Context in Complex Systems Governance

Abstract

A complex system’s identity and viability are directly related and affected by its context. It is important to identify, monitor, and manage (or mitigate risk) of system contextual elements. This chapter defines complex system context with respect to Complex System Governance (CSG) and provides a methodology to define relevant contextual elements for the practitioner to use for risk mitigation and governance. Leveraging the systems of systems engineering (SoSE) methodology as described in Keating and Adams, Overview of the systems of systems engineering methodology [2], and Crownover’s complex system contextual framework (CSCF) [6] this article will help the practitioner identify and evaluate relative importance of contextual elements to maintain the viability and identity of a complex system.

1 Introduction

What is context? Context informs understanding and perspective and clarifies meaning. Understanding a painter’s environment, how they perceived their environment, and life at the time of painting a specific masterpiece can add meaning and explanations for the painter’s choices to use light colors or dark colors, happy faces or melancholy faces, stills or abstracts, and even the subject of the painting. In this way, context is often thought of in hindsight and upon reflection of a great masterpiece and therefore considered informative and benign. However, it can also have an effect. Consider the case of “New Coke.” Coca-Cola felt pressure by its rival Pepsi-Cola who was winning the well-publicized “Pepsi Challenge” where Pepsi was chosen in a blind taste test more often than Coca-Cola. In response, they developed a new formula, tested it in their own blind taste test 190,000 times, and on April 23, 1985, the company chairman and CEO, Roberto Goizueta, announced at a press release the “New Coke.” Much to the surprise of Coca-Cola, shares on the New York Stock Exchange dropped, and by June, the company was fielding 5,000 angry phone calls a day. Groups organized to protest and one Seattle consumer even filed suit against the company to force it to provide the old drink.¹

The problem, though, is that the company had underestimated loyal drinkers’ emotional attachments to the brand. Never did its market research testers ask subjects how they would feel if the new formula replaced the old one. (Klein 2020)

Seventy-nine days later, “Coca-Cola Classic” was back with a corporate apology. Thankfully, they were able to recover from this oversight, but many companies and projects do not recover from their failure to recognize the context of their decisions. That is why it is important to not only look back and understand through context, but to look forward and identify context that may impact a system and the governance of that system. This chapter defines context for Complex System Governance and provides a methodology to identify contextual elements for the practitioner to mitigate costly mistakes and steer complex systems toward identified goals.

2 Defining Context in Complex System Governance

A Context Vignette—How context matters to system viability and identity

The manager of a database development team in a software development company had worked hard to improve moral, productivity, and quality of the team after accepting the position. The projects they worked on were deployed and actively used 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The team rotated being on call after hours to fix bugs in the live environment that hindered sales. Prior to her efforts the person on call normally spent most nights of their weeklong, after-hours duty, fixing bugs. Some nights over a million dollars in revenue was lost due to software bugs. Within 6 months after implementation of measures to improve moral, productivity, and quality, no bugs were identified as a result of their work in production and the whole team slept well at night. For a brief period, the team’s moral was high. After a few months of continued rest, the new manager started sensing moral declining again. Not understanding how this could happen when the team was getting rest, quality of the code was at its highest ever, and the team produced more code than any other division of the company; she began to look at the environment for clues. She quickly discovered that at the monthly awards and recognition meetings the other divisions were getting all the awards and her team was only briefly recognized when they came to the rescue of the other teams. The company had a system to reward heroic efforts in the middle of the night, but no system for rewarding good quality. The perception was that the other teams were working harder and deserved more credit. The new manager attempted to explain this oversight to her boss and part-owner in the company who could not understand as he had no real experience with software development . He decided to combine the successful database development team with another team who received regular heroic awards. The new manager left the company. Within 18 months, the company was out of business.

The term context is not easily defined and even harder to articulate where it starts and where it ends. “Context shifts and dances, it slips and sides. It insists on its mystery, yet it demands we come to terms with it every single day” [7]. The word “context” is like the word “love”; we tacitly understand it and try to define it with other words, but always seem to fail in capturing its full meaning. To understand what the word means, we have to ironically understand the context for which it is used. In this chapter, we discuss context with respect to complex systems and Complex System Governance (CSG).

Systems theory offers the contextual axiom: Meaning in systems is derived from the circumstances and factors that surround them (Keating and Bradley, Complex System Governance Reference Model, 2015). For this reason, CSG metasystem five star (M5*), system context, is a function intrinsically linked to policy and identity, metasystem five (M5). The M5 function provides direction, oversight, accountability, and evolution of the system. The M5 focus includes policy, mission, vision, strategic direction, performance, and accountability of the system such that (1) the system maintains viability, (2) identity is preserved, and (3) the system is effectively projected both internally and externally. Figure 1 is provided as a reference point for CSG metasystem functions [9]. It is no wonder that being able to articulate the circumstances and factors surrounding a complex system is an important factor to describe the system’s identity. However, it is a little harder to understand the importance and relevance of context and being able to articulate system context in order to maintain viability and preserve identity of a system. The first context vignette shows how a new manager’s failure to understand the context of her development team with respect to the company culture and experience level of the leadership caused the identity and viability of the team and her position to be redefined. When the leadership of the company failed to understand the contextual environment, the company was lost. This example is given to show the importance of understanding context and how it can have severe and possibly fatal results on the viability of a system when not understood, monitored, and governed.

Fig. 1

Main CSG functions

Specifically, metasystem five star (M5*)—system context is focused on the specific context within which the metasystem is embedded where context is the set of circumstances, factors, conditions, or patterns that enable or constrain execution of the system.

Before going any further, it is important to discuss the definition of context within CSG. While it appears intuitive to say context is the set of circumstances, factors, conditions, or patterns that enable or constrain execution of the system, it is not intuitive when you attempt to differentiate what is considered context and what is not. This is true because contextual elements are part of the system, part of the environment, and part of the interactions.

Within CSG literature, context is consistently defined as “the set of circumstances, factors, conditions, patterns, or trends that enable or constrain execution of the system” [9]. CSG considers the environment as separate but related. Environment is defined as “the aggregate of all surroundings and conditions within which a system operates” [8]. If you are confused, do not worry, there is good cause to be confused. In the book Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing, Malcolm McCullough says:

“Context” is not the setting itself, but the engagement with it, as well as the bias that setting gives to the interactions that occur within it. “Environment” is the sum of all present contexts. [10]

In Crownover’s dissertation, however, the environment is explained as everything outside the boundary of the system that “touches” the system but does not necessarily act on the system. Where context includes elements within, on, and around the system that have an intimate relationship with the system rather than a mere coexistence [6]. These definitions appear to be nearly opposite. However, if McCullough is implying that an environment is the sum of perceptions of all that have interacted with a setting, then he is really not that far from the CSG complimentary axiom and principle that a complex system is described through the varying world views of those that perceive it and by reasonable correlation, so is our understanding of the context of a complex system. For clarity of purpose, this book will differentiate a complex system context from its environment as Crownover describes, acknowledging that perception is always in the eye of the beholder. Figure 2 shows a complex system embedded in its environment and context. The complex system is not cleanly defined, and similarly the context is not cleanly defined. The environment is external to the system and only becomes a part of the system context when it is engaged. A definition of a specific complex system environmental element is based on the world views of stakeholders and their understanding of the complex system but are only relevant when the stakeholders can articulate how the environmental element affects or is affected by the system or in some way contributes to the identity of the system. From an organizational perspective, Crownover describes the differentiation this way:

The environment includes all of the systems outside of the organizational (system) boundary - e.g., government systems, national systems, ecological systems, transportation systems, etc. These systems are all part of the environment, but the systems themselves are not part of the context of the system of interest. Rather, the system context includes how the actions of the governance system enables or constrains the system in carrying out its purpose.

Fig. 2

Interaction of environment and context on a complex system

So, while we can describe the environment of a complex system, if we cannot articulate how an environmental element interacts with the complex system or provides meaning to the system identity, it is not a relevant contextual environmental element. This becomes very important when we are practicing CSG and conducting systems analysis on complex systems.

Defining and understanding system context appear easy at first since we have a tacit understanding based on our own individual perception. However, practitioners face the same realities when trying to define system context as they do with defining modern complex systems. Modern complex systems face uncertainty, interdependence, complexity, emergence, and ambiguity. A clean, perfect contextual framework of a given complex system is as impossible to articulate as a clean, perfect articulation of the given complex system. Table 1 defines these realities with respect to complex systems context.

