and they believe
of a system. The designers are distanced from
in the power of 'let us figure it out.' 'Let's hire the deliverers of the service. This is a
the experts, let us sit in a room, figure it out separation of thought and action in both space
and then it'll happen.' That is a common theme and time. The planners plan and others
and it's one that I just don't believe in." implement - a separation in space. The plans
are created first and predetermine the action
James Taylor steps to take - a separation in time. Complex
President and CEO adaptive systems have the capacity to adapt
University of Louisville Hospital and evolve without an external designer. They
Louisville, Kentucky self-organize without either external or
centralized control.

In highly interconnected contexts, where there is a compression of time and space, the
assumptions of float, intermediaries and external designers are problematic. Many management
models, such as traditional strategic planning processes, are built on the assumptions of float,
intermediaries and external designers. When these assumptions hold, the models are relevant and

NAPCRG Resources 12
August, 2009
useful. They can improve effectiveness and efficiency in organizations. When the assumptions
are invalid, these models can lead to an illusion of control but an actual loss of effectiveness and
adaptability.

Some of the paradoxes of complexity

Complexity science is highly paradoxical. As you study the world through a complexity lens you
will be continually confronted with 'both-and' rather than 'either-or' thinking. The paradoxes of
complexity are that both sides of many apparent contradictions are true.

The first of these paradoxes is that the systemic nature of a CAS implies interdependence yet
each of the elements which are interdependent are able to act independently. Interdependence
and independence co-exist.

Another paradox in complexity is that simple patterns "As a physician, I learned to think
of interaction can create huge numbers of potential from a biological perspective.
outcomes. Simplicity leads to complexity. CAS When I went into management,
operates in a context that is frequently unpredictable; traditional organizational theory
not merely unknown but unknowable. Yet it is the seemed artificial, foreign to my
agents' propensity to predict based on schema of local experience. So when I started
conditions that allow them to act in an apparently studying complexity, I was stunned.
coherent manner. Here was a way of thinking about
organizations hat compared them
to living things. That makes sense
Complexity science is the study of living systems but
to me, intuitively."
living systems die. As a metaphor associated with life,
it needs to encompass all aspects of the life cycle. Richard Weinberg, MD
Death is part of this cycle. The traditional management Vice President,
literature's depiction of the life cycle begins at birth and Network Development
ends at decline. Complexity also includes the study of Atlantic Health System
death and renewal. Passaic, New Jersey

Complexity is a metaphor

A recent article in a popular magazine argued that we needed to distinguish between complexity
researchers who were using the 'theory' from those who were using the 'metaphor'. What that
statement missed is that all science is metaphor, as Gareth Morgan argues. It is metaphor which
shapes our logic and perspective. Metaphor influences the questions we ask and hence the
answers we find. A powerful metaphor becomes deeply rooted in our ways of understanding and
is often implicit rather than explicit. In biological terms, a metaphor is the schema by which we
make sense of our situation.

Complexity science presents a contrast to the dominant scientific and organizational metaphor
and thereby challenges us to see what other questions we can ask about the systems we are
studying or living within. The metaphor of systems as mechanical or 'machines' has shaped our
studies in physics, biology, economics, medicine and organizations. Complexity is about
reframing our understanding of many systems by using a metaphor associated with life and

NAPCRG Resources 13
August, 2009
living systems rather than machines or mechanical systems. Viewing the world through a
complexity lens means understanding the world from biological concepts.

The inquiry continues

It is normal to finish a paper with a conclusion - to end with a summary of the key points and
implications. Yet consistent with both the science of complexity and the state of its development,
it seems more appropriate to end with questions. The questions can be viewed from five levels of
analysis:

1. sector
2. regional network
3. institution or organization
4. division, department or work group
5. individual person

Some of the questions below are aimed at one of the levels but most can be used for any level.
We invite you to participate with us in this inquiry as it applies to Your organization or sector
health care. The overall question is, how can complexity science improve management and
the health of organizations?

Some of the other questions to ponder are:

 How does co-evolution impact the role of a leader? If everything is changing and I am
part of that change, how do I plan?
 If a CAS self-organizes, what is the job of manager or leader of a CAS?
 Can we use ideas of self-organization to unleash the full potential of our staff?
 Can we create the conditions for emergence as two or more organizations are coming
together in a merger?
 What do we have to change to improve the quality of our services and reduce costs? Can
complexity science provide us with any insights to this question?
 If an organization is a CAS, what does this imply about strategic planning?
 Can we use insights from complexity to improve the health of communities?
 If the edge of chaos is the area of greatest innovation, how do we stay on the edge of
chaos? What are the risks of staying on the edge?
 What organizational structures, designs, processes etc. are consistent with a complexity
science perspective? How would implementing these 'complex' ideas improve
organizations and the services they offer?
 How can we ensure complexity science enhances and complements proven management
approaches? Where and when does complexity science add most value? Where are
"traditional" approaches more appropriate?

This article is found on the Plexus Institute website

(http://www.plexusinstitute.org/ideas/show_elibrary.cfm?id=150).

In addition, the New England Complex Systems Institute offers a basic overview of
complexity science in the chapter titled “Overview: The Dynamics of Complex Systems —

NAPCRG Resources 14
August, 2009
Examples, Questions, Methods and Concepts” and found at the following website
http://www.necsi.edu/guide/DCSchapter0.pdf.

Once you understand the basics of complexity science, we recommend reading two
articles from the Plexus Institute website that deal with the application of complexity science to
health care. The first overview looks at applying complexity science to health care and is titled
“Applying Complexity Science to Health and Healthcare” and is found at the following website
http://www.plexusinstitute.org/ideas/show_elibrary.cfm?id=257.

The second article focuses on thinking about health care organizations as complex
adaptive systems and is included below.

Health Care Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems

Written by James W. Begun, University of Minnesota, jbegun@csom.umn.edu; Brenda
Zimmerman, McGill University; and Kevin Dooley, Arizona State University. June 15, 2002.
Revised version forthcoming in S. S. Mick and M. E. Wyttenbach (eds.), Advances in Health
Care Organization Theory (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

ABSTRACT

From its roots in physics, mathematics, and biology, the study of complexity science, or
complex adaptive systems, has expanded into the domain of organizations and systems of
organizations. Complexity science is useful for studying the evolution of complex organizations --
entities with multiple, diverse, interconnected elements. Evolution of complex organizations often
is accompanied by feedback effects, nonlinearity, and other conditions that add to the complexity
of existing organizations and the unpredictability of the emergence of new entities.

In this chapter, we review the basic tenets of complexity science. We identify a series of
key differences between the complexity science and established theoretical approaches to
studying health organizations, based on the ways in which time, space, and constructs are
framed. The contrasting perspectives are demonstrated using two case examples drawn from
healthcare innovation and healthcare integrated systems research. Complexity science broadens
and deepens the scope of inquiry into health care organizations, expands corresponding methods
of research, and increases the ability of theory to generate valid research on complex
organizational forms. Health Care Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems

NAPCRG Resources 15
August, 2009
 It is not surprising that the word ―system‖ slips easily into the vernacular of those
working in and studying health care organizations, in statements like the following. ―Local
health care systems are the forerunners of regional systems.‖ ―The U.S. health care system is in
crisis.‖ ―Health systems are consolidating and integrating.‖ While there are many types of
―systems‖ that exist, it is most common for people to invoke the ―machine‖ metaphor when
thinking about organizational systems (Morgan, 1997). It is appealing to think of health care
organizations, singly and in concert, receiving inputs, transforming them, and producing outputs,
such as improved health. This machine metaphor leads to beliefs on how the ―system‖ can be
studied: Examine its parts separately, and understand their mechanics. The machine metaphor
leads to belief on how the ―system‖ can be improved: If the system is not working as planned,
then identify the broken part and replace it. If the system is too costly, then work towards
economies of scale. If the system is not working in a coordinated fashion, then tighten the
interconnections between parts of the system.

Any model of an organization or an organizational system is in fact an approximation, a

simplification of reality. Yet, these models are of utmost import as they shape the way people
believe the system works, and hence, constrain the possible ways they think that research can be
conducted and that the system can be improved. For example, in light of increasing pressures to
cut costs, health care organizations have engaged in a flurry of activity involving mergers,
acquisitions, and other forms of structural change. Economies of scales are invoked as input
demands are spread over a smaller base of overhead and fixed costs. Using the machine
metaphor, the belief is that one can increase the ―input‖ stream without having to increase the
size of the machine proportionally.

Yet, thinking of and operating organizational systems as machines have not led to
effective organizational research and practice. For example, researchers and commentators both
conclude that ―Integrated delivery systems clearly have not performed up to our expectations‖
(Johnson, 2000:3); and ―Controlling health care costs continues to perplex providers, as payers
exert pressure and new models seem less promising‖ (Health Care Review, 1999). These
sentiments are frequently echoed in the arenas of quality improvement, patient safety, and access
to care. Linkage, coordination, standardization, rationalization, and vertical and horizontal
integration have failed to advance health care delivery to acceptable levels of satisfaction for
both internal and external stakeholders. The health care ―system‖ continues to defy control – it
is a ―machine‖ that appears to have a mind of its own.

We argue that improvement of health care organizations individually and collectively,

and research on those organizations, will be best facilitated by comprehensive application of the
metaphor of the system as a living organism, rather than the system as a machine. Such a
metaphor is conveyed by the science of complex adaptive systems, which reformulates systems
theory in a way that produces a ―model‖ of the organization more closely related to reality.
Whereas traditional systems theory (e.g., Senge, 1990) has its roots in explaining the behavior of
―dead‖ systems (complicated electro-mechanical systems), complex systems science is
concerned with explaining how ―living‖ systems work. This offers a transformational leap from
the crude understanding of systems that developed in the 1960s and formed the basis of a science
of organizational systems. The messy, open systems of complexity science are immensely
different from the closed, well-behaved systems that were the original focus of systems science.

NAPCRG Resources 16
August, 2009
While health care organizations have been applying systems science of the 1960s and 1970s,
systems science has made transformational changes in its understanding of systems. These new
insights have yet to be reflected substantially in the practice of health care organizations and the
research activities of those studying health care organizations.

In this chapter, we outline the development of complexity science and its major precepts
as they apply to organizations. We discuss areas of application to health care, focusing attention
on managing complicated relationships among organizations and stimulating change and
innovation. The goal of this chapter is to describe what it means to conceptualize health care
organizations (and aggregates of organizations) as complex adaptive systems, rather than as
traditional ―dead‖ systems. Implications for researchers are emphasized.

Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex adaptive systems (CASs) are omnipresent. Examples include stock markets,
human bodies and organs and cells, trees, and hospitals. ―Complex‖ implies diversity – a wide
variety of elements. ―Adaptive‖ suggests the capacity to alter or change – the ability to learn
from experience. A ―system‖ is a set of connected or interdependent things. In a CAS, the
―things‖ are independent agents. An agent may be a person, a molecule, a species or an
organization, among many others. These agents act based on local or surrounding knowledge
and conditions. A central body, master neuron, or CEO does not control the agent‘s individual
moves. A CAS has a densely connected web of interacting agents, each operating from its own
schema or local knowledge.

All CASs share some features in common. We describe four that are relevant to
organizational theory applications. CASs are dynamic, massively entangled, emergent, and
robust (Eoyang and Berkas, 1999; Marion and Bacon, 2000).

First, CASs are characterized by their dynamic state. The large number of agents in the
CAS, the connections among the agents, and the influence of external forces all combine to
result in constant and discontinuous change in the CAS.

Second, relationships in CASs are complicated and enmeshed, or ―massively entangled‖

(Kontopolous, 1993, quoted in Eoyang and Berkas, 1999:317). Many CASs are comprised of
large numbers of interdependent parts and influenced by a large number of interdependent
forces. In addition to being numerous and interdependent, parts and variables, and their
relationships, can be nonlinear and discontinuous. Small changes in variables can have small
impacts at some times, and large impacts under other conditions. Conversely, the effects of large
changes in variables can vary from negligible to large, depending on the state of other variables.

The agents of a CAS both alter other agents, and are altered by other agents, in their
interactions. Feedback loops among agents can generate change or stability in the system,
depending on the relationships among the agents. In the case of feedback loops that generate
change, two systems that initially are quite similar may develop significant differences over time.
Even the same system, after the passage of time, may bear little resemblance to its previous

NAPCRG Resources 17
August, 2009
configuration. Because the context for each CAS is unique, and each CAS is context-dependent,
each CAS is unique.

Third, CASs exhibit emergent, or self-organizing behavior. As stated by Marion and

Bacon (2000:75),

[C]omplexly structured, non-additive behavior emerges out of interactive

networks. . . .[I]nteractive agents unite in an ordered state of sorts, and the
behavior of the resulting whole is more than the sum of individual
behaviors. Ordered states. . . [arise] . . . when a unit adapts its individual
behaviors to accommodate the behaviors of units with which it interacts.
Poincare observed this phenomenon mathematically among colliding
particles, which impart some of their resonance to each other leading to a
degree of synchronized resonance. Interacting people and organizations
tend similarly to adjust their behaviors and worldviews to accommodate
others with whom they interact. Networks with complex chains of
interaction allow large systems to correlate, or self-order.

Applied to human systems, these findings will be quite familiar to sociologists and social
psychologists. Humans adjust their interaction based on characteristics of the other parties to the
interaction. Extensive communication among large networks of humans can spead norms and
create self-ordering structures, such as norms.

A CAS may be sensitive to certain small changes in initial conditions. An apparently

trivial difference in the beginning state of the system may result in enormously different
outcomes. This phenomenon is sometimes called the ―butterfly effect,‖ based on the metaphor
derived by meteorologist Edward Lorenz that a difference as seemingly insignificant as a
butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can change the predicted weather in Texas from a sunny
day to a tornado. However, this sensitivity has to do with the exact path that the complex system
follows into the future, rather than its general pattern. CASs, including the weather, tend to
maintain generally bounded behavior, sometimes called an ―attractor,‖ regardless of small
changes in initial conditions.

As a result, CASs are robust, or fit. They exhibit the ability to alter themselves in
response to feedback. Complex systems possess a range of coupling patterns, from tight to loose
(Marion and Bacon, 2000). These different patterns help organizations survive a variety of
environmental conditions. Loosely coupled structures help ―buy time‖ in response to strong
shock. More tightly coupled structures tend to ―lock-in‖ to a response. Although adaptive in the
moment, such a response may turn maladaptive as the environment shifts. As a whole, the
complex structures provide multiple and creative paths for action. If one pattern of
interdependency in a network is disrupted, other units can respond due to their interdependence
with the disrupted unit. Robust response means that the complex system can effectively adapt to
a wide range of environmental change, giving it ―amazing resilience‖ (Marion and Bacon,
2000:76).

Growth of Complexity Science

NAPCRG Resources 18
August, 2009
 Complexity science, the study of complex adaptive systems, does not consist of a single
theory, but rather encompasses a collective of theories and constructs that have conceptual
integrity among themselves. Complexity science is highly multi- and inter-disciplinary, and its
proponents include biologists, chemists, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, physicists and
many others in a quest to answer some fundamental questions about living, changeable systems.

Social scientists came to know about and be interested in complexity through a variety of
avenues. Perhaps the most important early event was the discovery of ―chaos‖ (Gleick, 1987).
Chaos theory presented two propositions that were attractive to social scientists:

 Small, seemingly inconsequential events, perturbations, or changes can potentially lead to

profound, large scale change; and
 What appears to be random may in fact have an underlying orderliness to it.

In addition, the word ―chaos‖ itself was something that in a vernacular sense resonated with
current reality.

Organization scholars, and in particular organizational change and development

researchers, became interested in how chaos explained the way in which organizations changed,
or more importantly, how they could be changed, using concepts such as self-organization,
emergence, and bifurcation (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). Whereas the concept of ―chaos‖ had
its roots in physics, concepts of self-organization and emergence drew more from the living
sciences of biology and chemistry. Much intellectual focus was switched away from chaos –
which described a particular type of behavior found in complex systems – to the more basic
question of how such complex systems work in the first place. Complexity science today
includes contributions from the theoretical areas of artificial intelligence and agent-based
systems (e.g., Axelrod and Cohen, 1999), game theory, evolutionary theory (especially neo-
Darwinist ideas, including punctuated equilibrium), cellular automata, and computational
biology. Books by Waldrop (1992) and Lewin (1992), both titled Complexity, solidified this
disciplinary hodgepodge under a single semantic umbrella. The biologist and physician
Kauffman‘s (1993, 1995) work provided much of the theoretical basis for the ―adaptive‖
component of complex adaptive systems.

Table 1 summarizes some key, broad differences between complexity science and the
science of linear, stable systems. Complexity science emphasis indeterminism rather than
determinism, variation rather than averages, and local control rather than global control.
Nonlinear rather than linear relationships are the norm, and a metaphor of ―morphogenesis‖ is
preferred to a metaphor of ―assembly.‖

Table 1. Complexity Science vs. Established Science

NAPCRG Resources 19
August, 2009
Complexity Science Established Science
Holism Reductionism
Indeterminism Determinism
Relationships among entities Discrete entities
Nonlinear relationships Linear relationships
– critical mass thresholds – marginal increases
Quantum physics Newtonian physics
– influence through iterative nonlinear – influence as direct result of force from
feedback one object to another
– expect novel and probabilistic world – expect predictable world
Understanding; sensitivity analysis Prediction
Focus on variation Focus on averages
Local control Global control
Behavior emerges from bottom up Behavior specified from top down
Metaphor of morphogenesis Metaphor of assembly

Source: Adapted from Dent, 1999, Table 1.

The natural and physical science foundations of complexity science produce both
strengths and weaknesses for organizational researchers (Begun, 1994), and the diffusion of
complexity science into academic research is occurring at a slow rate. One reason for the slow
diffusion of complexity science is the fact that it exists among traditional scientific disciplines,
not within. Academics accustomed to functioning with bounded theories within bounded
disciplines resist embracing new cross-disciplinary perspectives, as has been the case throughout
the history of science (Kuhn, 1962). The mathematical elegance and sophistication of much of
physical science research is a problem for some social scientists, either because of philosophical
differences (social systems can‘t be modeled; physical systems can) or because of a lack of
training in the methods, leading to an inability to ―trust‖ or interpret the material. The natural
science foundations are a source of attraction for others, particularly those with biological
backgrounds, including clinicians, who may be more comfortable extrapolating from natural
science. Many of the applications of complexity science to social systems are metaphorical,
again a source of attraction to some and aversion for others.

Another reason for slow diffusion is that complexity science is relatively new and is still
struggling for legitimacy and institutionalization. Appropriate questions about its relevance to
human organizational systems, as opposed to biological and physical systems, remain. As with
any body of new ideas, there is a danger that complexity science will be over-generalized,
overextended, exploited, and abused by those enamored of everything new. Certainly this
process is underway with complexity science and organizations (Maguire and McKelvey, 1999),
and it is important to recognize and thwart those tendencies. Goldstein (2000), for example,
notes how a ―bias for believing that self-organization and emergence are nothing but
advantageous for a complex system can be seen in organizational applications,‖ including his
own. Atchison (1999:50), commenting on the interpretation of change processes in health care
from a complexity perspective, expresses concern about ―the current enthusiasm of anything
labeled ‗complexity science.‘‖ Underneath the hype, however, is a signification and permanent
leap in scientific knowledge anchored in the physical and natural sciences.

NAPCRG Resources 20
August, 2009
Applications of Complexity Science to Health Care Organizations

Social phenomena, including organizations, became the subject of investigations using

methods and metaphors from chaos and complexity theory early in the 1990s (Eve, Horsfall, and
Lee,1997; Goldstein, 1994; Kiel and Elliott, 1996; Priesmeyer, 1992; Stacey,1992; Wheatley,
1992). A growing number of researchers continued to explore extensions of complexity science
to the study of organizations, signaled by special issues of the journals Complexity (in 1998) and
Organization Science (in 1999), and the new journal Emergence (new in 1999), which is solely
dedicated to organizational applications. Applications of complexity science to organizational
processes like change and innovation are becoming more common in mainstream outlets as well
(e.g., Lichtenstein, 2000; Van de Ven et al., 1999). Also, a large number of books purporting to
establish business advantage to those organizations that adopt complexity approaches have
appeared (e.g., Lewin and Regine, 2000; Kelly and Allison, 1999). The business models inspired
by complexity science generally consist of simulations or agent-based models (―agents‖ are the
central actors in abstract models of CASs) using such tools as genetic algorithms and artificial
neural networks to address production-scheduling issues, predict complex outcomes (such as
financial market movements), and advanced artificial intelligence applications (Wakefield,
2001).

Comprehensive reviews of organizational applications and extensions, both theoretical

and empirical, of complexity science are available elsewhere (Anderson, 1999; Lissak, 1999;
Marion, 1999; Stacey, 1999). Extensions of complexity science to health care organizational
theory began to emerge in the scholarly literature in the mid-1990s. A series in Quality
Management in Health Care, for example, examined clinical pathways as nonlinear, evolving
systems, and provided associated tools (Sharp and Priesmeyer, 1995; Priesmeyer and Sharp,
1995; Priesmeyer et al., 1996). Marion and Bacon (2000) interpreted the fitness of three
eldercare organizations based on a complexity science perspective, emphasizing the larger
networks in which the organizations were embedded. Begun and Luke (2001) analyzed
organizational arrangements in local health care markets in 1995 as a function of initial
conditions in local systems at the precipice of change in the early 1980s. Arndt and Bigelow
(2000) speculated on potential applications of complexity science in health management
research. Dooley and Plsek (2001) used models of complex natural processes to interpret the
generation of medication errors in hospitals and conclude that the recommendations embedded in
the Institute of Medicine report (Kohn, Corrigan and Donaldson, 2000) do not go nearly far
enough in terms of their ability to generate significant organizational learning and thus
improvement. Begun and White (1999) extended the metaphor of complex adaptive system to
the nursing profession, noting particularly its inertial patterns and resistance to change.

Contemplating the implications of complexity science for the practice of health care
management and leadership, Zimmerman, Lindberg and Plsek (1998) contributed a primer on
complexity science, with nine management principles for leadership and management in health
care organizations. McDaniel (1997) and McDaniel and Driebe (2001) construed the leadership
imperatives of healthcare executives from the perspective of quantum and chaos theory, and
applied complexity science to the process of management in health care delivery.

NAPCRG Resources 21
August, 2009
 Over the past decade, in sum, the literature demonstrates a diffusion of complexity
science applications from social systems in general, to organizational systems, and now to health
care organizations. It can be expected that such applications to health care will continue to draw
increased attention as more researchers are exposed to the science. To help develop such efforts,
next we explore how complexity researchers might approach two specific research topics in
health care management.

Key Differences between a Complexity Science Perspective and

Established Perspectives

In this section we identify key differences between established theoretical perspectives

commonly used in health management research and the complexity science perspective.
Established perspectives in health care organization research include those that commonly are
found in textbooks, are taught in doctoral programs in health administration and are used
commonly in the health care management research literature. A partial laundry list would
include the following: resource dependence, transaction cost, agency, structural contingency,
population ecology, institutional, and the ―hybrid‖ strategic management perspective. The
established perspectives share a number of common traits, summarized in Table 2. Due to some
variation within the established perspectives, in Table 2 we restrict judgments about such
differences to three established theories: structural contingency, transaction cost, and institutional
theory. These three theories have been utilized in a recent journal issue to characterize the nature
of change in health care organizations and markets (Stiles, Mick and Wise, 2001; Wells, 2001;
Young, Parker and Charns, 2001)

Table 2. A Comparison of Established Perspectives and the Complexity Science Perspective on

the Study of Organizations

Established Perspectives* Complexity Science

Perspective
TEMPORAL
FRAMING
VIEW OF THE Relatively knowable Relatively unknowable
FUTURE
RELEVANCE OF None (transaction cost) to High, but history may or may
HISTORY high (institutional). When not be deterministic.
high, history is deterministic.
SPATIAL FRAMING
DOMAIN OF STUDY Reified organization in the Relationships among
environment individuals, subsystems,
systems
VIEW OF THE Outside the organization; Part of the domain of study;
ENVIRONMENT evolves separately from the coevolves with the
organization organization; fitness
landscapes
LEVELS OF Single to few, relatively Multitude of nested levels

NAPCRG Resources 22
August, 2009
ANALYSIS independent
CONSTRUCT
FRAMING
STRATEGY Relatively designed Relatively emergent
STRUCTURE Equilibrium; relatively Non-equilibrium; relatively
centralized decentralized
PURPOSE OF Efficiency, fit, institutional Learning; co-creation of
ORGANIZATIONAL conformity (legitimation) meaning
RELATIONSHIPS
KEY INFORMATION External environmental Functioning of relationships
FOR THE intelligence
ORGANIZATION
INFORMATION Reified organization Individuals; complex systems
PROCESSOR of individuals

*There are a wide variety of established perspectives. We focus specifically on structural

contingency theory, transaction cost theory, and institutional theory.

First, we examine the time orientation of the perspectives. Established theories are based
on a view of the future as relatively knowable. Researchers should be able to specify models that
allow for reasonable prediction. The complexity perspective assumes the converse, that the
future is relatively unknowable. Emergent properties cannot be predicted from a system‘s
individual parts due to the multiple nonlinear interactions and feedback loops among the parts.
Historical patterns are an acute source of information in some established perspectives,
particularly institutional theory, wherein the role of history is to inform the future. Other
established theories, particularly those derived from economics, are largely ahistorical.
Complexity science validates the relevance of history to the state of every existing system,
although the degree to which systems are history dependent can vary from none to extensive.
Importantly, the high relevance of history in the complexity perspective does not remove the
expectation that novelty, and transformational change, can emerge in a CAS at any given time.
History is highly relevant, but not necessarily deterministic. This, again, reinforces the
irrelevance of the prediction of details, or paths (vs. patterns), as a goal of research on CASs

Second, the CAS perspective entails different assumptions about the unit and levels of
analysis (spatial framing). Established perspectives typically identify an organization, which we
label a ―reified organization,‖ as the domain of study. Reification involves the assignment of
material reality to an abstract concept. The assumption that the legal entity known as an
organization is the most useful unit of analysis is challenged by complexity science. The
complexity perspective gives analytic priority to the relationships embedded inside, outside, and
around entities within the bounded, reified organization itself. Accordingly, the environment is a
construct that has little meaning to the complexity researcher; rather, relationships among
organizational entities and environmental entities are the domain of interest. Coevolution of
these relationships characterizes change better than the separate evolution of ―the organization‖
and ―the environment.‖ Kauffman‘s (1995) depiction of systems seeking peaks on constantly
changing rugged landscapes, and transforming those landscapes and themselves in the process, is
a complexity-inspired analogue to the traditional organization-environment relationship. A final

NAPCRG Resources 23
August, 2009
difference in spatial framing between the established and complexity perspectives is the tendency
of established perspectives to focus on one or a few levels of relatively independent analysis.
Complexity science notes the embeddedness of all systems within larger ones, and the need to
analyze relationships across levels of systems.

Finally, several differences between ―what is studied‖ by established perspectives vs.

complexity science can be further refined. Key constructs are framed differently. According to
established perspectives, the strategy of an organization is relatively designed by the reified
organization. The strategy of a complex adaptive system, on the other hand, is relatively
emergent. Strategy changes in unpredictable ways over time based on learning from relationship
coevolution. Structures, concommitantly, are relatively flexible, and there is no ―equilibrium‖
structure. Relationships coevolve for the purpose of learning and the creation of meaningful
systems. In contrast, established perspectives assume a reified organization pursuing external
environmental intelligence to better fit the organization to the environment or to optimize its
economic efficiency within the environment.

We argue that the complexity perspective‘s operating assumptions are better equipped
than established perspectives to yield useful research questions on complex adaptive systems.
Conducting research from a complexity perspective requires corresponding methods of research,
however, which are far from well-developed.

Consequences of Complexity Science for Research Methods1

As might be expected, application of new theories often may require the use of new and
different research methods. Novel discoveries and paradigms typically emerge through the
efforts of ―explorers‖ (Rogers, 1995); explorers typically represent a minute fraction of the
research population. In complexity science, these explorers primarily have come from physics,
biology, and mathematics, and have included few social scientists. Explorers are not necessarily
overly concerned about context or application. As these novel ideas gain exposure, diffusion
proceeds to the ―pioneers.‖ Pioneers bring the ideas across disciplinary boundaries, and seek
connections between theory and practice. They are open to learning from the explorers, in an
interdisciplinary way. Pioneers may be thought of as generalists, and may in fact often lack the
specialized skills (or interest) to pursue the intricate details of implementing the ideas into
singular domains. Researchers investigating the interaction between complexity and social
science currently fall into this category. In order for complexity science to have impact on a
particular theory domain, it must be adopted by a majority of researchers and practitioners
considered ―settlers.‖ Settlers perform the equally important duty of ―normal science‖ (Kuhn,
1962). This group places great emphasis on domain context. They are interested in optimizing
an idea to its specific domain application. They tend to learn and communicate strictly within
their domain.

Note that it is the pioneering group who is probably most challenged with respect to
research methodologies. These new concepts may be difficult to import into the domain,
especially when the existing paradigm (collective schema) of the settlers is in opposition. The
1
Portions of this section are derived from Dooley and Guastello (1994).

NAPCRG Resources 24
August, 2009
pioneers must adhere to the rigor expected by the nature of the scientific order, and yet be careful
not to get caught in the trap of using the wrong methods to study new phenomena. Pioneers
indeed have to invent new research methods alongside their research hypotheses.

The vast majority of research on health care organizations can be classified as

―positivistic,‖ which dictates that hypotheses be stated and then subjected to falsification
(Popper, 1959:41). Experiments, whether planned or ad hoc (e.g., empirical surveys, case
studies), are the essence of such refutation. Some proponents of complexity science contend that
striving to fit within the positivistic research framework threatens the transformational nature and
potential contributions of complexity science (Stacey, Griffin and Shaw, 2000).

In order for complexity science to be applied in a positivistic framework, it must be

capable of generating testable hypotheses. This is difficult for a new discipline, as definitions for
basic constructs such as emergence and self-organization are fluid and not well agreed-upon.
Even the concept of ―chaos‖ suffers from a dichotomy of meaning (Dooley and Van de Ven,
1999). Further, these constructs must be operationalized into measurement instruments.
Currently, perceptual scales for measuring these constructs do not exist, and if measured at all,
they are observed via secondary sources. For example, ―organizational complexity‖ may be
observed by counting the number of different functional roles present in the organizational chart
(Dooley, 2002a).

Causal links in the proposed theory must be tested. Empirical tests of most theories in
the social sciences, including health care organizational theories, however, assume linearity and
unidirectional causation. The statistical methodologies available to test other model forms is
grossly inadequate. Consider a simple theory linking motivation and performance. It is
generally agreed to that this relationship is bi-directional, as individual theories support the
causal links in both directions (Gallistel, 1990). How could that bi-directionality be proven,
though? At the very least, to address bi-directional causality, longitudinal data would have to be
planned and collected. Elaborate time series methods would have to be used. Real social
systems pose a problem to even this strategy, however. Model parameters are likely to be time
varying, a challenge for any statistical methodology. The time lag – the delay between cause and
effect – is also likely to be dynamic. Clearly, modeling approaches need to be further developed
in order to test multi-causal social systems. One may even conclude that such deductive
inquiries are no longer valid.

Qualitative research methods may serve researchers well in disentangling dynamic,

complicated, emergent systems. To date, many applications of complexity science to
organization have involved multi-method case studies over time. One methodological tool that
complexity science does have in abundance is a rich set of poetic metaphors: the strange
attractor, the butterfly effect, self-organized criticality, fractal, etc. It is not surprising to see this
new language give rise to new creative ideas, and be used to sell ―older‖ ideas in new ways.
Metaphors allow the understanding of one concept (or phenomena) in terms of another (Lakoff
and Johnson, 1980). They are artificial symbols to assist thought (Turbayne, 1962) and provide
―windows into the soul of the social system‖ (Burke, 1992). When used in a research context,
Hallyn (1990:28-29) captures the different uses of metaphor:

NAPCRG Resources 25
August, 2009
 A metaphor does not always have the same status…I shall differentiate a
discursive status (valid in the case that aims to enlighten or convince), a
methodological status (implying a heuristic function), and a theoretical
status (linked to a vision of the world that poses a priori the existence of a
real analogy). It is clear that only the two latter types belong in a poetics
of the hypothesis. A metaphor is discursive when it is applied to
persuasion and exposition. The theoretical status applies especially to…
―absolute‖ metaphors, which are the ―first elements of philosophical
language, irreducible to the realm of logical terminology.‖

Much of the current social science research concerning complexity is based on discursive
metaphors, e.g. claiming that leadership is a ―strange attractor.‖ (A strange attractor is the
pattern of a pathway, in visual form, produced by graphing the behavior of certain systems.)
This type of research should be expected from the pioneers, who may be less concerned with
methodological rigor than the richness of concept these new ideas bring; discursive metaphors
can play a powerful role in spurring creativity. Proper discursive use of metaphors still requires
proper understanding of the underlying science. Health organization researchers may be in a
good position with regards to this requirement, as many have backgrounds in systems theory
and/or biology, good backgrounds from which to develop knowledge of complexity science.

Simulation may be an especially productive means by which to pursue the application of

complexity science to health care research questions (Dooley, 2002b). Simulations fall into three
broad categories: simulations involving human interaction only, simulations whereby the human
interacts with a computer, and simulations involving a completely computerized medium. In all
cases, the theorist has a complex system in mind and wants to explore what might happen when
system variables are systematically varied. System simulations are thus prepared to capture the
relevant system behaviors and control extraneous variables whenever possible, and just as
importantly, to provide results in a manageable amount of time. The validity of the simulation
depends on the assumptions made to simplify the simulation, and the rules chosen to embody
action, sense making, and decision-making within the simulation.

A Complexity Science Perspective on Integration and Innovation in

Health Care Organizations

To make the comparison between a complexity science perspective and established

perspectives more concrete, we examine two domains of health management research and
practice that could particularly benefit from a complexity science perspective. The domains are
(1) innovation in health care delivery, and (2) structure and performance of integrated delivery
systems. The two research domains are not mutually exclusive, but each has a distinctive
tradition of theory and empirical research.

Researchers and practitioners in both of these research arenas are deeply affected by the
complexity of health care delivery. It is commonly espoused that ―The health care field is
complex, perhaps the most complex of any area of the economy‖ (Morrison, 2000:xvii).
Complexity is reflected in the number, variety, and fragmentation of producers involved in the
delivery of health care: potential patients (who are consumers of prevention), actual patients,

NAPCRG Resources 26
August, 2009
professionals, provider organizations, buyer organizations (including large employers who
purchase on behalf of employees), insurers or payers, and suppliers. Glouberman and Mintzberg
(2001a, 2001b) more abstractly conceptualize extensive differentiation in the health care sector
into four ―worlds‖ of cure, care, control, and community. Deep-seated differentiation, in turn,
leads to inability to diagnose and design effective interventions for innovation and improvement
that rely on coordination and control. This feature of health care delivery complicates decisions
about how to structure integrated delivery systems, and the ability to predict their performance.
Too, complexity affects the ability of the health care systems to generate diversity and
innovation, particularly innovation that is transformational.

Researchers can approach innovation and integration in health care from a variety of
established theories or perspectives. In the following discussion, we again use institutional
theory, transaction cost theory, and structural contingency theory to represent established
perspectives. Complexity science offers a different and potentially more powerful alternative.
To frame and bound the discussion of the complexity perspective, we explore research
implications of the characterization of complexity science previously given in Table 2. Research
implications of each characteristic of complexity science are denoted in Table 3.

Table 3. Research Implications of Complexity Science Perspective

Complexity Science Implications for Research

Perspective
TEMPORAL
FRAMING
VIEW OF THE Relatively unknowable Patterns may repeat, but
FUTURE without predictive power.
Anticipate surprise. Study
emergence.
RELEVANCE OF High, but history may or may Requisite to study history (vs.
HISTORY not be deterministic. cross-sectional only); conduct
longitudinal analysis
SPATIAL FRAMING
DOMAIN OF STUDY Relationships among Study patterns of interaction
individuals, subsystems, among agents.
systems
VIEW OF THE Part of the domain of study; Study coevolution of
ENVIRONMENT coevolves with the organization and environment
organization; fitness
landscapes
LEVELS OF Multitude of nested levels View issue from multiple,
ANALYSIS nested levels of systems
CONSTRUCT
FRAMING
STRATEGY Relatively emergent Study changes in strategy and
conditions that facilitate

NAPCRG Resources 27
August, 2009
 change
STRUCTURE Non-equilibrium; relatively Assess flexibility of
decentralized structures; simple rules; min
specs
PURPOSE OF Learning; co-creation of Assess degrees of co-
ORGANIZATIONAL meaning participation, learning,
RELATIONSHIPS sharing
KEY INFORMATION Functioning of relationships Study quality of relationships
FOR THE
ORGANIZATION
INFORMATION Individuals; complex systems Study individuals and
PROCESSOR of individuals coalitions, vs. reified
organization

Innovation in Health Care Delivery

Innovation in health care delivery is significant in magnitude and impact. It is estimated

that $35.8 billion was spent on the development of new practices and products in health care in
the U.S. in 1995 (HCFA and NSF, 2001). Many of these innovations have significant, positive
consequences on individual and public health. For example, the DISCERN medical error
warning system, a computer-based system that examines a patient‘s prescriptions for adverse
drug interactions, is estimated to have saved numerous lives, and $5.3 million in health care
costs, within Banner Health Systems‘ three Phoenix-based hospitals (Snyder, 2001). Innovative
new services are not isolated to specific medical procedures and systems, but extend also into the
domain of both integrated health systems and the conduct of public health.

Within the public health arena, much innovation effort has been focused on HIV/AIDS
(UNAIDS/WHO, 2000a, 2000b). The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and the
World Health Organization estimate that worldwide, some 5.3 million people were newly
infected with HIV in 2000, 36.1 million are living with HIV/AIDS, and 21.8 million have died
since the beginning of the epidemic. AIDS is especially prevalent in developing countries;
Africa has three-fourths of the AIDS-infected population. The general public health in such
countries is significantly affected. For example, it is projected that life expectancy in Zimbabwe
will be reduced from 63 years in 1985 to 35 years in 2010 (Bonnel, 2000). The epidemic also
has severe economic consequences. For example, in South Africa, AIDS is expected to reduce
gross domestic product by 17 percent by 2010 (UNAIDS/WHO, 2000a, 2000b).

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), various HIV
prevention efforts in the U.S. through the 1990‘s have reduced HIV seroprevalence by 50 percent
within the vulnerable community, by 40 percent within New York City injection drug users, and
by 75 percent for babies contracting AIDS from their mother (CDC, 2001). The CDC has broad-
based goals of preventing AIDS through decreasing new infections; increasing knowledge of
serostatus; increasing the linkages among prevention, care, and treatment; and strengthening
monitoring, capacity, and evaluation.

