Mike:
Thank you for your message and your questions. Within the current
framework of investigation, I am trying to relate some concepts pertaining
to the process of information processing and the construct of "complexity"
at differvent levels of analysis.
Specifically, while referring to the "complexity" in case of
organizations, I am referring to what has been termed "environmental
complexity" or "turbulence" or by some other names in the organization
science literature published over the last 30-35 years (ref. Emery &
Tryst, Terryberry, Huber, Weick, etc.). Within the constraints of my
awarenesss, the process of information processing and its relationship
with "complexity" [as the termed has been referred to in the organization
theory literature - mostly to the environmental or the systemic
complexity] has been analyzed and described to some extent, although,
probably not from an information systems perspective. My current focus is
on the information systems perspective, specifically information systems
as used for translating 'complexity' into 'meaningful action.'
At the individual unit of anlaysis, I started by looking at the task
complexity [which I am presently considering to be an analog to the
environmental complexity] within the information systems domain. This
perspective was developed based upon the learning theories, specifically
the cognitive paradigm, which I explored in comparing traditional
pedagogical model with Knowles' andragogy model.
While reviewing the literature at the organizational level -
specifically literature referring to organizaional learning,
organizational cognition, organizational memory etc. (ref. Weick, Dutton,
etc.) - and separately at the human-computer interaction level, I
perceived some parallels between the two levels. Based upon these
perception, I have extended the framework to include the three levels of
analysis - organizations, groups, and individuals. The motivation for the
common framework is strong given that the three levels although studied
mostly in isolation in the information systems domain, are parts of the
same systemic framework.
Another stream which I had been following is the role of interpretation
of various actors in acting on information available from various type of
information systems - to me it seems to be more and more of 'sense-
making' activity out of complexity. In one aspect, I consider the
definition of complexity to be relative with respect to time and space.
Two-three decades back, the information systems paradigm could thrive by
considering only linear, structured systems. Given the developments in
technology and the end users sophistication over the last few decades
(refer Huber, etc.) - the construct of relevance is more and more
non-linear and unstructured systems which by definition are inherently
complex.
This is a brief view of my current perspective. Although, most links
within this nomological net are based upon literatures in [supposedly]
different domains, and some are based more on interdisciplinary thinking
than on any specific theories, I find the broad perspective appealing from
an information systems (IS) perspective. In my view of IS, the boundaries
between humans and machines are less important, while the function to
which these interactions apply are more significant. And withing this view
[which is still in a formative stage], the various information systems
applied at different units of analysis are abstractions for translating
complexity into 'meaningfulness' which may be a mediator for action.
Yogesh Malhotra
malhotra@vms.cis.pitt.edu
University of Pittsburgh