Advantages of Sub-Optimized Systems

In thinking about system configurations as presented by Dr. Fraser in the first module of the Certified Public Manager course, one aspect seemed worth exploring further.

The general principle of system structure theory is shown in the graphic below and states that as effective systems are developed, issues progress from being handled as events, to patterns, to structural systems. The potential for managers to positively impacting how an issue is addressed is maximized in the ability to create and implement the effective system structures before issues arise.

What seemed most interesting would be to explore the potential advantages sub-optimized systems could have to various stakeholders.  When system structure is either not effective or has not been developed, thereby requiring issues to be dealt with on the event level, what if any tangential advantages might there be to various stakeholders.


Three scenarios are presented to explore this question.

Scenario #1 - Business Genius or Project Management Wacko

"Either the architect was a certified genius or an authentic whack-o!" - Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Ghost Busters, 1983

At one point in my professional career, I was working for a construction contracting company in a very frustrating environment.  My role consisted of assisting two very competent project managers and all of us were perpetually frustrated with the systems the senior managers had implemented on our project.  The systems in place were by all accounts an impediment to progress and made our work extremely cumbersome.

Below is a flow chart to depict the steps between when an issue was identified to when work could be formally authorized to address the issue.

Somewhere in the middle of the project Kevin Koening, one of the very competent project managers, came to the realization that whatever we thought of the leadership’s inefficient and sub-optimal “system configuration” sense, they were certifiable business geniuses.

They had effectively developed a business model in which they could bill a client an astronomical amount to carry out an inefficient and cumbersome system with a small army of minimally skilled labor.  


The system was sub-optimal for accomplishing the project, but it was optimized around creating billable work.

Scenario #2 - The Commission Without Policy

Consider a somewhat hypothetical public commission whose approval is being required for some necessary action.  If that commission fails to adequately adopt regulations to define what does and does not meet their requirements, and instead deals with every issue on a case by case basis, we have the potential for a sub-optimized system.

Specific sub-optimized effects include the inability of support staff to develop “structural” (referencing the systems graph depicted above) systems to deal with issues generatively.  Entities appearing before the commission also lack clarity in what will be required to gain approval.  And the commission’s work is further encumbered by the necessity of needing to address every matter before them as an individual event.

The net effect is that the commissioners become the critical stakeholder in any project needing commission approval.  There any few limits as to what can be brought into the purview of the commission thereby expanding their power. 


So this sub-optimized system has the advantage to the commissioners of effectively maximizing the political power of the commission at the expense of the actions it is intended to oversee.

Scenario #3 - The Emergency Oriented Employee

The third scenario, devised in discussions with my fellow classmate Casey Rice, considers the motivation of an individual employee.  Although neither of us could pinpoint specific examples, it seems possible this scenario could occur.

If your workforce derives more value from responding to the "Event" level incident than addressing an issue on the structural level, an inverse incentive to avoid carrying out the routine of the “structured” system could be developed.

Incentives for dealing with “Event” level issues could include the adrenaline thrill of operating in crisis mode, the potential to address crises outside of bureaucratic decision making “systems”, the opportunity for overtime pay, or appreciation of an employee’s visible efforts to fix the emergency by the larger community.

Taken from this vantage point, the underlying employee motivation theoretically favors minimizing optimized system structures and in order to direct issues to the more rewarding Event level.

Analysis and Conclusions

Within each of these scenarios, one group of individual stakeholders gains advantages by placing their own interest ahead of the larger objective that the “system” is designed to address.

Therefore the incentive to the manager seeking leverage issue response by building system structures is to ensure that all of the stakeholders within the system are committed to and motivated towards achieving the system outcomes. 


In the specific cases described above this likely entails ensuring that contractual relationships support structures that foster system success (Scenario #1), or that individuals are rewarded for and motivated towards achieving the ultimate ends the structure of the “systems” are trying to achieve (Scenario #2 and #3).