4. More?

More is defined, in the Oxford Dictionaries Online, as:

A greater or additional amount or degree.

More may be related to synergy, see http://systemspedia.org/entry.aspx?entry=3311

More may be related to gestalt, see http://systemspedia.org/entry.aspx?entry=1428

"Equilibrium 2" CC-BY Guido Sorarù at https://www.flickr.com/photos/guidosoraru/38330537382/

4.1 How could there be more?

Different from the parts.

4.2 is there more for the individual and more for the group?

Could there be less?

(2004-2005) Part C. More

{2005/07/03, DLH in Cancun: The target for this part should be people who have a wonder, and haven't figured things out. CEOs can appreciate this part.}

{2005/07/03, DLH in Cancun: The path for youth used to be continous. It's now missing links, so that they have to jump over gaps.}

<< Equivalent to Emery & Trist Type 4, Turbulent >>

<< Examples to be incorporated >>

The follow-the-sun world, of digital technologies, just-in-time delivery, social networks and multinational companies x

<< Concepts to be incorporated >>

Emery & Trist, Turbulent

Socio-ecological systems

x

C.1 A "more" orientation is consistent with multiple and conflicting goals and opaque means

<< Need to cite an example, first >>

<< Describe non-distinct motivations >>

A “more” approach is required when the offering of a service or product to each individual customer or constituent is not easily articulated. In these dealings, clear blacks or whites are overwhelmed by the many shades of grey. These shades of grey may be due to the dynamics in the decision-making process. The customer may not be a single decision maker, but instead a committee deliberating on their best long-term interests. In addition, external events may drive different priorities on different days. A crisis may not only result in delay of decision being made, but priorities being reassessed. Immediate benefits versus long-horizon rewards are always a concern. Consequences and long-term impacts are uncertain.

These situations are often describes as messes. Solving one problem only leads to an issue on another problem. The inability to clearly articulate decision-making criteria is not due to lack of intelligence. In fact, although some individuals may be portrayed as “political” in their motivations, they often need to weigh the conflicting motivations and interests for their own constituents, and come to hard decisions on their own.

When a “more” approach is required, it is common to have long-running relationships, with a few number of incumbents, and a known stable of credible competitors. When one business surprises the customer or constituent with a failure, the memory is hard to erase. A business with a legacy of reliability and sustainability is generally more trusted than a unfamiliar supplier with a leapfrog innovation who could turn out to be a “flash in the pan”.

<< Describe fractal >>

To work through the lack of articulation of priorities and demands, skilled negotiators with high sensitivities to nuances most probably are required. These sensemakers are able to see through complex situations that confuse others. Such unique individuals may or may not be able to provide linear reasoning of why events or circumstances are perceived in particular ways, but the can understand how they should be dealt with. They may not be able to provide hard-and-fast rules, but might provide situational protocols that will initially keep others out of trouble.

Sensemaking in complex situations is a unique skill acquired by experience. Detractors may be envious of such skills, describing the most successful negotiators as “political animals”. In fact, the representatives of the business may be a single key individual, or a small team with an unidentifiable chemistry to get things done. Roles are hand-picked by senior management, to work through tough jobs. Those selected are not necessarily given those positions to be liked; they are given the responsibility to make tough decisions that have long-lasting impacts.

Understanding “what the customer want”, or “how the constituent will be satisfied” can not be reduced to a simple equation. The sensemakers representing the business will often be challenged with “the road not taken”, but evaluating their decisions in the long term is difficult. When all alternatives are expected to lead to bad results, choosing the best from the worst is an unenviable position.

<< Describe why “more” works well in a complex system conception, but not necessarily others >>

The business environment that drives a “more” approach is one where one problem is knotted with another, and impossible to straighten out. Conceiving of the situation as a simple problem results in a perception of a simple-minded solution that most customers and constituents will reject as short-sighted or “stupid”. Attempting to reframe the problem as complicated may be seen as pandering to one constituent over the other. When preferential treatment and benefits are clearly visible to segments who don't receive them, public outcries of “unfair treatment” are likely to follow.

A business conceived as complex often comes with a legacy. The way things are today are a result of the way things were. Customers expect a level of quality or service in the future, because they have been accustomed to that in the past. These may have been entitlements that were artifacts from a more prosperous or dynamic period. << It's possible to cite French Canadians, indigenous peoples, the structure of the oil industry after the Rockefellers' Standard Oil, the AT&T breakup >>

<< DI: The following sections are written less intensively, mostly as outlines to be filled out, if we decide this is the right direction >>

C.2 A "more" orientation works in embedded locations, on indeterminate time

<< Need to cite an example, first >>

<< Describe “embedded” >>

In a “more” orientation, the location of the business doesn\'t matter; it\'s the location of the customer that matters. The customer wants to be pampered, and requires the business to bend over backwards to suit him or her. The business puts the customer first, and is willing to send representatives, sometimes by airplane, to wherever the customer finds convenient.

<< Describe “indeterminate” >>

In the “more” orientation, the time scale is driven by the customer. When the customer is in a hurry, the business must respond immediately. This schedule is probably mostly unpredictable, because the customer's time is so valuable.

<< Describe why “more” works well in a complex system conception, but not necessarily others >>

This where and when is sometimes described as a “dispatching” or “taxi driver” design to business. It is at the convenience of the customer, who is willing to pay for it.

This business is probably not scalable as a “best” business, because it's too subject to the whims of the customer. It may not be extensible beyond a personal service.

An attempt to make this “more” business into a “both” business is described in the “mass customization” approach. This approach attempts to create stable processes for dynamic requests. This may not work in a true “more” environment, because mass customization may have to severely limit the types of requests possible, in order to make production feasible and economical.