NAPCRG Resources 28
August, 2009
 Strategies for the prevention of AIDS generally fall into three categories: access,
counseling, and social strategies (Auerbach and Coates, 2000). Prevention has increased as
people gain access to condoms (CDC, 1998) and sterile needles (Des Jarlais et al., 2000).
Counseling strategies to deal with high-risk behavior have been successful, including in
developing countries (Auerbach and Coates, 2000). Social strategies raise peer interaction to a
community level through education and awareness programs (Latkin et al., 1996).

General theories of innovation suggest that new approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention

should not be formalized or centralized (Damanpour, 1996). Formalization involves specified
rules, roles, and procedures; creates an environment of risk aversion and attention to efficiency;
and is negatively associated with innovation. Centralization involves the extent to which
organizational members have freedom to act on their own accord. Highly centralized systems
will tend to stifle creativity, as innovation ideas need to travel up and down an organizational
hierarchy before they can be acted upon. In the case of HIV/AIDS, this may suggest numerous,
parallel innovation efforts, unhampered by formal government oversight.

The innovation literature also stresses the need for the system to have the absorptive
capacity to take innovation inputs and create useful outcomes (Fiol, 1996). This absorptive
capacity may be dependent upon prior accumulation of knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990),
the ability of different role players to interact effectively (Souder and Moenhart, 1992), and the
structure of social networks within the adopting system (Rogers, 1995). Within developing
countries struggling with HIV/AIDS, novel means for diffusing knowledge about protection and
care may benefit from a ―social‖ absorptive capacity, in that previous public health innovations
have had to struggle with the lack of a mass media-infused culture, and invent creative ways to
diffuse ideas and spur adoption (Rogers, 1995).

We next present and discuss a case example of one social system that has faced and
addressed AIDS treatment in innovative ways. Then, we discuss the case as the subject of
research based on established perspectives and the complexity science perspective.

Brazil AIDs Case

In 1997, the World Bank reported that an estimated 30 million people have contracted the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and 90% of those were in developing countries (World
Bank, 1997). AIDs in developing countries is often assumed to be an intractable problem, based
on five key assumptions:
-- the impact of today’s interventions (and prevention efforts) will take a generation
or two to play out;
-- the cost of the anti-retroviral drug cocktails is out of reach for poor countries;
-- treatment is a luxury poor countries cannot afford, and they opt to focus almost
exclusively on prevention;
-- uneducated, illiterate patients cannot manage their own complicated drug therapies;
and
-- meaningful solutions require sophisticated, integrated national health care systems.

NAPCRG Resources 29
August, 2009
 Brazil‘s approach to AIDs challenged all of these assumptions and reversed the spread of
AIDs. Brazil‘s efforts really began in earnest in the early 1990s. By 1994, organizations in
Brazil were producing their first generic anti-retroviral drugs. Within five years, Brazil‘s effort
had made a major impact on reducing the spread of the HIV virus. In the 1980s, Brazil was held
out as an example of one of the countries worst hit by AIDs. Today, Brazil is touted as a model
for developing countries fighting AIDs.
Brazil‘s annual per capita income is less than $5,000 (Downie, 2001). In the 1980s,
South Africa‘s AIDs problem was not as severe as Brazil‘s (Darlington, 2000). Today, South
Africa‘s HIV infection rate is 25% whereas Brazil‘s is 0.6% (UNAIDS/WHO, 2000a). In 1992,
the World Bank predicted that Brazil would have 1.2 million AIDs cases by 2000, but the actual
count was closer to 0.5 million.
The government of Brazil gives free drugs to AIDs patients. Brazil uses the controversial
clause of the World Trade Organization that allows countries to violate patent laws in cases of
national emergency (AMA, 2001). Brazil argued that the AIDs epidemic is or could become a
national emergency. Estimates of the resulting cost reduction vary, and costs are being further
reduced as more and more of the drugs are produced in generic form. At a minimum, the cost of
the drug therapy per patient per year is 65% lower than the $12,000 cost in the United States.
Some estimate that it could be further lowered to be 90% less than the U.S. cost (Darlington,
2000).
The question implicitly posed in Brazil was not ―how can we provide treatment when the drug
costs are so high?‖ but ―how can we reduce costs so that we can provide treatment to all who
need it?‖
Organizations in Brazil chose to use treatment as part of the prevention strategy. When
people know they can get treatment, they are more willing to come in to hospitals, clinics or
certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for tests (Rosenberg, 2001). The situation is not
deemed to be hopeless. While patients are there for treatments or tests, they also get information
and spread the prevention ideas. Today the bulk of the spending is on treatment, yet the
prevention goals are being met. The question implicitly posed was not ―with our limited
resources, should we focus more on prevention or treatment?‖ but ― how can we achieve our
prevention goals while treating all of those currently infected?‖
Nurses and other health care workers teach patients how to take the drugs. They use
whatever methods they can to communicate the drug routine to their patients. They draw
pictures of the sun or the moon to denote different times of day. They draw pictures of food on
the labels of the pill bottles for those that need to be consumed with food. In addition, they help
the poorest patients link up with NGOs, churches and other organizations that offer free food. In
spite of the high illiteracy rate in Sao Paolo, Brazil, the adherence rate for the drug regime is at
the same level as in San Diego. In both cities, 70% achieve an 80% adherence rate (Rosenberg,
2001).
Rather than being defeated by the overwhelming challenge, participants in the effective
system considered such questions as ―What methods of communication will work to convey the
drug therapy routine to a patient – even a homeless, illiterate patient?‖ and ―If food is an issue,
how can we ensure greater compliance with the routine by linking with charities that can provide
food at the right times of day?‖
Brazil had an established infrastructure of hospitals, clinics and public health services.
However, it was a very patchy, irregular system (Rosenberg, 2001). There were huge differences
in the services available across the country and to different segments of the population. Brazil‘s

NAPCRG Resources 30
August, 2009
AIDs efforts have recognized and strengthened existing connections to do the treatment and
prevention work necessary to grapple with AIDs. The efforts have used over 600 existing NGOs
and community level care organizations to reach the country‘s poor. The country now has 133
testing and counseling centers. Health care clinicians work alongside NGOs and other
organizations to provide the full range of services needed. ―It is a well-organized, well-
formulated program that works because the government has managed to integrate the whole
society – especially NGOs‖ (CDC, 2000).

Established Perspectives on Innovation

As a relatively innovative advance in the delivery of health services, the Brazil AIDs case
provides a provocative research setting for health organization theorists. Established theoretical
perspectives would point researchers in particular directions. Transaction cost theory, for
instance, would lead the researcher to address such issues as the costs of information exchange
between collaborators: What intra-organizational costs were avoided by the government through
utilization of existing networks of NGOs, churches and health care clinics? How were the costs
of service reduced for the individual health care organizations and NGOs through collaborating
on this national agenda? How is the information flow less expensive in Brazil? What needed to
happen to reduce those information exchange costs?

A structural contingency perspective would give priority to assessing the fit between
organizational forms and their environment. In particular, did the information processing
capabilities of the organizations and network of organizations match the degree of uncertainty in
the environment? Did the Brazilian organizational forms have the requisite variety given the
uncertainty in the environment? Was there sufficient flexibility in the organizational forms to
handle the rapidly evolving environment? Was the optimal level of provider integration
achieved via the network of organizations handling Brazil‘s AIDs crisis, given their reciprocal
interdependencies?

Finally, researchers applying institutional theory would investigate current and past
institutional structures (e.g., government policy, tax laws, professional norms, societal values)
that both enabled and constrained governmental and societal reaction to HIV/AIDS. Institutional
theory would study processes whereby the ―new‖ treatment and prevention systems may or may
not become permanent. The perspective would suggest studying the strength of the three
different forms of institutional effect – imitative, normative, and coercive – on the diffusion of
the new practices (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

Complexity Science Perspective

The complexity science perspective would lead researchers to be less ―surprised‖ by

Brazil‘s achievements in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. While recognizing the
overwhelming forces supporting the ―old‖ system, the perspective would lead one to investigate
the sources of novelty – the tiny differences that made a big difference in producing the ―new‖
system, contrasted to the forces that allow systems to get ―stuck‖ in sub-optimal solutions and
interventions (Kauffman, 1995). How were the histories of the entities in Brazil and the
traditions of Brazilian culture used to generate rather than constrain the emergence of new
patterns? What were the transforming exchanges, containers, and differences that enabled self-

NAPCRG Resources 31
August, 2009
organized solutions to occur (Olson and Eoyang, 2001)? To what extent were ―wicked
questions‖ that are crucial in breaking the pattern from previous attractor patterns raised and
addressed (Zimmerman, 1991, 1993; Zimmerman, Lindberg and Plsek, 1998)? What were the
far-from-equilibrium conditions that induced Brazil‘s reactions to HIV/AIDS (Goldstein, 1994)?

A wide variety of systems at all levels operate within the Brazil AIDS ―system.‖ What
are the patterns of interaction that repeat at all scales? Where is there scalar invariance
indicating an equation or ―simple rule‖ of interaction that repeats at micro, meso and macro
levels (e.g., a rule that ―poor people can be responsible for their own health‖)? And do the
dynamics of actions taken for HIV/AIDS prevention and care indicate that the innovation system
is being driven by few or many factors? Are these factors acting independently or
interdependently (Dooley and Van de Ven, 1999)?

As novelty in complex systems arises without a ―big plan,‖ the complexity perspective
would suggest that the network of providers dealing with HIV/AIDS prevention and care
emerged from multiple and parallel experiments, not under any organization‘s control (Choi and
Dooley, 2000). To what extent was the overall approach ―chunked‖ and modular, and to what
extent were ―min-specs‖ (minimum specifications) used (Zimmerman, Lindberg, and Plsek,
1998)?

Complex systems operate through relationships among agents of the system. What were
the qualities of the relationships among agents in the system (Goodwin, 1994)? One could
examine a variety of relationships, including caregiver-patient relationships, government-NGO
relationships, relationships of patients to their disease, and information feedback and
feedforward loops. At the micro level, relationships are formed by conversation. How reflective
is the discursive content of conversations between workers and patients of the larger cultural
system regarding HIV/AIDS prevention and care (Corman, Kuhn, McPhee, and Dooley, 2002)?
How are the organizational forms informing and being formed by their AIDs work (as opposed
to, how are they adapting to their environment [Zimmerman, 1993])?

