Luo, Y (2008) Radical architecture, collective mindfulness, and information technology: A dialectical analysis of risk control in complex socio-technical systems. PhD thesis, Case Western Reserve University, USA.
Abstract
Complex socio-technical systems suffer increasingly from systemic risks. A systemic risk is a risk that originates from multiple sources, affects multiple agents, propagates quickly or unexpectedly among individual parts or components of the system, and if left unchecked can cause a breakdown of the system. This research seeks to explain the technologies of risk control in such complex systems. Three main issues are explored: (i) the elevated level of systemic risks in complex socio-technical systems; (ii) the mindful risk control mechanisms in complex socio-technical systems; and (iii) the role of information technology in containing and mitigating risks in complex socio-technical systems. The research is grounded in the literature on risk, theories of collective mindfulness, general dialectics, and IT practices. Since little prior research has been conducted on systemic risk, a multi-site case study methodology is followed. As part of the ongoing Path Creation project sponsored by the NSF (IIS-0208963), the first research site is a highly complex architectural project by Frank Gehry and his firm Gehry Partners, L.L.C.: the Peter B. Lewis Building. The second research site is the Akron Art Museum (AAM) designed by renowned Vienna architect Coop Himmelb(l)au. Both architects and their partners successfully used the 3D CAD (Computer-Aided Design) software, CATIA (Computer Aided Three Dimensional Interactive Application) and Rhino (Rhinoceros) respectively, to construct radical architectures with dauntingly complex geometric surfaces in spite of increased systemic risks. The major findings include: First, complex socio-technical systems suffer from an elevated level of systemic risks which are not quantifiable as chances or probabilities but are emergent, nonlinear and whose sources are difficult to pinpoint in advance. Second, organizations combat systemic risk through “collective mindfulness”(Weick et al. 1999). Third, organizations create and maintain the collective mindfulness by orchestrating the dialectical tensions between mindful and mindless acting and thinking among its members. Finally, information technologies, in combination with other organizational mechanisms, can contribute to collective mindfulness by attending to both mindful and mindless behaviors, thereby increasing the effectiveness of combating systemic risk.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Lyytinen, K |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | effectiveness; socio-technical systems; case study; computer-aided design; information technology; architects |
| Index terms: | socio-technical system, computer aided design, methodology, information technology, Gehry, agent, architect, effectiveness, case study, mindfulness, Vienna, complex system |
| Subjects: | profession, data collection methods, computational design, computing systems, practitioner, architectural and construction history, theoretical framing, performance management, research methods, Geography, health conditions and diseases, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here