Situational Complexity - Revision history

Laouris: /* Subjective Situational Complexity */ Subjective Situational Complexity expanded with examples

2022-10-06T10:43:29Z

Subjective Situational Complexity: Subjective Situational Complexity expanded with examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:43, 6 October 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

	====Subjective Situational Complexity====		====Subjective Situational Complexity====
			This type of situational complexity postulates that the observer interacts with the object of observation and influences its behavior. The [[White Coat Hypertension]] presents a good practical example in which the doctor attempting to measure, for example, the heartbeat of a patient, influences it through the act of measuring. Another common example is when one tries to measure the pressure in an automobile tire. In order to make the measurement, some air will escape, thus changing the pressure. A third example from quantum physics is the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]], which states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy. The more we try to measure a particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

			Subjective Situational Complexity is grounded in [[Second-phase Science]], which postulates that the observations are ''observer-dependant''. The construction of high-quality observations ''depends fully on the actions'' that are to be improved by their use.

	====Intersubjective Situational Complexity====		====Intersubjective Situational Complexity====

Laouris: /* Situational Complexity in the context of Dialogic Design Science */

2022-10-06T10:13:17Z

Situational Complexity in the context of Dialogic Design Science

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 6 October 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Situational Complexity in the context of Dialogic Design Science==		==Situational Complexity in the context of Dialogic Design Science==
			In the context of [[Dialogic Design Science]], we ground our definitions of situational complexity in the [[three phases of science]].

			====Objective Situational Complexity====
			This type of complexity is observer-independent. It is the kind of complexity that exists in 1st phase of science, which assumes the construction of high-quality observations (i.e., measurements) can be <u> fully separated from the actions </u> that could be taken to improve the situation. The phenomenon of gravity presents a great example. Different observers can make measurements of falling objects and try to estimate g. The result is always the same, i.e., it is independent of the observers.


			====Subjective Situational Complexity====



			====Intersubjective Situational Complexity====

	==References==		==References==

Laouris: Expanded article to present the history and original use of Agreement & Certainty Matrix

2022-10-06T07:53:26Z

Expanded article to present the history and original use of Agreement & Certainty Matrix

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 6 October 2022
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

Laouris: Article created with origins of term

2022-10-06T07:40:36Z

Article created with origins of term

New page

The situational complexity framework was proposed by Stacey (1996) using the Agreement & Certainty Matrix.

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.

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.

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