A unified open systems model for explaining organisational change - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 142

Figure 11.9 (b) displays the relationship between the change in entropy level and the
organisation change process. The distance between the y-axis and the vertical line C,
which is represented by P, is the entropy build-up zone. An increase in entropy is ne-
cessary to bring the system to a far-from-equilibrium state. The area behind line C
(represented by Q) is a chaotic zone in which self-organisation takes place and the system
experiences a transformation to another state. This phenomenon corresponds to the de-
velopment of the Benard cells mentioned earlier, in which a continuous supply of energy
is required for the development of a new spatio-temporal structure.
Conclusion
Closed systems do not realistically represent real organisations because organisations
are open rather than closed. Thus, any theories or models that treat organisations as
closed systems are inadequate. Furthermore, although closed system models work best
in a relatively static environment, such environments are rare and likely to become even
less so.
Depending on environmental demand or contingency, organisations respond to perturb-
ations in the environment either via an adaptation process, which can be viewed using
an open systems model or homeostatic equilibrium model, or transformation, which is
best viewed using a dissipative systems thermodynamic non-equilibrium model. Adapt-
ation operates in response to limited environmental disturbances, but beyond these
limits organisations need to transform themselves into more sophisticated forms that are
more complex and capable of managing higher levels of environmental contingencies.
However, a complex system must be in a far-from-equilibrium condition, which is
characterised by instability, so that transformation can occur.
In adaptation, changes in the environment require that organisations modify some of
their properties (strategy, structure, procedures or technology, and size) to be aligned
with that environment. But adaptation cannot accommodate cultural change, which in-
volves changing of people's beliefs held at a deep level. When organisations have to
cope with an extremely high environmental contingency, transformation, which is a
more substantial and pervasive form of change that includes the change of organisational
culture and its political web, must be introduced to ensure their survival.
Since the environment of organisations is ever more complex and dynamic, we argue
that a unified model, which encompasses both adaptation and transformation, should
be developed and empirically tested with the aim of better representing and understand-
ing change in organisations.
Acknowledgement
The authors are greatly indebted to Prof. Joan K. Pierson, Dr Ulrich Nehmzow, Joseph
A. Meloche, and anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and editing work, which,
to a great extent, contributed to the improvement, readability and completeness of this
paper.