Table 1 Complex system and complex system context realities

Our understanding of the realities of complex systems and their contextual framework have evolved from systems theory and from a theoretical foundation for our understanding of context in CSG practice. Table 2 describes a core subset of relevant systems theory principles and how they apply to system context.² A more complete list can be found in Baugh, Bradley, Chesterman Jr., and Whitney’s “Systems Theory as a Foundation for Governance of Complex Systems” [12]; Adams’ “Systems Principles: Foundation for the SoSE Methodology” [1]; and Clemson’s “Cybernetics: A New Management Tool” [5].

Table 2 Systems theory principles and how they apply to system context

This theoretical understanding provides a foundation for Crownover’s complex system contextual framework (CSCF) and a concept of complex system context as follows:

• a. Complex system context includes events, incidents, factors, settings, or circumstances that in some way act on or interact with the system, perhaps as enabling or constraining factors.

• b. Complex system context includes an “enacted” environment, which captures system/environment interactions and interdependencies [11]. However, system context and system environment are conceptually distinguishable.

• c. Complex system context is a construct or interpretation of properties of a system that are necessary to provide meaning to the system, above and beyond what is objectively observable.

• d. Complex system context is reflexive in nature, resulting in context further defining the system while the elements of the system are part of the self-same context. The meaning and significance of context have to be contextualized within a specific situation, domain, discipline, or practice.

• e. Complex system context does not have a true reality, or there is no correct interpretation of context. The systems principle of complementarity applies equally to system context as to the system itself.

To help understand context in practical terms, W. B. Max Crownover used grounded theory methodologies to develop a framework [6]. The next section will review Crownover’s complex system contextual framework (CSCG).

3 Complex System Contextual Framework (CSCF)

The CSCF is the first contextual framework that can be used to guide a CSG practitioner to identify contextual elements and how they are enacted on a system. The CSCF is composed of categories, called meta-elements; sub-categories; elements; attributes; and dimensions. As research in CSG and contextual theory expands, other frameworks and methodologies may emerge. In the exercises for this chapter, you are encouraged to develop your own framework and apply it to a representative complex system.

The CSCF framework starts with four meta-elements: human, systemic, methodological, and environmental as described in Table 3. Meta-elements are a conceptual superset that logically group contextual elements.

Table 3 Complex system contextual framework meta-elements

The following hierarchies in Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 show the elements and attributes for each meta-element and are followed by a discussion of their applicability to complex systems and CSG.

Fig. 3

Human meta-element—related to the various aspects of human involvement in complex systems, specifically looking at the roles people play and the perspectives they bring

Fig. 4

Systemic meta-element—related to the various aspects of dealing with complex systems that stem from systemic principles and concepts and from taking a systems view

Fig. 5

Methodological meta-element—related to the aspects of dealing with complex systems that stem from specific approaches or methodologies being applied or considered for application

Fig. 6

Environmental meta-element—related to the aspects of dealing with complex systems that are related to the system's environment

The human meta-element recognizes the “human factor.” Many people can recall an individual leader or team member that had a significant impact on a project or team. A leader can have a significant impact on a system as a decision maker. They can be good communicators, good decision makers, and morale building, or they can be confusing, poor decision makers, and morale draining. It is important to understand the stakeholders of a complex system, their roles, their level of influence, type of influence, how they are affected by other stakeholders, their relationships, the influence on and from relationships, their experience level in relevant areas, and their world views. This information is captured in the role-related sub-category and respective elements. It is also important to understand individually and at various group levels the culture, values, and relevant perspectives. Effective leaders take time to understand these factors before making major changes to an organization to ensure the most effective and least resistant path to success without collateral damage. As a CSG practitioner, these contextual elements are critical to effective governance and problem solving. The CSCF addresses these contextual elements in the perceptual sub-category of the human meta-element.

The human meta-element category may be one of the most difficult for the CSG practitioner because people and relationships are complicated. If the practitioner assumes that policy and rules can be established and enforced to control people in a way that they do not have to take time to understand the contextual elements, attributes, and consequences on the system, they may incur a type III error in managing complex system problems. A type III error is when the wrong problem is solved precisely as described in part 2 of the chapter vignette.

A Context Vignette, Part 2—How Context Matters

In the chapter vignette, the organization had accepted a culture of high salaries for long hours of work with an accepted high turnover rate of developers. When developers complained for long hours, they received bonuses making them temporally happy again. Leadership philosophy was that happy developers produce more code which produce more revenue. Unfortunately, they fail to see that the quality of the code was causing even larger losses in revenue and that very few of their developers where trained in software quality methodologies. The failure to understand and mitigate the experience level of both the owner-manager and the developers resulted in a decision to solve the wrong problem and the business began to fail.

