Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A co-evolutionary complex systems perspective on information systems

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Information Technology

Abstract

The co-evolution of information systems (IS) and the processes that underpin the construction and development of IT systems are explained from a complex systems perspective. Evolution operates at the microscopic level; in organizations, this is the individual or agent. Each agent has an idiosyncratic view of the organization, using to some extent personal constructs in dealing with the reality of organizational life. These objects or constructs can be described and measured by most agents; they are well defined. Many of these objects are represented in electronic, IT systems. Each agent also has their own view as to how they know what they know, that is, their epistemology, which we argue is their IS, and is wider than the IT systems they use. The IS of each agent co-evolves, by interaction with other agents, based on the agent's view of reality. The interaction of all agents constitutes the organization. Even more importantly, different values and interests motivate each agent. This is their axiology and it is what motivates them to learn and to develop their IS. An agent-based axiological framework is essential to understanding the evolution of organizations. It is the interaction of agents that builds consensus as to the shared reality of the organization, and this affects each agent's ability and motivation to evolve IS further. In addition, we propose that it is time that IT systems included modelling capabilities, based on multi-agent representations of the organization and its context, to explore and support strategic thinking and decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, P.M. (1976). Evolution, Population Dynamics and Stability, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73 (3): 665–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M. (2004). The Complexity of Structure, Strategy and Decision Making, in J. Foster and J.S. Metcalfe (eds.) Evolution and Economic Complexity, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 85–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M. and McGlade, J.M. (1987). Evolutionary Drive: The effect of microscopic diversity, error making & noise, Foundation of Physics 17 (7): 723–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M. and Strathern, M. (2004). Evolution, Emergence and Learning in Complex Systems, Emergence 5 (4): 8–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M., Strathern, M. and Baldwin, J.S. (2006). Evolutionary Drive: New understanding of change in socio-economic systems, Emergence Complexity & Organization 8 (2): 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M. (1994). Coherence, Chaos and Evolution in the Social Context, Futures 26 (6): 583–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M. (2001a). A Complex Systems Approach to Learning, Adaptive Networks, International Journal of Innovation Management 5 (2): 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P.M. (2001b). What Is Complexity Science? Knowledge of the Limits to Knowledge, Emergence 3 (1): 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J.S., Allen, P.M., Winder, B. and Ridgway, K. (2003). Simulating the Cladistic Evolution of Manufacturing, Journal of Innovation Management, Policy and Practice 5 (3): 144–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruderer, E. and Singh, J.V. (1996). Organization Evolution, Learning and Selection: A Genetic-Algorithm Based Model, Academy Management Journal 39 (5): 1322–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (1996). Paradox Lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending, Management Science 42 (4): 541–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R.A. (1983). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a process study, Management Science 29 (12): 1349–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot: UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, W.D. (1989). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (II): Chaos and catastrophes among quantum jumps, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 14 (2): 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K.M. (2002). Intra-Organizational Complexity and Computation, in J.A.C. Baum (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 208–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casti, J.L. (1997). Would-Be Worlds: How Simulation Is Changing the Frontiers of Science, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. (1999). Commentary on the Organizational Science Special Issue on Complexity, Organization Science 10 (3): 373–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coveney, P. and Highfield, R. (1995). Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World, New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curd, M. and Cover, J.A. (1998). Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems, Academy of Management Review 9 (2): 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, P., Christopher, M. and Allen, P.M. (2006). Proceedings of the EIASM Conference, Oxford: June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J.R. (1977). Organizational Design, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giaglis, G.M., Hlupic, V., de Vreede, G.-J. and Verbraeck, A. (2005). Synchronous Design of Business Processes and Information Systems Using Dynamic Process Modelling, Business Process Management Journal 11 (5): 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1988). Organizational Design Types, Tracks and the Dynamics of Strategic Change, Organization Studies 9 (3): 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerstein, P. (2001). Evolutionary Adaptation and the Economic Concept of Bounded Rationality – A dialogue, in G. Gigerenzer and R. Selten (eds.) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations, American Journal of Sociology 82: 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, C.R., Thibault, L., Slack, T. and Kikulis, L.M. (1996). Values and Organizational Structure, Human Relations 49 (7): 885–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1998). Emergence: From Chaos to Order, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1975). Design for Evolution: Self-Organization and Planning in the Life of Human Systems, New York: Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1983). The Self-Organizing Universe, 1st edn Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.L. and Burton, B.K. (1994). Chaos and Complexity Theory for Management; Caveat Emptor, Journal of Management Inquiry 3 (4): 320–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S.A. (1995a). At Home in the Universe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S.A. (1995b). Escaping the Red Queen Effect, The McKinsey Quarterly 1: 119–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S.A. and Macready, W. (1995). Technological Evolution and Adaptive Organizations, Complexity 1 (2): 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, S.F. and Burgess, T.F. (2006). Beyond Critical Success Factors: A dynamic model of enterprise system innovation, International Journal of Information Management 26: 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, A. and Lind, B. (2005). Systems Research and Behaviour Science, Systems Research and Behavioural Science 22: 453–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K., Sun, L. and Bennett, K. (2002). Co-Design of Business and IT Systems – Introduction by Guest Editors, Information Systems Frontiers 4 (3): 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, E.N. (1963). Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20 (1): 30–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I.P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P.M. and Rose-Anderssen, C. (2006). New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions, Journal of Product Innovation Management 23: 437–456.

  • McKelvey, B. (1999). Toward a Campbellian Realist Organization Science, in J.A.C. Baum and B. McKelvey (eds.) Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T, Thousand Oaks: Campbell, Sage Publications Inc, pp. 383–411.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (2002). Model-Centred Organization Science Epistemology, in J.A.C. Baum (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 752–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihata, K. (1997). The Persistence of Emergence, in Eve, R.A., Horsfall, S. and Lee, M.E. (eds.) Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: Myths, Models & Theories, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc, pp. 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, B. and Ramanujam, R. (1999). Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems, Organization Science 10 (3): 278–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, L. (1988). Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-renewal in Japanese firms, California Management Review 30 (3): 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, D.L., Butler, J.C., Pearlson, K.E. and Whinston, A.B. (1996). Computationally Modeling Organizational Learning and Adaptability As Resource Allocation: An artificial adaptive systems approach, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 2 (4): 301–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranson, S., Hinings, B. and Greenwood, R. (1980). The Structuring of Organizational Structures, Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 1st edn. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (2001). Complex Systems: The interplay of organizations and markets in contemporary society, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 7 (2): 79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, K. (1997). The Impact of Technological Complexity and Interfirm Cooperation on Business Survival, Academy of Management Journal 40 (2): 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D.A. (1978). Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design, Academy of Management Review 3: 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyck, W. and Allen, P.M. (2006). Pharmaceutical Discovery as a Complex System of Decisions: Front Loaded Experimentation, Emergence: Complexity & Organization 8 (3): 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen, L. (1983). How Pervasive Is Coevolution? in M. Nitecki (ed.) Coevolution, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J.P. (1995). Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane, Organization Science 6 (3): 280–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991). Organizational Memory, Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by ESRC Grant No.: RES-000-23-0845, ‘Modelling the Evolution of the Aerospace Supply Chain’. We thank the reviewers, and particularly the editors for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK

    Peter M Allen & Liz Varga

Authors
  1. Peter M Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liz Varga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter M Allen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, P., Varga, L. A co-evolutionary complex systems perspective on information systems. J Inf Technol 21, 229–238 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000075

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000075

Keywords

Search

Navigation