Talk:Complexity theory and organizations

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article?

This article is quite good and could use just a bit of elaboration, also translation of the references at the bottom to inline references. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Hi Snowded,

I disagree with your decision to eliminate the source "The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results." by D. Braha and Y. Bar-Yam published in Management Science. Vol. 53 (7). pp. 1127-1145. July 2007. This paper was published in a Special Issue on Complex Systems in the top management journal in the field. It is by far the most complete (empirically and theoretically) paper published on real-world complex organizations. The paper opens new ways at analyzing complex organizations by integrating both empirical and theoretical arguments.

Happy Holidays.

Cordially, AE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.174.110 (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

I have pasted the above from my talk page where it was inserted without any title. What we have here is a newly created IP address whose only action has been to insert this paper. We get this on many pages and on many an occasion it is the author attempting to get some publicity. Also these articles cannot become repositories for any article on the subject no matter what the reputation of the journal. I am not opposed per se but I want a case to be made. Specifically

What is the evidence of the impact of the paper?
Is the new IP the author or one of their students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 December 2008

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. -- Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Complexity theory and strategy into Complexity theory and organizations. They deal with the same subject. --Muhandes (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support most of the complexity articles need some radical surgery anyway --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Peer Review from Lina

Overall, it looks like this page has a lot of room for improvement. There is a lot of information that can be added and organized to make this page much more robust! In the Overview section – It could be best to start with the actual definition of complexity theory and what it means. Also, it seems that there are other complexity theories; so maybe addressing how this is different from the others may help with alleviating confusion. Maybe add where the theory came from or who started the theory. The application areas mentioned in the overview seems to be more a definition of the theory than the actual application areas which also could be useful mentioning. It seems unnecessary to have both the words complex and adaptive bolded when there is no explanation to their significance. It seems like the idea behind structures are important, so it could be useful to elaborate on that before highlighting how these structures are complex and adaptive. Under Key Concepts – that first sentence can be broken down by all those CAS principles that are outlined. Those could be made into sub headlines and elaborated on perhaps. For both the Implications and Examples sections, those seem to have a lot of room for either additional information or elaboration of the information that is already there. Within examples especially, some types of complex systems are stated, but not elaborated upon the way that Wikipedia is – not to mention that one has some citations to it while the rest really don’t. Hope these suggestions help while your group builds out this page! --Lbm53gu (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Peer Review from Natalia

I, along with Lina, believe that this page can be improved by "fattening up" the material. To explain what I mean, the information provided is not only extremely dry, but also extremely hard to read, and thus relate to. Any individual who has worked within some form of an organization can attest to the challenges and complexities that comes with working with various individuals that have different viewpoints, opinions, and ways of conducting business. Furthermore, with the introduction of technology, the general day-to-day running of an organization can become even more complex. To improve this article, one must first begin with creating a strong foundation in defining this theory. The original author did not take into account an individual who potentially has never heard of this theory before. The author assumed too much that anyone reading this page would automatically understand the title and the continue reading to further the knowledge on the topic. Another improvement can be the humanization of the page. The examples used to describe this theory are rather lackluster and are void of thorough explanation. By placing this theory in a real life context and an easily understood example, the reader can better understand the material that is at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natk415 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Peer Review from Casey

I'm just piggy backing off of what Lina and Natalia have already said, but this page clearly has a lot of room for improvement. The second paragraph of the examples section is extremely vague. While the paragraph introduces several concepts such as the global macroeconomic network and the stock market, it doesn't explain how exactly they relate to the theory of complexity. I would suggest reading through citation 9 and bringing in additional information from it. Find additional sources that give specific real-world examples of complexity theory. Catilton (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Jiaxin Yang

This complexity theory and organizations page is still in an initial stage, many works remain to be added in order to build up the theory. The structure should be established, and content fills in with our class reading and other academic sources. From what it already has there, the feature of “adaptive” in the “overview” part is rather vague, nonacademic readers may find it hard to get the point of what it is about. The key concepts are shown to be a try lists of unfamiliar terms, without explanations and related hyperlinks. Using Wikipedia as an example of CAS might be ideal, yet the way it communicates with the reader is perfunctory. Besides, I believe examples are not appropriate to be located in a single title without showing what feature of theory they refer to. What is more, the four characteristics of the CAS, the dissipative structure, how does complexity frameworks relate to information communication technology today, as well as criticism of the theory are missing. Wikipedia project collaborators may want to incorporate some of them. Jiaxinyang (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review - Group 1

This page has the potential to provide good information about complexity theory and organizations. The first link for complexity theory leads to the complex systems Wikipedia page and it’s a little confusing. Maybe change the link so that it’s “complex systems theory.” The way it is currently structured, there is more information about systems theory and complexity than there is about complexity as it related to firms and organizations. From the provided information I learned that the application of complexity to firms and organizations came out of the larger field of systems thinking, so it would be helpful if there was more information on the history of this particular application and the first research or studies that focused on complexity theory for organizations and firms. Sp1008 (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]