The systemic meta-element results from a recognition that a “system is affected because it is being viewed as and conceptually constructed as a system” [6]. This is particularly true when CSG practitioners are using CSG to govern a complex system. The CSG practitioner and systems analyst have their own experiences, perspectives on the system, varying levels of influence on the system, and values. A systems analyst with a high degree of CSG or systems thinking experience and inclination will have a different perspective and effect on the system than a systems analyst who does not.

The system analyst example exposes a link to the human meta-element. It is the perception of the stakeholders that either perceive or do not perceive the system as a system and agree or disagree on the system elements. When determining elements like the system’s purpose, the worldview of stakeholders is required. Hopefully, there is a high degree of commonness or complementary views that provide a satisficing systems purpose statement. This is also true for the other elements: temporal aspects, complexity, system transformation, system problem, and system of systems representation.

Similar to the systemic meta-element, the methodological meta-system results from the recognition that the methodologies used to define, analyze, and govern a system also affect the system. These methodologies affect the system by producing resulting decisions, discussions, and actions. The tools and approaches can also affect the system during execution knowingly or inadvertently much like quantum particles whereby the very act of observing the particle affects the state. Additionally, this meta-system is also linked to the human meta-system. The human perspective determines the type of methodology to use and how it is used. It also determines if a methodology and the results are accepted and actionable. For example, if the systems analyst utilized a qualitative method, but the culture of the organization only recognizes quantitative methods, the analysis result may not be accepted by the organization.

Finally, the environmental meta-element captures the contextual elements most often thought of and discussed, but perhaps not in the way expected. This meta-element category does not give us a nice list of neat, tangible environmental elements to check off like political environment, socioeconomic environment, or physical setting; rather, it sets the stage to uniquely define environmental elements with salient influence on the system. “What is required is not simply a matter of providing a textbook definition of environment, but rather the articulation of the system-specific criteria utilized to delineate or demarcate the environment. Doing so requires development of a consistent approach for determining what is and what is not part of the system” [6]. The defining environment element assists the practitioner to use a deliberate approach while recognizing that the approach itself may affect the system.

The external relationships element is where the practitioner uses the element attributes and dimensions to identify environmental elements (circumstances, factors, conditions, and patterns) that have a relationship with the system that may affect the system or be affected by the system. The element is labeled “external relationships” because the contextual element is not the building next door, but the knowledge that the building next door provides shade to my building thereby providing some level of cooling and a cheaper electric bill. A change in the external element will cause a change in my system. The focus on relationships also has the advantage of focusing CSG practitioners on relevant environmental elements.

The environmental change element of the environmental meta-element addresses “the importance of the system having awareness of and being able to respond to environmental change” [6]. To effectively analyze and govern a system, it is imperative to understand how the system responds to internal and external change. Change management requires a human, system, methodological, and environmental contextual intelligence for success.

4 Context in Practice

This section will use the systems of systems engineering (SoSE) methodology as described in Keating and Adams, Overview of the systems of systems engineering methodology [2] in the International Journal Systems of System Engineering, to provide a representative practical application that may be use in CSG. The SoSE methodology, as shown in Fig. 7, is built from foundational systems principles and seven perspectives. It can be used to address complex system problems or to establish a framework for persistent governance.

Fig. 7

System of system engineering methodology

In Table 2 of this chapter, we discussed a core set of system principles that are foundational to the SoSE methodology. Here we will provide a short overview of the seven perspectives of the SoSE methodology followed by a more comprehensive discussion of perspective I. By framing the system under study in perspective I, we will show how the practitioner may build the contextual framework for a system. This framework can be used for system governance or problem solving.

³ Perspective I, Framing the system under study

This perspective is designed to rigorously structure the system problem, the contextual setting and environment within which the problem system exists. Key execution elements in this perspective include.

• 1. Identify the wide context for the system under study—establish the circumstances, factors, conditions, and patterns that characterize the situation surrounding the SoS at a high level.

• 2. Characterize the system under study—understand the basic structure and characteristics of the SoS under study, including the SoS’s objectives, functions, environment, resources, components, and management.

• 3. Characterize the complex nature of the system domain under study—establish the complex nature of the SoS and problem domain.

• 4. Present the system domain as characteristically complex—present the SoS under study as a complex systems problem.

• 5. Frame the SoSE problem—depict the problem situation by expressing the structure, elements of processes, and the situation.

• 6. Define study purpose, reformulated problem statements and objectives—clearly explain the nature, purpose, high-level approach, and objectives for the effort.

• 7. Conduct stakeholder analysis—explicitly account for and address the multiple interests (rational and irrational, inside and outside) which can impact achievement of system objectives.

• 8. Conduct contextual analysis—account for the set of circumstances, factors, conditions, values, and/or patterns that are influential in constraining and enabling the SoS engineering process, the SoS solution/recommendation design, SoS solution/ recommendation deployment considerations, and interpretation of outputs/outcomes stemming from the effort.

Perspective 2 Designing the unique methodology

This perspective designs a unique methodology based on the problem and the problem context.

• 9. Construct high-level design for the study—construct a unique high-level methodology that will adequately support the study objectives and the SoS context. Must be compatible with the problem and problem context.

• 10. Develop the analytic strategy—create the design for quantitative and qualitative exploration (data collection and analysis) necessary to understand and make decisions concerning the SoS under study.

• 11. Develop assessment criteria and plan—construct a set of measurable criteria to be used during and after the problem study to ensure continued fit of problem, context, methodology, and capability to meet study objectives.

Perspective 3 Designing the SoSE team

This perspective designs the team to undertake the SoSE study, taking into account the nature of the SoS problem and the team resources, skills, and knowledge that can be brought to bear for the problem.

• 12. Assess team knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA)—develop an inventory of team knowledge, skills, and abilities that may be used in the study.

• 13. Match team KSA to the analytic strategy and unique methodology—based on the KSAs, establish assignments, roles, and expectations for the team in performing the study. Team expectations and selection of task leaders are established.

• 14. Establish means of team expectation and performance assessment—construct a set of measurable criteria that can be used during and after the SoS problem study to evaluate the performance of the team.

Perspective 4 SoSE exploration and analysis

This perspective is designed to explore and conduct the emergent analysis by executing the analytic strategy and SoSE management plan (SoSEMP). Its constituents include.

• 15. Build the SoSE management plan (SoSEMP)—the SoSEMP defines how the SoS study will be organized, the structure of the team, and how the SoSE process will be designed to provide products that directly support the study goals and objectives requirements.

• 16. SoSE exploration and analysis—explore and analyze each study objective by executing the analytic strategy.

Perspective 5 Transforming the analysis into action

This perspective is designed to transform the results of the emergent analysis by guiding implementation of derived recommendations. Its constituents include.

• 17. Define implementation goals, objectives, and activities—clearly explain the nature of the implementation, purpose, high-level approach, and objectives necessary to support the desired SoS outputs and outcomes.

• 18. Modify the SoSE management plan (SoSEMP)—add activities to the integrated schedule that ensures that the tasks from the implementation objectives tree are properly resourced to support the implementation goals, objectives, and activities.

• 19. Implementation of the exploration and analysis recommendations—change, modify, or construct processes for the SoS under study to implement recommendations.

Perspective 6 Reporting the results of the SoSE study

This perspective reports the results of the SoSE effort to capture the transformation of the analysis into action. It comprises.

• 20. Developing the engineering report—develop a coherent set of artifacts (data, analyses, correlations, etc.) that can provide specific findings and recommendations that directly impact the SoS problem under study.

• 21. Internal evaluation of the engineering report—evaluate the study report using the set of measurable performance criteria previously developed.

Perspective 7 Assessing the impact of the SoSE study.

This perspective is designed to assess the impact of the report on the real-world SoS problem under study. The final two of the 23 perspective-related elements are assigned here, and they are

• 22. Evaluating the initial impact of the engineering report—evaluate the impact that the SoSE study report had on the real-world system problem and its environment.

• 23. Plan for follow-up and follow-through—evaluate the impact analysis and develop a set of actions to follow-up and follow-through on the analysis.

In perspective 1, we identify key contextual elements and their potential impact on the system. These contextual elements should be reviewed and considered in all following perspectives and actions. They will likely evolve as the practitioner continues to advance their understanding of the system. When changes are made to the system contextual understanding, a retroactive look at completed tasks should be reviewed and modified if the advanced systems context understanding warrants.

Perspective 1 has eight elements as described above. The first element, identification of the wide context for the system under study, establishes the importance of context from the very beginning. “Engineers must understand and ultimately represent context if they are to move a system or SoS of interest from some current state to a different, desired state” [3]. “Complex systems cannot be understood independent of the context within which they exist” [3].