While all of the perspectives generate interesting and useful research questions,
complexity science broadens the scope and significantly changes the direction of research
questions that one might ask about the Brazil AIDS case. Relative to temporal framing of the
research (see Table 3), complexity science offers more optimism about the possibility for radical
change, and more effectively directs researchers to the potential sources of novelty in the system.
Longitudinal analysis is implicit in the research method. Relative to spatial framing, the
complexity perspective draws the researcher to study relationships among the entities within and
across existing systems in Brazil, rather than only within and among ―reified‖ health care
delivery organizations. Specific analysis of the quality, emergence, and outcomes of
relationships among individuals, groups of individuals, and organizations is explicit in the
complexity approach.

Next we review a second area of research and an associated case, to further illustrate
research consequences of the complexity perspective.

Structure and Performance of Integrated Delivery Systems

NAPCRG Resources 32
August, 2009
 Vertical and horizontal integration have been favored strategies of business
organizations, under certain conditions, throughout history. Waves of consolidation (horizontal
expansion and integration) and incorporation of buyer and supplier organizations by a focal
organization (vertical integration) occur periodically in sectors of the business economy.
Pressures for integration, such as increased competition and regulations to control cost and
quality, have led health care organizations to embrace higher levels of integration since the
1970s. Initially, researchers employed theory to argue that integrated systems, under the right
conditions, would lead to reduced costs and increased quality of services. In the 1980s vertical
integration was viewed as the most promising strategy for positioning health care delivery
organizations for the future. The exemplary integrated delivery system (IDS) would combine
physicians, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and a payment mechanism under one
organizational entity. This exemplar was presented in the literature as the ―ideal‖ structure for
health services delivery (Shortell et al., 1996).

In the 1990s, researchers made useful discoveries about the difficulty of both
implementing vertical integration and delivering on its promises. Studies concluded that many
of the allegedly integrated systems in fact demonstrated few characteristics of ―systemness‖
(Shortell et al., 2000). Case-study based reviews of integrated systems demonstrated the
considerable diversity within the organizational form ―IDS‖ and resulted in more realistic
depictions of the ―unfolding‖ of IDSs over time (Young and McCarthy, 1999). Researchers
empirically sorted the population of IDSs into five clusters of systems and four clusters of
networks, with wide variation within the set of IDSs (Bazolli et al., 1999). Attention shifted to
the ―network‖ form of IDSs (Savage and Roboski, 2001) and the possibilities of ―virtual‖
integration (Coffey, Fenner and Stogis, 1997). The ―promises‖ of integrated delivery were
unfilled, leading to a research symposium in 2001 around the theme, The Failure of Integrated
Delivery Systems (Friedman and Goes, 2001).

One such IDS that weathered trials and tribulations in the 1990s was Allina Health
System, based in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Its recent history is summarized as follows.

Allina Health System Case

Allina Health System was created by the July, 1994 merger of HealthSpan, a large hospital
and physician system in Minneapolis-St. Paul, with Medica, a health plan with 900,000
covered lives. Both Medica and HealthSpan had formally existed for only a short time
previous to the merger, but their roots were deep in the community. For example, Medica‘s
1991 initial partners included Hennepin County Medical Society‘s managed health plan that
had begun as an IPA (Independent Practice Association) in 1975. The roots of Allina‘s
hospital system can be traced back to 1857 (Grazman and Van de Ven, 1996).
The Allina Health System combination was hailed as ―The first time since Kaiser
(Permanente) that the triumvirate of Doctors, Hospitals, and Insurance have been put together
in one place‖ (Grazman and Van de Ven, 1996:1). Allina Health System had $1.8 billion in
1994 revenues and was the second largest employer in Minnesota after Northwest Airlines.
Its strategic rationale was the belief that full vertical merger was necessary to create a unified
health promotion strategy, a large capital pool, and stability of long-term planning and

NAPCRG Resources 33
August, 2009
 investment in such areas as information technology and preventive care. Unlike a joint
venture or loose affiliation, the merger promised the alignment of incentives, the ability to
bear large-scale risk, the accountability for the health of a population, and the authority to
sign contracts with one organizational entity (Young and McCarthy, 1999). The state of
Minnesota and a powerful business coalition, the Business Health Care Action Group, were
instrumental in spurring consolidation and integration in the Minneapolis-St. Paul market.
Allina was structured with an Executive Office at its head, and three divisions: Delivery
Services, which included three metropolitan and several non-metropolitan hospitals, home
health and other diversified services; Professional Services, which included 55 physician
group practices employing 400 physicians, as well as contracts with some 8,700 other
providers; and Health Plans. A President‘s Council brought together leadership from the
three operating groups. As a key part of its vision, Allina strived to be recognized as an
innovator in community health improvement. Success in this arena was demonstrated by the
1999 McGaw Prize for Excellence in Community Service awarded by the American Hospital
Association.
In its early history, Allina focused on creating a consistent corporate identity across its
markets and a highly integrated, economically efficient organization. Internal management
attention was devoted to performance measurement systems, including patient satisfaction
measurement; major investment in coordinating its information system; and a corporate-wide
financial control system. Several physician group practices were purchased, and the
difficulties of ―aligning‖ physicians with the health plan and hospitals proved to be a
continuing challenge (Bunderson, Lofstrom and Van de Ven, 1998).
By the year 2000, Allina had grown to include 18 hospitals and to generate gross revenues of
$2.9 billion (Galloro, 2001b), but trouble was on the horizon. The Minnesota Attorney-
General began an investigation into the expenditures of Medica, alleging that Medica
engaged in lavish spending on image consultants, executive salaries and perks, and corporate
entertaining, and that Medica subsidized similar expenditures in other divisions of Allina.
After several months of continuing negative publicity in the local and national press, Allina
in 2001 agreed to split off Medica as an independent not-for-profit organization. The Medica
and Allina boards were replaced by boards appointed with approval of the Attorney-General,
and several top executives in Allina and Medica were replaced. The actions soiled the
reputation of ―one of the country‘s most prominent not-for-profit healthcare systems‖
(Galloro, 2001a). The new leadership of Medica immediately announced a 20% staff layoff
(Howatt, 2001), and new Allina leadership denounced the criticized expenditures as
surprising and inappropriate (Marcotty and Burcum, 2001).

Established Perspectives on Integrated Delivery Systems

Lessons from Allina‘s merger and de-merger with Medica can be interpreted from any
number of established theoretical perspectives. In analyzing the Allina experience, a
contingency perspective would direct attention to inadequacies in the organizational form chosen
by Allina in 1994. That form, the fully vertically and horizontally integrated system, was
predicated on an elusive future in which capitation would rein. Success of the form required that
Allina-affiliated physicians and Medica enrollees would cooperate with ―integration‖ by utilizing
only Allina hospitals. In fact, only about 25% overlap was attained between Medica members

NAPCRG Resources 34
August, 2009
and Allina hospitals, compared to the 75% estimated as necessary to ―reap the benefits of
integration‖ (Galloro, 2001b). From the structural contingency perspective, Allina‘s problems
arose from a strategic choice by Allina‘s top leadership that may have been reasonable for the
environment anticipated in 1994, but which did not emerge as expected.

Transaction cost theorists postulate that loose coupling, via contract, in many cases is
more efficient that the more tightly coupled IDS exemplar (Mick, 1990). A transaction cost
theory approach would focus on the efficiency of full integration of the health plan and of
physicians within a hospital system, and explore the possibility that expected efficiencies never
materialized. As a result, for example, there was little evidence of cost savings that Allina could
offer, to offset external criticism of its internal spending practices.

Institutional theorists have hypothesized that the IDS movement was largely a mimetic
response to pressures for industry conformity (Mohr, 1992). Accordingly, an institutional theory
perspective might suggest that the culture of the Twin Cities and Minnesota promoted
―progressive‖ experimentation in health care delivery, and collective solutions to social
problems, but that a key element of culture – the community responsibility of non-profit
enterprise – was neglected by Allina is its drive for legitimacy in the eyes of employers and
health care industry peers. Allina was an early adopter of structural innovation in the healthcare
industry, but failed to cultivate other important sources of stability and legitimacy.

As with the Brazil AIDs case, established perspectives provide useful ideas for research
on the topic. A complexity science perspective builds on, extends, and deepens understanding of
the Allina case.

Complexity Science Perspective

As noted in discussion of the Brazil AIDS case, the complexity perspective‘s ―view of
the future‖ would equip the researcher to interpret the unfolding of Allina not as a major surprise
or failure, but more of a natural unfolding of learning about complex relationships. The histories
of the entities/agents in the multiple systems would no doubt be relevant to understanding the
differences between Allina‘s hospital, physician, and health plan divisions that created tensions.
Mapping the multiple, nested systems covered by Allina Health System rubric would be a major
undertaking, with consumers, hospitals, health plans, physicians, the local community, and the
State among the major interacting units. Failures at one level (e.g., Allina Health System) may
be successes at another level (e.g., consumers, State).

After identifying the key relationships among individuals and coalitions in Allina‘s
internal subsystems and between those individuals and coalitions and external
organizations/systems, the complexity researcher would want to understand the quality of each
of the relationships. How much participation was there from all parties in the key relationships?
In particular, to what extent did physicians and consumers influence the direction of the hospitals
and the health plan? Through what entities did the health plan relate to the community? What
interests were represented in top management and in setting Allina‘s and Medica‘s strategic
vision?

NAPCRG Resources 35
August, 2009
 A central theme of conventional wisdom on IDS formation is the need to establish a
shared mission. Established perspectives generally argue that successful change occurs when
people are persuaded to hold the same beliefs. Equilibrium and harmony are equated with
success. As argued by Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000:5), however, ―the very difference
managers seek so strenuously to remove is the source of spontaneous, potentially creative
change. . . Managers may be struggling to change their organizations in ways which ensure that
they stay the same.‖ In this sense, a complexity perspective might speculate that the Allina
story, and many other stories of ―failed‖ integration, derive from overstructuration and
overcontrol in an uncertain and dynamic environment. The overcontrol results in the stifling,
rather than generation, of innovative efforts at creating value for consumers (Zimmerman and
Dooley, 2001).

The focus of analysis in complexity research shifts from the externally imposed designs
or intents of designers of systems to how things really unfold in systems. Traditional systems
thinking has created a vicious cycle of (1) design a system, and (2) when the system does not act
as predicted, redesign the system. The assumption is that leaders can control the evolution of
complex systems by intentions and clear thinking. Complexity science leads one to ask different
questions. For example, when an intended design does not play out as predicted, how do things
continue to function? Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000:59) refer to this as the potential to ―get
things done anyway.‖ How do patients continue to get care, and clinicians provide care, despite
the machinations of formal organizations? Complexity science focuses on how this ―anyway‖
behavior unfolds through everyday interactions and in spite of the fact that leaders continue to
focus on the ―systems‖ that attempt to secure predicted changes.

The original decision to merge Allina and HealthSpan in 1994 could represent bold
experimentation by risk-taking executives, and its ―failure‖ re-interpreted as a case of successful
learning on the part of the organization, albeit at the expense of damage to the careers of several
organizational leaders. Researchers from a complexity perspective would be interested in how
Allina‘s structure and strategy coevolved with other forces. To what extent were individuals and
coalitions in Allina resilient and able to ―learn‖? To what extent was Allina ―trapped‖ by the
histories of its component subsystems? In what ways was the emergence of novelty encouraged
or discouraged? Why were ―wicked questions‖ challenging extravagant expenditures not raised
and fully debated internally?

Applied to the structure and performance of IDSs more generally, complexity science
would argue that integration is more effective, and expectations more realistic, when the
complex nature of the ―integrated‖ entity is recognized and addressed from the start. Integration
of complex entities is more effective if they are allowed to ―e-merge‖ rather than if they are
―merged‖ (Zimmerman and Dooley, 2001). Linenkugel‘s (2001:8) conclusion that ―if you‘ve
seen one merger, you‘ve seen one merger‖ reflects the growing acceptance of the complex nature
of integration in health care, as does renewed focus on the process, rather than the structure, of
integration (Burns et al., 2001).

Conclusions

NAPCRG Resources 36
August, 2009
 In considering the experience of health care organizations and the growth of complexity
science in the past two decades, two points stand out. First, health care organizations are a rich
field for the study of complex adaptive systems. To date, organizational researchers using
complexity science have looked towards the ―Santa Fe‖ school, scholars in evolutionary biology
and physics and mathematics, for their inspiration. While the study of the emergence of order in
(for instance) ant colonies may provide useful insights, the most complex systems are social
systems, and health care organizations are the most complex within that subdomain. If one
believes that a science is ―pushed‖ and progresses by studying its most complex problems and
situations, then complexity science needs to coevolve its next set of theories with a vigorous
examination of health and health care management issues.

Second, complexity science should be well-represented among the perspectives available

to health organization researchers interested in furthering contributions to science and to
practice. A more realistic view of the future, in which surprise is anticipated rather than
shunned; the focus on patterns of interaction rather than reified structures; and the continuing
development of new concepts to study the emergence of novelty and the success of distributed
control, all combine to produce a powerful addition to the theoretical complement of the health
organization theorist.

References

AMA (American Medical Association). 2001. ―Brazil May Defy the United States and Make
More AIDs Drugs.‖ Journal of American Medical Association. HIV/AIDs Resource Center,
Reuters Health Information, February 5, 2001. www.ama-
assn.org/special.hiv/newsline/reuters/02068951.html

Anderson, P. 1999. ―Complexity Theory and Organization Science.‖ Organization Science

10(3):216-232.

Arndt, M. and B. Bigelow. 2000. ―Commentary: The Potential of Chaos Theory and
Complexity Theory for Health Services Management.‖ Health Care Management Review
25(1):35-38.

Atchison, T.A. 1999. ―Reply.‖ Frontiers of Health Services Management 16(1):49-50.

Auerbach, J. and T. Coates. 2000. ―HIV Prevention Research: Accomplishments and

Challenges for the Third Decade of AIDS.‖ American Journal of Public Health 90
(7):1029-1032.

Axelrod, R. and M.D. Cohen. 1999. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a

Scientific Frontier (New York: Free Press).

Bazzolli, G.J., Shortell, S.M., Dubbs, N., Chan, C., and P. Kralovec. 1999. ―A Taxonomy of
Health Netweoks and Systems: Bringing Order Out of Chaos.‖ Health Services Research
33(6):1683-1717.

NAPCRG Resources 37
August, 2009
Begun, J.W. 1994. ―Chaos and Complexity: Frontiers of Organizational Science.‖ Journal of
Management Inquiry 3(4):329-335.

Begun, J.W. and R.D. Luke. 2001. ―Factors Underlying Organizational Change in Local Health
Care Markets, 1982-1995.‖ Health Care Management Review 26(2):62-72.

Begun, J.W. and K.R. White. 1999. ―The Profession of Nursing as a Complex Adaptive
System: Strategies for Change.‖ Pp. 189-203 in J.J. Kronenfeld (ed.), Research in the
Sociology of Health Care, vol. 16 (Greenwich, CN: JAI Press).

Bonnel, R. 2000. ―Economic Analysis of HIV/AIDS.‖ Report from The World Bank.
http://www.iaen.org/.

Bunderson, J.S., Lofstrom, S.M., and A.H. Van de Ven. 1998. ―Allina Medical Group: A
Division of Allina Health System.‖ Pp. 602-619 in P.M. Ginter, L.M. Swayne, and W.J.
Duncan, Strategic Management of Health Care Organizations, third ed. (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers).

Burke, W.W. 1992. ―Metaphors to Consult By.‖ Group and Organizational Management
17(3):255-259.

Burns, L.R., Walston, S.L., Alexander, J.A., Zuckerman, H.S., Andersen, R.M., Torrens, P.R.,
and D. Hilberman. 2001. ―Just How Integrated Are Integrated Delivery Systems? Results
from a National Survey.‖ Health Care Management Review 26(1):20-39.

CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1998. ―Trends in Sexual Risk
Behaviors among High School Students—United States, 1991-1997.‖ MMWR Morbidity
Mortality Weekly Report 47: 749-52.

CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2000. Centers for Disease Control
Daily News, September 22. www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/newsline/ cdd/091800g3.htm

CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2001. HIV Prevention Strategic Plan
Through 2005. January.

Choi, T. and K. Dooley. 2000. ―Conceptualizing Supply Networks as a Complex System: Its
Meaning, Its Properties, And Managerial Implications.‖ Journal of Operations Management
19:351-366.

Coffey, R.J., Fenner, K.M., and S.L. Stogis. 1997. Virtually Integrated Health Systems (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal. 1990. ―Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Innovation.‖ Administrative Science Quarterly 35:128-152.

NAPCRG Resources 38
August, 2009
Corman, S., Kuhn, T., McPhee, R., and K. Dooley. 2002. ―Studying Complex Discursive
Systems: Centering Resonance Analysis of Organizational Communication.‖ Human
Communication Research, forthcoming.

Damanpour, F. 1996. ―Bureaucracy and Innovation Revisited: Effects of Contingency Factors,

Industrial Sectors, and Innovation Characteristics.‖ Journal of High Technology
Management Research 7(2):149-173.

Darlington, S. 2000. ―Brazil Becomes Model in AIDs Fight.‖ Reuters NewsMedia, November
7, 2000. www.aegis.org/news/re/2000/re001107.html

Dent, E.B. 1999. ―Complexity Science: A Worldview Shift.‖ Emergence 1(4):5-19.

Des Jarlais, D.C., Marmor, M., Friedmann, P., Titus, S., Aviles, E., Derea, S., Torian, L.,
Glebatis, D., Murrill, C., Monterros, E., and S.R. Friedman. 2000. ―HIV Incidence among
Injection Drug Users in New York City, 1992-1997: Evidence for a Declining Epidemic.‖
American Journal of Public Health 90:352-359.

DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell. 1983. ―The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.‖ American Sociological Review 48:147-160.

Dooley, K., 2002a. ―Organizational Complexity.‖ In M. Warner (ed.), International

Encyclopedia of Business and Management (London: Thompson Learning, forthcoming).

Dooley, K. 2002b. ―Simulation Research Methods.‖ In J. Baum (ed.), Companion to

Organizations (London: Blackwell, forthcoming).

Dooley, K., and S. Guastello. 1994. ―Research Methods for Studying Chaos and Complexity.‖
Evolving Complexity: Challenges to Society, Economy, and Individual (Dallas).

Dooley, K. and P. Plsek. 2001. ―A Complex Systems Perspective on Medication Errors.‖

Working Paper, Arizona State University

Dooley, K. and A. Van de Ven. 1999. ―Explaining Complex Organizational Dynamics.‖

Organization Science 10(3):358-372.

Downie, A. 2001. ―Brazil: Showing Others the Way.‖ San Francisco Chronicle, March 25,
2001. www.aegis.org/news/sc/2001/sc010310.html

Eoyang, G.H. and T.H. Berkas. 1999. ―Evaluating Performance in a Complex, Adaptive System
(CAS).‖ Pp. 313-335 in Lissak, M.R. and H.P. Gunz (eds.), Managing Complexity in
Organizations: A View in Many Directions (Westport, CN: Quorum).

Eve, R.A., Horsfall, S. and M.E. Lee (eds.). 1997. Chaos, Complexity, and Sociology: Myths,
Models, and Theories (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

NAPCRG Resources 39
August, 2009
Fiol, C.M. 1996. ―Squeezing Harder Doesn‘t Always Work: Continuing the Search for
Consistency in Innovation Research.‖ Academy of Management Review 21(4):1012-1021.

Friedman, L. and J. Goes. 2001. ―Why Integrated Health Networks Have Failed.‖ Frontiers of
Health Services Management 17(4):3-28.

Gallistel, C. 1990. The Organization of Learning (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Galloro, V. 2001a. ―Allina Under Fire.‖ Modern Healthcare (March 26):4,14.

Galloro, V. 2001b. ―The Big Breakup.‖ Modern Healthcare (July 30):4-5.

Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Viking Penguin).

Glouberman, S. and H. Mintzberg. 2001a. ―Managing the Care of Health and the Cure of
Disease – Part I: Differentiation.‖ Health Care Management Review 26(1):56-69.

Glouberman, S. and H. Mintzberg. 2001b. ―Managing the Care of Health and the Cure of
Disease – Part II: Integration.‖ Health Care Management Review 26(1):70-87.

Goldstein, J. 2000. ―Emergence: A Construct Amid a Thicket of Conceptual Snares.‖

Emergence 2(1):5-22.

Goldstein, J. 1994. The Unshackled Organization: Facing the Challenge of Unpredictability

through Spontaneous Reorganization (Portland, OR: Productivity Press).

Grazman, D. and A. Van de Ven. 1996. ―The History of Allina Health System.‖ Working
Paper, Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota.

Hallyn, F. 1990. The Poetic Structure of the World: Copernicus and Kepler (New York: Zone
Books).

HCFA (U.S. Health Care Financing Administration) and NSF (National Science Foundation).
2001. http://grants.nih.gov

Health Care Review. 1999. ―An Interview with Merlin I. Olson.‖ Health Care Review May:1-4.

Howatt, G. 2001. ―Medica Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Staff.‖ Minneapolis Star Tribune
(November 6):D1,D2.

Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and
Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press).

Kauffman, S.A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution
(New York: Oxford University Press).

NAPCRG Resources 40
August, 2009
Kauffman, S.A. 1995. At Home in the Universe (New York: Oxford University Press).

Kelly, S. and M.A. Allison. 1999. The Complexity Advantage: How the Science of Complexity
Can Help Your Business Achieve Peak Performance (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Kiel, L.D. and E. Elliott (eds.). Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and
Applications (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).

Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J., and M.S. Donaldson (eds.). 2000. To Err is Human: Building a Safer
Health System (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Kontopolous, K. 1993. The Logic of Social Structure (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).

Latkin, C.A., Madell, W, Vlahov, D., Oziemkowska, M., and D. Celentano. 1996. ―The Long-
term Outcome of Personal Network-oriented HIV Prevention Intervention for Injection Drug
Users: The SAFE Study.‖ American Journal of Community Psychiatry 24:341-364.

Lewin, R. 1992. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (New York: Macmillan).

Lewin, R. and B. Regine. 2000. The Soul at Work (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Lichtenstein, B.B. 2000. ―Self-Organized Transitions: A Pattern Amid the Chaos of

Transformative Change.‖ Academy of Management Executive 14(4):128-141.

Linenkugel, N. 2001. Lessons from Mergers (Chicago: Health Administration Press).

Lissak, M.R. 1999. ―Complexity and Management: It Is More than Jargon.‖ Pp. 11-28 in
Lissak, M.R. and H.P. Gunz (eds.), Managing Complexity in Organizations: A View in Many
Directions (Westport, CN: Quorum).

Maguire, S. and W. McKelvey. 1999. ―Complexity and Management: Moving from Fad to Firm
Foundations.‖ Emergence 1(2):19-61.

Marcotty, J. and J. Burcum. 2001. ―Allina Leader Agrees Perks Were Wrong.‖ Minneapolis
Star Tribune (September 87):A1, A9.

Marion, R. 1999. The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social
Systems (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Marion, R. and J. Bacon. 2000. ―Organizational Extinction and Complex Systems.‖ Emergence
1(4):71-96.

NAPCRG Resources 41
August, 2009
McDaniel, Jr., R.R. 1997. ―Strategic Leadership: A View from Quantum and Chaos Theories.‖
Health Care Management Review 22(1):21-37.

McDaniel, Jr., R.R. and D.J. Driebe. 2001. ―Complexity Science and Health Care
Management.‖ Pp. 11-36 in M.D. Fottler, G.T. Savage and J.D. Blair (eds.), Advances in
Health Care Management (Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science).

Mick, S.S. 1990. ―Explaining Vertical Integration in Health Care: An Analysis and Synthesis of
Transaction-Cost Economics and Strategic-Management Theory.‖ Pp. 207-240 in S.S Mick
(ed.), Innovation in Health Care Delivery (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Mohr, R.A. 1992. ―An Institutional Perspective on Rational Myths and Organizational Change
in Health Care.‖ Medical Care Review 49(2):233-255.

Morgan, G. 1997. Images of Organization, second ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Morrison, I. 2000. Health Care in the New Millennium: Vision, Values, and Leadership (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Olson, E. and G. Eoyang. 2001. Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity
Science (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Popper, K. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Routledge).

Priesmeyer, H.R. Organizations and Chaos: Defining the Methods of Nonlinear Management
(Westport, Connecticut: Quorum).

Priesmeyer, H.R. and L.F. Sharp. 1995. ―Phase Plane Analysis: Applying Chaos Theory in
Health Care.‖ Quality Management in Health Care 4(1):62-70.

Priesmeyer, H.R., Sharp, L.F., Wammack, L. and J.D. Mabrey. 1996. ―Chaos Theory and
Clinical Pathways: A Practical Application.‖ Quality Management in Health Care 4(4):63-
72.

Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers. 1984. Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature
(New York: Bantam).

Rogers, E. 1995. The Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press).

Rosenberg, T. 2001. ―Look at Brazil.‖ New York Times Magazine, January 28, 2001, pp. 26-54.
www.accessmed-msg.org/msf.accessmed/accessmed2.nsf/iwpList4

Savage, G.T. and A.M. Roboski. 2001. ―Integration as Networks and Systems: A Strategic
Stakeholder Analysis.‖ Pp. 37-62 in Advances in Health Care Management, vol. 2 (London:
Elsevier Science)

NAPCRG Resources 42
August, 2009
Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New
York: Doubleday/Currency).

Sharp, L.F. and H.R. Priesmeyer. 1995. ―Tutorial: Chaos Theory – A Primer for Health Care.‖
Quality Management in Health Care 3(4):71-86.

Shortell, S.M., Gillies, R.R., Anderson, D.A., Erickson, K.M., and J.B. Mitchell. 1996.
Remaking Health Care in America, first ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Shortell, S.M., Gillies, R.R., Anderson, D.A., Erickson, K.M., and J.B. Mitchell. 2000.
Remaking Health Care in America, second ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Snyder, J. 2001. ―Valley Hospitals Use Computer Alerts to Foil Errors.‖ Arizona Republic,
December 10, 2001.

Souder, W. and R. Moenhart. 1992. ―Integrating Marketing and R&D Personnel within
Innovation Projects: An Information Uncertainty Model.‖ Journal of Management Studies
29:485-512.

Stacey, R.D. 1992. Managing the Unknowable: Strategic Boundaries between Order and Chaos
in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Stacey, R.D. 1999. Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of
Complexity, third ed. (London: Trans-Atlantic).

Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D. and P. Shaw. 2000. Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical
Challenge to Systems Thinking? (New York: Routledge).

Stiles, R.A., Mick, S.S., and C.G. Wise. 2001. ―The Logic of Transaction Cost Economics in
Health Care Organization Theory.‖ Health Care Management Review 26(2):85-92.

Turbayne, C.M. 1962. The Myth of Metaphor (Columbia, S.C.: University of South
Carolina Press).

UNAIDS/WHO. 2000a. ―UNAIDS/WHO Epidemiological Fact Sheets on HIV/AIDS and

Sexually Transmitted Infections,‖ 2000 update (revised).

UNAIDS/WHO. 2000b. AIDS Epidemic Update. UNAIDS/00.44E.

Van de Ven, A., Polley, D.E., Garud, R. and S. Venkataraman. 1999. The Innovation Journey
(New York: Oxford University Press).

Wakefield, J. 2001. ―Complexity‘s Business Model.‖ Scientific American (January).

Waldrop, M.M. 1992. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (New
York: Simon & Schuster).

NAPCRG Resources 43
August, 2009
Wells, R. 2001. ―How Institutional Theory Speaks to Change in Organizational Populations.‖
Health Care Management Review 26(2):80-84.

Wheatley, M. J. 1992. Leadership and the New Science (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler).

World Bank. 1997. Confronting AIDs: Public Priorities in a Global Epidemic (New York:
Oxford University Press).

Young, D.W. and S.M. McCarthy. 1999. Managing Integrated Delivery Systems (Chicago:
Health Administration Press).

Young, G.J., Parker, V.A., and M.P. Charns. 2001. ―Provider Integration and Local Market
Conditions: A Contingency Theory Perspective.‖ Health Care Management Review
26(2):73-79.

Zimmerman, B. 1991. Strategy, Chaos and Equilibrium: A Case Study of Federal Metals Inc.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Toronto, Canada.

Zimmerman, B. 1993. ―The Inherent Drive Towards Chaos.‖ Pp. 373-393 in Lorange, P.,
Chakravarthy, B., Roos, J. and A Van de Ven (eds.), Implementing Strategic Processes:
Change, Learning and Cooperation (London: Blackwell Business).

Zimmerman, B. and K. Dooley. 2001. ―Mergers versus Emergers: Rethinking Structural

Change in Health Care Systems.‖ Working paper, McGill University.

Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C. and P. Plsek. 1998. Edgeware: Insights from Complexity Science
for Health Care Leaders (Irving, TX: VHA).

This article is found on the Plexus Institute website

http://www.plexusinstitute.org/ideas/show_elibrary.cfm?id=237

Finally, the Plexus Institute website has a library of materials on complexity science and
health care (http://www.plexusinstitute.org/ideas/theme_elibrary.cfm?id=6) that we recommend.
These materials deal with a variety of health care topics but are generally written for those with
only a basic understanding of complexity science.

NAPCRG Resources 44
August, 2009