Chaos Theory

This paper argues that chaos theory provides a useful theorectical framework for understanding the dynamic evolution of industries and the complex interactions among
industry actors. It is argued that industries can be conceptualized and modeled as complex, dynamic systems, which exhibit both unpredictability and underlying order. The relevance of chaos theory for strategy is discussed, and a number of managerial implications are suggested. To illustrate the application of chaos theory, a simulation model is presented
that depicts the interactions between a manufacturer of computers, its suppliers, and its market. The resuhs of the simulation demonstrate how managers might underestimate the
costs of international production. The paper concludes that, by understanding industries as complex systems, managers con improve decision making and search for innovative solutions.

It is not possible to speak of a single systems approach. There are rather of a number of systems approaches, each loosely drawing on different aspects of a family composed mainly of, general system theory, cybernetics, information theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory. Systems approaches have been used in most of the social sciences, particularly sociology and management, but their use has extended into the arts and humanities.Creativity researchers have used systems approaches drawing on very different sources and in very different ways. The main focus has been to highlight creativity as a phenomenon that occurs in the context of multiple systems, and therefore involves a network of interactions.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present a review of recent risk management literature applied to projects, programs and project portfolios performed inside an organization with the aim of finding areas of opportunity to continue research and the development of current guides and methodologies. Design/methodology/approach -The paper uses a review of recent literature published by international organizations and journals specializing in the field of project, programs, and portfolios. Findings -The review shows that project risk management is a well developed domain in comparison to the program risk management and portfolio risk management fields, for which specifically written methodologies are difficult to find. The review also demonstrates the need to include better tools to perform a continuous control and monitoring process. Integrating a vulnerability approach is also necessary in order to consider the project, program or portfolio characteristics which mediate between consequences and the exposure to hazards and opportunities.

The paper provides a detailed theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between contingency and necessity, and applies it to major schools of thought in the social sciences.

Key words: social theory; cultural theory; political theory; legal theory; political economy;  historiography; social sciences; historical institutionalism; epistemology; gender studies;

How to cite:
Simandan, D. (2010) Beware of contingency. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 28(3), pp. 388 - 396.

In much of the current literature on supply chain management, supply networks are recognized as a system. In this paper, we take this observation to the next level by arguing the need to recognize supply networks as a complex adaptive system (CAS). We propose that many supply networks emerge rather than result from purposeful design by a singular entity. Most supply chain management literature emphasizes negative feedback for purposes of control; however, the emergent patterns in a supply network can much better be managed through positive feedback, which allows for autonomous action. Imposing too much control detracts from innovation and flexibility; conversely, allowing too much emergence can undermine managerial predictability and work routines. Therefore, when managing supply networks, managers must appropriately balance how much to control and how much to let emerge.

An ethnographically revised linguistic landscape study can be used as a sensitive methodological tool for detecting the complexities of urban space in superdiverse areas. The data used in this book are from an inner-city neighborhood in Antwerp (Belgium), which has become superdiverse over the past decade and a half. Rather than analyzing the contemporary patterns in terms of synchronically juxtaposed 'pluralities' of scripts as indexes of cultural 'belonging', this new methodology enables us to historicize individual signs and complexes of signs, so that they begin to inform us of the multiple histories that coincide in superdiverse space. Multiplicity is thus replaced by complexity: nonlinear, multifiliar and stochastic patterns of presence, entitlement and power in social space.

The causal relationship between cymatic pattern and Hindu-Yantra exposes the essential pattern underlying the universe. Phenomena that confirm this blueprint are convergent evolution, stigmergy (swarm-intelligence), chaos/complexity theory, exaptation, gestalt, Plato’s-problem and perhaps even sympathetic magic.
The unified-field and collective unconscious are the same; science explains the metaphysical. Ancient Yantra-Mandalas catalogue the morphology of the unified-field.
Cross-referencing quantum theory, biologist Rupert Sheldrake, Carl Jung and media-analyst Marshall McLuhan reveals this new Gestalt. Symbols are the keys to understanding reality. Systems Theory is an important new paradigm.

The differences between the transformational and servant leadership models have significant implications concerning organizational change management. First, transformational leaders have a stronger focus on intellectual stimulation than servant leaders. Servant leader emphasize developing their followers' personal potential and facilitating their personal growth whereas, transformational leaders emphasize enhancing employees' innovation and creativity. This concept is important because it illustrates the servant leader's focus on individual development and the transformational leader's focus on organizational development. Second, servant leaders place greater emphasis on behaviors associated with valuing individuals at an emotional level and learning from others. Third, transformational leader are more willing to take risks to attain organizational success and eliminate ineffective processes and systems. The servant leader is willing to take initiative but only in the sense of initial strategic planning, new programs for added efficiency, and ultimate responsibility for the company's success. The transformational leader's focus on risk taking as an essential component of leadership is significantly greater than that of the servant leader. Fourth, the servant leader is more will to forsake self-advancement and rewards toward the betterment of followers. These differing attributes are analyzed in this paper to determine which model promises to be more effective in implementing organizational change management.