In the beginning, there exists a tacit knowledge of the complex system under study which is not unanimously shared by all stakeholders. Sometimes the framing effort has a problem statement if the effort is to solve a complex system problem; and sometimes a set of disparate documents exist that contain elements of a system description, like a contract vehicle, vision statement, engineering design document, or software development plan. Either way, the first step is to establish a problem statement or basic system description. A system description should be a short description of the complex system including goals for management and desired outputs and outcomes. These statements should be reviewed and updated by all key stakeholders, producing a complimentary and satisficing statement.⁴ With this very basic understanding of the system and effort, element 1 of the perspective 1, developing the wide context, may begin.

The output of this effort, and subsequent contextual analysis efforts, will be called the system’s contextual framework. The practitioner may establish the system’s contextual framework in many ways. A recommended approach that is encouraged to be tailored and modified to the benefit of the effort and stakeholders understanding will be used as a representative approach.

One way to capture the system’s contextual framework is to develop a matrix with the columns identified in the contextual matrix, Table 4, and the contextual elements identified in the rows. Use Crownover’s CSCF, [6] the established problem or system description statement, and the factors in the table to guide the first pass population of the matrix. In each subsequent perspective element, this matrix should be reviewed and updated as new information is discovered. The practitioner should interview as many stakeholders and experts as possible to ensure a complimentary matrix solution.

Table 4 Contextual matrix

As the matrix is developed, the practitioner may begin to form or confirm system boundaries. Contextual elements may be internal, external, and boundary crossing, but in order to understand the impact to the system under study, the practitioner has to have an understanding of what is part of the system and what is part of the system environment (external). Generally, something is internal to the system if it can be managed and governed through adjusting system controls. For example, usually federal laws and regulations are considered external contextual elements, but company and department policies may be internal to the system. However, remember that complex systems will always have ambiguity and uncertainty, so do not expect perfection. A minimal critical specification is the goal. The practitioner should consider as much as can be identified but focus on the most important and impactful elements.

Element 2 of perspective 1, characterize the system under study, will use the problem/initial statement and the system’s contextual framework developed in element 1 as an input to develop a list of system characteristics including the systems definition, components, objectives, functions, environment, resources, and governance structure. The systemic meta-element elements, system purpose, temporal aspects, complexity, system transformation, system problem, and system of systems, should be considered in the holistic characterization. The contextual framework matrix may be used for the system environment characteristic of element 2. The expression of the environment characteristic (external to the system, but a change in the element will cause a change in the system) is the meta-element section rows of the matrix. Similarly, the human meta-element rows should contain and/or be updated by the governance structure characteristic definition. The process to define system resources will likely identify, clarify, and/or update internal and external contextual elements in the contextual framework as well. For example, military technology development programs have to operate within the federal government appropriation cycle and rules. If an appropriation bill is not passed at the beginning of the fiscal year, many programs are directly affected. This is an external contextual element that is very important to the system.

This step will identify sub-systems and internal contextual elements as each sub-system exists within its own context. The practitioner may want to add a column to the contextual framework matrix to relate the contextual element row to the system or one of its sub-systems and an associated column to describe the relationship with other sub-systems, the super-system, or the external environment. Again, there are many contextual elements, so focus on the elements that have the most impact on the system or the most potential to impact the system if altered.

The characteristics that describe the complex nature of the system and the complex domain of the system under study are the subject of elements 3 and 4 of perspective 1. Understanding the complexity of the system is directly related to the complexity of the response required to govern or affect change in a system. The systems theory and CSG law of requisite variety states that “control can be obtained only if the variety of the controller is at least as great as the variety of the situation to be controlled” [12]. Therefore, a careful assessment of the complex system characteristics is expected to update the contextual framework control mechanism at the very least.

The characteristics of complex systems are related to the meta-elements in the contextual framework matrix as described in Table 5. This table should help the practitioner understand the characteristics and how to use the CSCF to assess the complex system.

Table 5 Complex system characteristics relation to CSCF meta-elementsFootnote

Descriptions in this table are quoted from Adams and Meyers “Perspective 1 of the SoSE methodology: framing the system under study”. [3]

In element 5, a rich diagram is constructed to describe the complex system. It may not directly represent the context of the system as described in the matrix; that is okay. However, the practitioner may want to add a column to the contextual framework matrix that maps elements onto the system diagram for reference.

