Situational Complexity: Difference between revisions

From Dialogic Design Science
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Article created with origins of term)
 
(Expanded article to present the history and original use of Agreement & Certainty Matrix)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''situational complexity framework''' was proposed by Stacey (1996) using the Agreement & Certainty Matrix shown below.
[[File: StaceyAgreement_CertaintyMatrix.png|600 px]]
Adapted from Zimmerman (2001); found in Patton (2011).


The framework uses two axes:
# The level of certainty about cause and effect to solve a problem
# The level of agreement among stakeholders about the desirability of the solution


More recently, Zimmerman (2001) and Patton (2011) applied this framework to program evaluation (Chazdon & Grant, 2019). In that context, the term situational complexity refers specifically to the distinction between ''simple'', ''technically complicated'', ''socially complicated'', and ''complex situations''. This distinction is attributed to the work of organizational theorists Ralph Stacey (1996) and David Snowden (2002).


The situational complexity framework was proposed by Stacey (1996) using the Agreement & Certainty Matrix.
==Situational Complexity in the context of Dialogic Design Science==




adapted from Stacey’s work (Zimmerman, 2011), known as  (see Figure 1), has two poles based on the level of certainty about cause and effect to solve a problem and the level of agreement among stakeholders about the desirability of the solution.
==References==
 
* Chazdon, S., & Grant, S. (2019). Situational Complexity and the Perception of Credible Evidence. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 7(2), 4.
 
* Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance
he term situational complexity refers specifically to the distinction between simple, technically complicated, socially complicated, and complex situations—a distinction attributed to the work of organizational theorists Ralph Stacey (1996) and David Snowden (2002) and applied more recently to program evaluation by Zimmerman (2001) and Patton (2011).
 
 
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance
innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
 
* Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
* Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Koehler Publishers.
 
* Zimmerman, B.,(2001). Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty Matrix, Schulich School of Business,
Zimmerman, B.,(2001). Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty Matrix, Schulich School of Business,
York University, Toronto, Canada.  Online at: https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/guide/ralph_staceys_agreement_and_certainty_matrix
York University, Toronto, Canada.  Online at: https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/guide/ralph_staceys_agreement_and_certainty_matrix

Revision as of 07:53, 6 October 2022

The situational complexity framework was proposed by Stacey (1996) using the Agreement & Certainty Matrix shown below. StaceyAgreement CertaintyMatrix.png Adapted from Zimmerman (2001); found in Patton (2011).

The framework uses two axes:

  1. The level of certainty about cause and effect to solve a problem
  2. The level of agreement among stakeholders about the desirability of the solution

More recently, Zimmerman (2001) and Patton (2011) applied this framework to program evaluation (Chazdon & Grant, 2019). In that context, the term situational complexity refers specifically to the distinction between simple, technically complicated, socially complicated, and complex situations. This distinction is attributed to the work of organizational theorists Ralph Stacey (1996) and David Snowden (2002).

Situational Complexity in the context of Dialogic Design Science

References

  • Chazdon, S., & Grant, S. (2019). Situational Complexity and the Perception of Credible Evidence. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 7(2), 4.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance

innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal
  • Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-

Koehler Publishers.

  • Zimmerman, B.,(2001). Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty Matrix, Schulich School of Business,

York University, Toronto, Canada. Online at: https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/guide/ralph_staceys_agreement_and_certainty_matrix

Retrieved from "https://www.dialogicdesignscience.info/w/index.php?title=Situational_Complexity&oldid=515"