(pronounced kun-ev’in): The name of a sense-making framework proposed by Snowden (2002) . It is a knowledge space with five domains setting the context for collective decision making which has been used in knowledge management as well as other applications including conflict resolution. The domains are, characterized by the relationship between cause and effect. The first four domains are 1. Simple or Known, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all; the approach is to Sense–Categorize–Respond , and we can apply best practice. 2. Complicated or Knowable, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge; the approach is to Sense–Analyze–Respond , and we can apply good practice. 3. Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance; the approach is to Probe–Sense–Respond , and we can sense emergent practice. 4. Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level; the approach is to Act–Sense–Respond , and we can discover novel practice. The fifth domain is Disorder , which is the state of not knowing what type of causality exists, in which state people will revert to their comfort zone in making a decision.
Published in Chapter:
Complex Organizations and Information Systems
Leoni Warne (Department of Defence, Australia), Helen Hasan (University of Wollongong, Australia), and Henry Linger (Monash University, Australia)
Copyright: © 2009
|Pages: 9
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch102
Abstract
In modern organizations, information, and particularly knowledge, is known to be the most strategically important resource. The defining characteristics of modern organizational forms are purported to be flatter hierarchies, decentralized decision making, greater capacity for tolerance of ambiguity, permeable boundaries, capacity for renewal, self-organizing units, continual change, and an increasingly complex environment (Daft & Lewin, 1993; Warne, Ali, Bopping, Hart, & Pascoe, 2004). Yet, many systems that are developed to support organizational activities continue to fail at an alarming rate (Hart & Warne, 2005; Warne, 2002). Many explanations have been offered for such failures (e.g., DeLone & McLean, 1992; Fortune & Peters, 2005; Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1987; Sauer, 1993; Warne, 2002), but contradictions and stresses continue to confound organizations and their use of information and communications technology (ICT). The challenge for information systems (IS) research and practice is to articulate an organizational paradigm, including its structures, forms, and systems, that will enable the organization to be agile, innovative, and have the capacity to learn. This article discusses some of the parameters for a new contemporary model for organizations.