Element 6 of perspective 1 relooks at the problem statement or system initial description system and objectives to refine them based on the analysis of previous elements. The contextual framework matrix is both an input and an output of this element as the systemic meta-element rows may evolve now that there is a deeper, holistic understanding of the system and its context.

The human meta-element rows in the system context framework matrix should make short work of element 7 of the perspective 1 and conduct stakeholder analysis. At this point in the process, the practitioner is taking another look with a focus on the stakeholders. Adams and Meyers offer several characteristics and tools for a thorough analysis of stakeholders in Adams and Meyers [3]. The practitioner should update the matrix with any revelations.

Element 8 of perspective 1, conduct contextual analysis, takes one more pass at contextual framework matrix now that the framing of the system is almost complete. This step focuses on identifying and understanding the contextual elements impact on the system and scoping the matrix to a minimal critical specification. The practitioner should review the influence on the system, factors for influence, impact, probability of occurrence, severity of occurrence, control mechanisms, and level of control columns in correlation to the refined system framing outputs. This review is the last step in the perspective 1 process before a brief exercise is designed to help the practitioner understand the implications of the outputs created in perspective 1 of this methodology.

In the final exercise of perspective 1, the practitioner is asked to examine the implications for the system under study, the organization conducting the analysis, the individuals conducting the analysis, and the SoSE discipline. While this step is not required, it is encouraged for CSG practitioners. As CSG is still young, reflection and feedback will help future practitioners.

Once the complex system’s contextual framework matrix has been developed with respect to the system framing, stakeholders who seek to govern the system to maintain an identity and achieve a desired goal or solve system problems should monitor contextual elements with periodic assessments. As risks are realized, the matrix control mechanisms may be used to mitigate negative impacts or enhance positive impact. If a change in the system's identity, purpose, or goals is desired, the matrix can be used to identify areas to stimulate change with minimal negative consequences. The matrix should continually be updated as all complex systems evolve and change.

5 Implications of Context in Complex System Governance

In this chapter, we defined complex system context with respect to CSG, a framework to help identify system context, and a methodology to frame a system in preparation for solving system problems or to actively govern. The framework and methodology were representative and can be modified or adapted as required. It is recommended and encouraged for the practitioner to find the approach that works best for the specific effort. However, a holistic approach should not be abbreviated to focus only on the quantifiable, “low-hanging fruit” contextual assessment. Contextual influences directly affect the identity and viability of the system. Many practitioners are uncomfortable identifying human-based influences on a system, but they cannot be ignored as they often have the most influence.

Context can be very difficult to articulate, and no perfect solutions are possible. “There’s no way to map every single factor in even a simple real-world environment, but it’s possible to take snapshots from different perspectives, at various key moments, and bring them together into something more like a collage of snapshots that come nearer to telling the entire story” [7]. However, if the importance of understanding a system in context, and all the contextual factors that may influence a system, is recognized, the practitioner will have a higher probability of success meeting their goals.

The knowledge and tools discussed in this chapter are designed to help the practitioner achieve the greatest success possible. However, there remains plenty of room for further research in the area. It would be ideal if an easy-to-use model and method for identifying critical contextual items and a system for monitoring, assessing, and governing those critical items existed. Tools like checklists, measures of effectiveness, mitigation techniques, and rules for what is critical and what is not would make a new practitioner more effective and faster. The exercise section of this chapter will challenge you to try and develop these tools for a specific system. After the exercise, consider how the solutions can be applied generically across all complex systems.

Exercises

• 1. From your experience, select a complex system and use the methodology in this chapter to frame the system context. For this initial familiarization exercise, multiple stakeholder perspectives are not required. It should be completed by the practitioner only.

  • a. Did you discover areas of context that were not obvious to you before you started?

  • b. How did this exercise help you understand the system under study?

  • c. How could this process be improved or modified to better accommodate the analysis of the complex system selected for this exercise?

• 2. Develop a set of categories, like a checklist, for practitioners to consider to describe the environmental complex system contextual items.

  • a. How will this checklist help the practitioner?

  • b. When would these categories not work for a practitioner?

  • c. When you need to make decisions, do you consider all of these categories? Explain your answer.

• 3. Using the complex system contextual framework (CSCF) described in this chapter, explain how elements from different metasystems interact. Select three separate examples for this exercise.

  • a. How might these interactions affect the system?

  • b. Describe how this examination of element interactions would modify your response to exercise 1?