CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.3. Resilience Theory
3.3.4. Complex Adaptive Systems
A complex adaptive system (CAS) is a complex macroscopic collection of relatively similar and partially connected micro-structures. Chan citing Honavar (2001, p.1) characterizes these systems as having “complex behaviors that emerge as a result of often nonlinear spatio-temporal interactions among a large number of component systems at different levels of organisation.
Chan (2001, p.2) continues by stating that these systems are dynamic and are able to adapt in and evolve with a changing environment. Chan (2001, p.2) makes the distinction that there is no separation between a system and its environment in the idea that a system always adapts to a changing environment, rather, „the concept to be examined is that of a system closely linked with all other related systems making up an ecosystem. Within such a context, change needs to be seen in terms of co-evolution with all other related systems, rather than as adaptation to a separate and distinct environment”.
Hakimi (2010), explains that these systems are diverse and made up of multiple interconnected components and they are adaptive in that they have an aspect of understanding by learning from previous experiences in order to respond to change both positive and negative (see Figure 2)
Figure 2: Complex Adaptive Systems Model
(Source: The New World of Emergent Architecture and Complex Adaptive Systems)
To explain CAS by way of an example, Holland (1992) uses of the immune system. The immune system consists of large numbers of units, called antibodies, that continually repel or destroy an ever-changing array of invaders (bacteria and biochemicals), called antigens. Because attacks come in an almost infinite variety of forms, the immune system cannot simply develop a list of all possible invaders. Even if it could take the time to do so, there is no room to store all that information. Instead, the immune system must change or adapt ("fit to") its antibodies as new invaders appear (Holland, 1992, p.17).
Holland (1882, p.18) continues by making the point that the immune system faces the additional complication that it must distinguish self from other; the system must distinguish the legitimate parts of its owner from the ever-changing cast of attackers. This is remarkable considering that
the owner's cells and their biochemical constituents number in the tens of thousands of types.
Holland (1992, p.18) acknowledges that mistakes in identification do occur in some people, resulting in the usually fatal autoimmune diseases, but they are rare. However, the immune system is still very good at self-identification that it will not even confuse its own cells with those in a skin graft from a sibling, for example (Holland, 1992, p.18).
With reference to this case study, YFC Cape may certainly be viewed as a complex adaptive system. We can see that it has varying levels of relationships with interconnected networks, be it governmental; public or private. It exhibits complex adaptive behavior in the manner in which it responds to its varying changing environments, as well as its various interconnected networks.
Examples of these co-evolution moments will be illustrated in the findings section of this thesis.
As illustrated above, the key difference between systems resilience and complex adaptive systems is the adaptive capacity. In complex adaptive systems, resilience is best defined as “the ability to withstand, recover from, and reorganize in response to crises. The function is maintained, but system structure may not be.” (Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011, p.7). This idea of adaptation also lends itself to the idea that innovation and transformation may take place so as to
„maintain function‟ of the system. This means that that the system may change from one form to another while still maintaining its identity. Although the theoretical underpinnings of complex adaptive systems are instructive for the purposes of this study, a framework for assessing resilience is necessary as well.
Cumming et al (2005) have created a framework for the empirical measurement of resilience.
The focal point of their approach is first to develop an understanding of relationships and identities within the system. It is based on exploring five central elements. The first step is to
define the system. This includes identifying the sum of the parts, the relationships and networks as well as continuity and innovations (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 978). The purpose of doing this is to establish the parameters of the system. For instance in the case of YFC Cape Town we will be looking at the organization itself, its role in the larger parent body of the national office, donors (both local and international), like-minded youth agencies, the public sector, the private sector, government agencies as well as the various target environments (socio-geographical). A conceptual model will be constructed of these various components highlighting their respective roles and relationships with each other in the system. The second step is to define possible future systems, which thinks about alternative structures to the current system yet at the same time evaluating the extent to which it maintains aspects of its identity (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 983). The third step is to clarify change trajectories. This entails identifying the cause of the change within the system and is done introspectively together with step two. This step allows us to ascertain ongoing change which does not necessarily affect the structure of the system (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 978). The aim of this is to explain how internal and external factors affect resilience within the organisation. The fourth step is to assess the likelihood of alternative futures. Once all the current conditions, perturbations and possible futures are evaluated the next step is to assess which other futures are possible for the system (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 984). The authors contend that if system identity is likely to be lost, the system is not very resilient, alternatively if the system is likely to maintain its identity across a broad range of scenarios, it is resilient (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 984). Finally, identify mechanisms and levers for change. After applying all the previous steps, we are now able to identify those elements which are key to resilience within the system. Knowing these „mechanisms‟ and „levers‟ then enables us to be in a better prevent system change (Cumming et al, 2005, p. 984). For instance, this knowledge could be used by policy makers and planners to prevent to address points of concern
within a system. The above-mentioned strategy (with some adaptation) will be used to, therefore, assess the resilience of YFC Cape Town.