The Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (Obolensky, p.66). 

Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.

What are the implications of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements?

The two decisions that yielded large results were the moving of simulators from Seattle to Miami and the decision not to roll-out a new software program before it was ready for use.

Oblensky (2011) states that small changes can yield large results.  The moving of ten full flight simulators may not be considered a “small change”, but it was to Boeing in the overall view of aircraft production and sales.  In this case, while the terms small and large may be relative, the results of these changes are still felt today.  This may expand the term of large to include length of time.    

The move was in response to union activity in the building between a particular flight instructor group and management.  In response to some union sabre rattling regarding an upcoming round of contract negotiations, management took the bold and unprecedented step of moving all simulators in the main corporate Seattle location to Miami, which had simulators but was considered a secondary location. 

While management made “took away” any union leverage, the actual effect was to remove a functioning training center out of the corporate location and erase all vestiges of the one activity that we were responsible for, training.  The hidden benefit of having a training center and corporate office in the same building is the working example of what a well-functioning training facility operating for the benefit and observation of leadership.  With the operation up close, challenges, issues and solutions could be discovered, test, and then implemented globally if proven successful – or scrapped if deemed a failure.  When this operational “petri dish” was removed, managements comprehension of training and operational issues became challenged.  When some management retired or were promoted, new management was inserted that had little or no experience in training operations. 

As a result, while current management will receive weekly updates as to campus efficiencies, simulator utilization, and campus head count, they are utterly clueless about customer service challenges, simulator parts issues, and instructor standardization.  Although this business model is sufficient, it is not optimal.  Which leads us to projects such as this…

The second item was the decision to roll out an integrated software program designed to track student schedule, progress, and performance grading.  This software was developed in Seattle and was to be rolled out to the training centers when completed.  After several months of development issues, the product was pushed out for deployment, but it was a complete disaster. 

Slow response and update times were common place, as the server was overwhelmed with traffic.  Although an internal training program was designed for employee usage, the lack of actual students and training situations hampered and delayed comfort with the program.  Upon review, it was commented repeatedly that having not having developers and end users in the same building was great hinderance.  Further, the lack of “dry runs” or practice events also contributed longer development time. 

It is difficult to say how much more efficient the software implementation would have been with a functioning campus, but it is certain that software development needs as much interaction between developers and users as possible. 

As Oblensky (2011) states, the permutations of such decision may grow in over time and in consequence.  The consequence of moving simulators from the corporate building had dramatic effects to operational efficiency as well as subsequent development projects.

But we sure showed them! 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate