Sociology Study, February 2016, Vol. 6, No. 2, 77‐95 D doi: 10.17265/2159‐5526/2016.02.001 DAVID PUBLISHING Complexity Decision Making and General Systems Theory: An Educational Perspective M. Kudret Yurtsevena, Walter W. Buchananb Abstract The aim of this paper is to look at some important educational aspects of complexity decision making in a multidisciplinary manner from the perspective of General Systems Theory (GST). First, the major issues involved in complexity management and decision making are summarized as they are viewed in literature, and a review of GST and Systems Thinking is given. The discussion in the paper is developed within the context of GST in general, but concentrated on decision making in the three trends of GST: Operations Research, Cybernetics, and Managerial Cybernetics. Here, the role of Cybernetics in complexity decision making is particularly emphasized. The discussion is then extended to the latest developments in complexity decision making in Science of Complexity and Soft Systems Thinking. The study also includes a framework which is expected to guide instructors who are planning to offer contemporary courses on decision making. The framework provides some clues for assessing the level of complexity for a given situation and selecting the appropriate methodology for solution development. Keywords Complexity decision making, General Systems Theory (GST), cybernetics, science of complexity, soft systems thinking In the past, decision making was generally viewed and inclinations of managers is a generally accepted fact. taught within the conventional OR/MS (Operations Different managers may have different goals and Research/Management Science) paradigm preferences, and all actors involved in decision (Daellenbach, McNickle, and Dye 2012). The reader making may have different perceptions of events. can also see applications of Systems Theory to Furthermore, problematic situations in contemporary socio-technical systems in the “classical” work of organizations, particularly at the top management Luenberger (1979). This paradigm is one of the trends level, have to be handled with incomplete, uncertain, in General Systems Theory (GST), and known to and even distorted information in many cases. The belong to the group of “hard” methodologies since it complexity gets worse if there are rapid changes in is based on mathematical tools. Methodologies in this the internal and external dynamics of the organization; group are suitable for solving structured problems, but organizations have to adapt to this environment in they prove to be inadequate in complex situations. As order to survive and grow. Considering all these systems become more complex, managing them and designing relevant decision making processes become aIzmir University, Izmir, Turkey more challenging. The view that managerial and bTexas A&M University, Texas, USA decision making processes are influenced by Correspondent Author: organizational structure and culture and personal Walter W. Buchanan, 3367 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 78 Sociology Study 6(2) aspects, one can say that systems-based approaches to and collaboration between a technical-scientific group complexity decision making appear to be more and social scientists for sustainability studies in promising. They enable the decision makers the ecological systems. Swami (2013), interestingly opportunity to address the problematic situation in its enough, included theories and concepts from full system context. psychology, behavioral economics, operations research, Complexity and management of large-scale and managerial practice, in a holistic manner, and systems are central concepts in systems movement. As viewed decision making as cognitive processes of an a matter of fact, some system methodologies have executive function to be regulated and controlled. A been specially developed to handle complex situations new systems thinking-based framework was developed and large scale systems. It is no surprise that some by Schiuma, Carlucci, and Sole (2012) where researchers trace the roots of “modern complexity” to knowledge assets are translated into organizational the birth of GST (Gorzen-Mitka and Okreglicka 2014). values for decision making. A similar framework was GST is known to be the “theory of all theories” or a developed by Wiek and Walter (2009), called the “metatheory”, standing above all other theories. It Transdisciplinary Integrated Planning and Synthesis involves systems of all sizes from a cell to the (TIPS), which is mainly based on soft OR methods. universe. By cutting across many disciplines, it This framework makes use of a multi-methodological complements the traditional scientific paradigm; it approach, involving cognitive skills and habits of the provides a holistic outlook to systems and complexity. stakeholders and experts, and their mutual and joint The major trends in GST are as follows: General transdisciplinary learning processes. The framework Systems Thinking; Systems Approach; System was applied to a large-scale regional planning process Analysis; Operations Research (OR); Systems in Switzerland. The results are yet to be seen. Engineering (including Cognitive Systems Spencer (2014), on the other hand, viewed Engineering); System Dynamics; System Design; industrial complexity as a concept of emerging Teleology; Science of Complexity; Cybernetics; and properties in the business world and suggested that Bionics (Skyttner 2001; Skyttner 2006). Complexity managers can manage complexity by finding leverages and large scale systems are major concerns in all these in known cause-effect relationships, or by building methodologies; the way they approach and seek interfaces and deconstructing complexity. He believes solutions to problematic situations is complementary that this holistic approach is expected to yield better rather than competitive. The choice of the appropriate results than the traditional reductionism in which methodology is by no means easy. This question will economies of scale and opportunities for synergetic be addressed in the coming sections of this paper. innovation are lost. Gorzen-Mitka and Okreglicka There are quite number of research studies (2014) argued that strategic decision-making in published on systems-based approach to complexity complex environments requires meta-cognitive skills decision making. Pagani and Otto (2013) adopted which provide leaders with a toolbag for innovative qualitative mapping theory building and quantitative and adaptable decision models beyond linear thinking. group model building approaches in a computer-based Here, the inclusion of cognitive aspects of decision system modeling environment for market strategy making explicitly is quite significant, in addition to the development. They believe that this holistic approach emphasis put on the nonlinear nature of the processes enhances the quality of decision making processes. involved. Elsawah et al. (2015) handled complexity by Carlman, Grönlund, and Longueville (2015) created a integrating qualitative information into formal decision making process to establish communication simulation models in a complex viticulture irrigation Yurtseven and Buchanan 79 management system in South Australia. The models and White (2010), Mingers (2011), and Yurtseven and they developed involve cognitive mapping; they also Buchanan (2016) for detailed discussions of this suggest that the resulting structure is innovative and subject. captures the richness of decision making and mental The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The models. major issues in complexity management and The idea that hard OR/MS paradigm needs to be complexity decision making are given in the next complemented by soft system approaches is shared section. This is followed by sections on general aspects widely in literature. For instance, Mingers examined of complexity and decision making, an overview of the subject matter and developed a comprehensive and GST and complexity decision making from a GST interesting discussion (Mingers and White 2010; perspective. The last two sections include methodology Mingers 2011; Mingers 2015). Some others, including selection and problem structuring, and a description of Jamali (2005), Daellenbach et al. (2012) and the framework developed, respectively. Yurtseven and Buchanan (2016), discussed complexity decision making within the university COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT AND education context. The common theme in these DECISION MAKING studies is that educating students with a holistic outlook broadens their vision and helps them to Most of the existing management models are built on become more successful professionals. If we look at the assumption that socio-economic structures are in engineering graduates, we realize that quite a equilibrium and that they are stable. However, It is significant portion of them perform engineering getting harder to predict the future developments in management type of work, particularly in the latter highly complex, volatile, and dynamic situations via part of their careers. It is well-known that they these models. In the contemporary world, many generally find it difficult to integrate into companies find themselves in complex and non-linear multidisciplinary teams; they have a technical outlook environments which require non-hierarchical to work, lacking a systems view. The hard approaches organizational structures and decentralized operations. they learn at the university are insufficient for It is no longer realistic to rely