Advertisement

Coordinated Tension: The “Secret Sauce” to Enable Decision-Making in a Global Health Complex Adaptive System

  • Robert C. HausmannEmail author
  • Ferdinando Regalia
  • Emma Iriarte
  • Jennifer Nelson
Chapter

Abstract

Many resources and approaches have been used to improve health in a global context; however, change at scale, especially in the hardest to reach areas, is a challenge. The Salud Mesoamerica Initiative (SMI) was created to test a new way to intervene in this space. After 5 years of implementation, SMI has demonstrated positive results through their results-based financing plus model.

The distinctions found in complex adaptive systems help to describe the organizational, social, and technological solutions associated with scaling-up global health innovations, particularly the mechanisms of exploration, exploitation, and coordination which are inherent in the learning process. In a complex and dynamic setting such as improving health outcomes for women and children, the type of output to be produced is a function of the actions at all levels of the system to attain a change in health coverage or status.

We examined the SMI experience through a complexity science lens to describe the mechanisms at work within the program to detect elements which could be potentially adapted and replicated in other contexts. We find that SMI created a learning system within the global health complex adaptive system to achieve results which relied on three main elements: (1) system of rules (exploitation); (2) system of actors and variation (exploration); and (3) coordinated system of learning. To manage the tension between exploitation and exploration systems, the learning system intentionally created a feedback mechanism that required specific data, the right actors, enabling factors, and adaptive coordination abilities. Based on this experience, we find that to manage complex adaptive systems and balance the tension between exploitation and exploration, it is necessary to create coordinated learning systems with four critical objectives: creating a learning environment, experimentation, translation, and brokering. This chapter describes how these elements were applied in SMI, lessons learned, and remaining questions for scale-up, sustainability, and future replication.

References

  1. 1.
    Holland JH. Genetic algorithms and the optimal allocation of trials. SIAM J Comput. 1973;2(2):88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thietart RA, Forgues B. Chaos theory and organization. Organ Sci. 1995;6(1):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dooley KJ. A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dyn Psychol Life Sci. 1997;1(1):69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson P. Complexity theory and organization science. Organ Sci. 1999;10(3):216–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plesk PE, Wilson T. Complexity, leadership, and management in healthcare organizations. BMJ. 2001;323(7315):746–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Long JC, Ellis LA, Herkes J. When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BMC Med. 2018;218;16(1):63.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckley W. Society as a complex adaptive system. Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist. Chicago: Aldine; 1968. p. 490–513.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plowman DA, Solansky S, Beck TE, Baker LK Kulkarni M, Travis DV. The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. Leadersh Q. 2007;18(4):341–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hausmann RC. Organizing ecosystems for social innovation: the relationality of contexts and mechanisms in a social entrepreneurship network. Unpublished manuscript. George Washington University; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giddens A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration (reprint ed.). Berkley: University of California Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barley SR, Tolbert PS. Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organ Stud. 1997;18(1):93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stones R. Structuration theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Axelrod RM, Cohen MD. Harnessing complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Basic Books; 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadersh Q. 2007;18(4):298–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldstein J, Hazy JK, Silberstang J. A complexity science model of social innovation in social enterprise. J Soc. Entrep. 2010;1(1):101–25.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis MW, Andriopoulos C, Smith WK. Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2014:56(3):58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hazy JK. Parsing the ‘influential increment’ in the language of complexity: uncovering the systemic mechanisms of leadership influence. Int J Complex Leadersh Manag. 2011;1(2): 164–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maturana HR, Varela FJ. The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding, Paolucci R. (Trans.). Boston: Shambhala; 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weick KE. Sensemaking in organizations. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hazy JK, Backström, T. Complexity and human interaction dynamics. Complexity. 2014;15(4). http://sm2015.org/es/iniciativa-salud-mesoamerica/iniciativa-salud-mesoamerica-inicio,1904.html
  21. 21.
    Eichler R, Nelson J, Iriarte E, Gigli S, Zúñiga Brenes P, Ríos-Zertuche D. The initial prize in the Salud Mesoamérica Initiative results-based aid initiative (Technical Report No. 1314). Inter-American Development Bank; 2017. https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/8566
  22. 22.
    Mokdad AH, Colson KE, Zúñiga-Brenes P, Ríos-Zertuche D, Palmisano EB, Alfaro-Porras E, et al. Salud Mesoamérica 2015 Initiative: design, implementation, and baseline findings. Popul Health Metr. 2015;13(1):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    El Bcheraoui C, Palmisano EB, Dansereau E, Schaefer A, Woldeab A, Moradi-Lakeh M, Salvatierra B, Hernandez-Prado B, Mokdad AH. Healthy competition drives success in results-based aid: lessons from the Salud Mesoamérica Initiative. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0187107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boisot M, Mckelvey B. Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: a complexity science bridge. Acad Manag Rev. 2010;35(3):415–33.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shirky C. Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Press; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert C. Hausmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ferdinando Regalia
    • 2
  • Emma Iriarte
    • 2
  • Jennifer Nelson
    • 2
  1. 1.College of EducationThe University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Social Protection and HealthThe Inter-American Development BankWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations