IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v10y1999i3p294-321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Avoiding Complexity Catastrophe in Coevolutionary Pockets: Strategies for Rugged Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Bill McKelvey

    (The Anderson School at UCLA, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, California, 90095-1481)

Abstract

Can firms and coevolutionary groups suffer from too much interdependent complexity? Is complexity theory an alternative explanation to competitive selection for the emergent order apparent in coevolutionary industry groups? The biologist Stewart Kauffman suggests a theory of complexity catastrophe offering universal principles explaining phenomena normally attributed to Darwinian natural selection theory. Kauffman's complexity theory seems to apply equally well to firms in coevolutionary pockets. Based on complexity theory, four kinds of complexity are identified. Kauffman's “ NK [ C ] model” is positioned “at the edge of chaos” between complexity driven by “Newtonian” simple rules and rule-driven deterministic chaos. Kauffman's insight, which is the basis of the findings in this paper, is that complexity is both a consequence and a cause. Multicoevolutionary complexity in firms is defined by moving natural selection processes inside firms and down to a “parts” level of analysis, in this instance Porter's value chain level, to focus on microstate activities by agents. The assumptions of stochastically idiosyncratic microstates and coevolution in firms are analyzed. Competitive advantage, as a dependent variable, is defined in terms of Nash equilibrium fitness levels. This allows a translation of Kauffman's theory to firms, paying particular attention to (1) how value chain landscapes might be modeled, (2) assumptions underlying Kauffman's models making them amenable to firms, and (3) a delineation of seven of Kauffman's computational experiments. As part of the translation, possible parallels between the application of complexity catastrophe theory to coevolutionary pockets and studies by institutional theorists and social network analysts are discussed. The models derive from spin-glass microstate models resulting in Boolean games. Kauffman's Boolean statistical mechanics is introduced in developing the logic underlying the somewhat simplified NK [ C ] model. The model allows the use of computational experiments to better understand how the dependent variable—value chain fitness—is affected by changes in the number of internal interdependencies K , the number of coevolutionary links with opponents C , the size of the coevolutionary pocket S , and the number of simultaneous adaptive changes, among other things. Various computational experiments are presented that suggest strategic organizing approaches most likely to foster competitive advantage. High or low Nash equilibrium fitness levels are shown to result from internal and external coevolutionary densities as a function of links among value chain competencies within a firm and between a firm and an opponent. Complexity phenomena appear to suggest a number of expected (and thus validating) and surprising strategies with respect to complex organizational interdependencies. For example, moderate complexity fares best and external coevolutionary complexity sets an upper bound to advantages likely to be gained from internal complexity. Various complexity “lessons” are discussed. Models such as the NK [ C ] could offer insights into strategic organizing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bill McKelvey, 1999. "Avoiding Complexity Catastrophe in Coevolutionary Pockets: Strategies for Rugged Landscapes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 294-321, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:10:y:1999:i:3:p:294-321
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.10.3.294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.294
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.10.3.294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Caves & M. E. Porter, 1977. "From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(2), pages 241-261.
    2. Terry Jones, 1995. "Evolutionary Algorithms, Fitness Landscapes and Search," Working Papers 95-05-048, Santa Fe Institute.
    3. Rosenkopf, Lori & Tushman, Michael L, 1998. "The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 311-346, June.
    4. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne Zucker & Marilynn Brewer, 1996. "Social networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 428-443, August.
    5. Freeman, C., 1991. "Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 499-514, October.
    6. Stuart Kauffman & William G. Macready & Emily Dickinson, 1994. "Divide to Coordinate: Coevolutionary Problem Solving," Working Papers 94-06-031, Santa Fe Institute.
    7. Hirshleifer, Jack, 1977. "Economics from a Biological Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-52, April.
    8. Bill McKelvey, 1997. "Perspective---Quasi-Natural Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 351-380, August.
    9. Hagedoorn, John, 1995. "Strategic technology partnering during the 1980s: Trends, networks and corporate patterns in non-core technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 207-231, March.
    10. L.G. Thomas, 1996. "The Two Faces of Competition: Dynamic Resourcefulness and the Hypercompetitive Shift," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 221-242, June.
    11. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    12. S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    13. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    14. Armen A. Alchian, 1950. "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3), pages 211-211.
    15. Henry Mintzberg & James A. Waters, 1985. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 257-272, July.
    16. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    17. David Levy, 1994. "Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S2), pages 167-178, June.
    18. Ralph D. Stacey, 1995. "The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 477-495.
    19. R. A. Thiétart & B. Forgues, 1995. "Chaos Theory and Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 19-31, February.
    20. Elaine Mosakowski, 1997. "Strategy Making Under Causal Ambiguity: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 414-442, August.
    21. L. J. Bourgeois, III & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1988. "Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(7), pages 816-835, July.
    22. Robert A. Burgelman, 1983. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1349-1364, December.
    23. Kathleen Carley, 1992. "Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 20-46, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    2. Sidney G. Winter & Gabriel Szulanski, 2001. "Replication as Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(6), pages 730-743, December.
    3. Hart E. Posen & Sangyoon Yi & Jeho Lee, 2020. "A contingency perspective on imitation strategies: When is “benchmarking” ineffective?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 198-221, February.
    4. Arie Y. Lewin & Henk W. Volberda, 1999. "Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 519-534, October.
    5. Jerker Denrell & James G. March, 2001. "Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 523-538, October.
    6. Sharon A. Alvarez & Jay B. Barney & Philip Anderson, 2013. "Forming and Exploiting Opportunities: The Implications of Discovery and Creation Processes for Entrepreneurial and Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 301-317, February.
    7. Burgelman, Robert A. & Grove, Andrew S., 2007. "Let Chaos Reign, Then Rein In Chaos--Repeatedly: Managing Strategic Dynamics For Corporate Longevity," Research Papers 1954, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Michael D. Ryall, 2009. "Causal Ambiguity, Complexity, and Capability-Based Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 389-403, March.
    9. Sirén, Charlotta & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction between strategic planning and learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 653-663.
    10. Monika Winn & Manfred Kirchgeorg & Andrew Griffiths & Martina K. Linnenluecke & Elmar Günther, 2011. "Impacts from climate change on organizations: a conceptual foundation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 157-173, March.
    11. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    12. Manuel Portugal Ferreira & Sungu Armagan & Dan Li, 2007. "Vertical Integration For Full Outsourcing: Growth And Internationalization Of A Portuguese Packaging Firm," Working Papers 4, globADVANTAGE, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria.
    13. Philip Anderson, 1999. "Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 216-232, June.
    14. Avimanyu Datta, 2011. "Combining Networks, Ambidexterity and Absorptive Capacity to Explain Commercialization of Innovations: A Theoretical Model from Review and Extension," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(4), pages 2-25, December.
    15. Hyunjeong Kang & Hyong Uk Kim, 2020. "Who Can Survive in an ICT-Enabled Crowdfunding Platform?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Freek Vermeulen, 2018. "A basic theory of inheritance: How bad practice prevails," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1603-1629, June.
    17. Patrick Regnér & Udo Zander, 2011. "Knowledge and Strategy Creation in Multinational Companies," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 821-850, December.
    18. Benoit Morel & Rangaraj Ramanujam, 1999. "Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The Dynamics of Organizations as Adaptive and Evolving Systems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 278-293, June.
    19. Michael J. Lenox & Scott F. Rockart & Arie Y. Lewin, 2007. "Interdependency, Competition, and Industry Dynamics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 599-615, April.
    20. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2017. "Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-93, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:10:y:1999:i:3:p:294-321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.