What Makes a Situation Complex?

by Gregory J. Vigneaux

Introduction

I have been a student of complexity for twelve years and have not yet become tired of talking about the subject. In our everyday language, we may hear or say that a situation is “complex.” However, what does that mean? The purpose of the following is to provide a generalized introduction to complexity through complex situations and how to interact with them accordingly.

There are many potential definitions and even a list of characteristics that could be used to assign meaning to the word “complex,” but it is far more valuable to discuss complexity than it is just to define it. In the pursuit of understanding what complex means, a complex situation is hard to refer to, describe, explain, and pin down because it produces confusion, uncertainty, and awe, and remains in the process of becoming a complex situation (Holland, 1992; Morin, 2002).

Complex Situations 

If it is known what a complex situation is like, what makes it complex? Complex situations embody a dynamic mixture of stability, called order, and instability, referred to as disorder (Morin, 2008). This mixture is dynamic, with order and disorder shifting in their amounts and their nature. Ordered elements are those that, even temporarily, are congruent with the following definition: Order is defined as recurrence, unchanging, and as if “having the dependence of law” (Morin, 2008, p.62).  In this mixture, there are areas of order that can be identified and are able to be known, in theory, but are swirling around quickly in a fluid-like disorder so fast and randomly, it is impossible to grasp hold of them (Waldrop, 1992). Disorder, on the other hand, is change, randomness, noise, variability, lack of predictability, and diverging from what is considered typical (Morin, 2008). As mentioned earlier, disorder is like a fluid, while the ordered elements may be more of a solid.  

In complex situations, order and disorder exist at the same time, leaving ordered islands to tumble around in the fluid of disorder, which makes decision-making and strategy setting difficult in the complex context (Waldrop, 1992). As Morin (2008) refers to complexity as a mixture, he leaves room for that mixture to change. The mixture may become more disorderly with smaller and fewer areas of order. Alternatively, the mixture may also become more ordered, introducing more and larger islands of order that disorder swiftly moves among. The mixture may fluctuate within the constraints of becoming an ordered situation or a chaotic situation. Within these constraints, the situation may change dynamically. The situation may also transition to becoming an ordered one through the introduction of increasing amounts of order, or chaotic through the addition of more disorder. As different states may emerge (ordered, complex, chaotic), it is important not to mistakenly identify a situation as being of one state, such as ordered, when it is more accurately identified as complex, as strategy and tactics change correspondingly.

When situations are talked about as complex, they embody a dynamic mixture of order and disorder that is quickly changing and is therefore difficult to understand. In complex situations, causality changes. Causes do not equal local, proportionate, or discernable effects, making the situation harder to gather, describe, and explain as it is uncertain which causes are producing which effects, if any. As they are surrounded by disorder, it is difficult to discern how the islands of stability are interacting with one another and the disorder, especially with the added lack of knowledge produced by unclear relations of cause and effect. This creates uncertainty and gaps in knowledge, and makes it impossible to predict what strategy would be most effective with certainty; however, retrospectively, it may be discovered that someone was correct earlier, though there would be no way of knowing so until after the fact (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000).

Interaction

Strategies for interacting with a complex situation may begin with first waiting, observing, and seeing what unfolds, though it is important to note that what has already unfolded will not happen again. The complex situation does not repeat itself. Still, a sample of the situation’s behavior may prove to be useful. The complex situation’s mixture may transition either to chaotic or ordered, which would change strategy immensely, whether during observation or being in the complex situation and interacting with it.

Following waiting and observing, and noticing the inherent lack of prediction belonging to the situation, it is prudent to act over short time spans nimbly and try many different ways of interacting with the complex situation that avoid over-committing resources to long-term strategies. In a quickly evolving complex situation, long-term strategies ultimately have a short-term shelf life as the dynamic mixture of order and disorder fluctuates, and the ordered elements float around in the liquid of disorder, producing constant change. By designing and deploying multiple strategies founded on short time frames and recording their outcomes, the opportunity to learn about the situation through feedback increases, as do observations of the situation’s patterns. The patterns that emerge from the situation become coherent in retrospect, much like predictions of what will be effective, and create openings to learn about the situation. Through multiple strategies, even if they all fail, any elements that were successful can be brought together to form part of or a whole strategy that can then be tested (Holland, 2014). In complex situations, interaction follows the format of several people taking short steps into the situation, following a strategy, feeding information about the situation back to the group, determining what works and what does not, and then waiting for patterns to appear that can be used to influence the situation (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Snowden & Boone, 2007).

Conclusion 

The above has endeavored to provide a general introduction to complexity through the use of complex situations that are encountered throughout wildfire. For that reason, this post presented complexity universally, so it would have more value than writing from the perspective of any one discipline within wildland fire. Having a working knowledge of complexity, as well as order and chaos, provides a set of concepts, language, and understandings that can be used to navigate work throughout wildfire.

References

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17–30.

Holland, J. H. (2014). Signals and boundaries: Building blocks for complex adaptive systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483.

Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. (R. Postel, Trans.) Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Morin, E. (2002). The epistemology of complexity. In J. Schnitman & D. F. Schnitman (Eds.), New paradigms, culture and subjectivity (pp. 325–341). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Touchstone.

 About the author

Gregory Vigneaux is a speaker, author, researcher, consultant, and wildland firefighter coach. Learn more about his work here: https://www.operationalcoherence.com/