1. Mechanism design for total quality management: Using the bootstrap algorithm for changing the control game Petter Øgland Trial defence presentation Oslo, April 8th 2013

2. Tightly coupled complex systems in crisis: Climate, finance, technology

3. Control crisis and control revolution drives evolution of information society Total Quality Management (TQM) is the application of SYSTEMS THINKING to organisation and management

4. 80% TQM implementation failure Explanation: ”FAKE TQM” The TQM standards industry (ISO 9000, CMM, etc) creates a global network of organised hypocrisy What to do: ”REAL TQM” The organisation must break loose of ’false consciousness’ and liberate itself from the oppression of the hypocrisy

5. Three levels of TQM game play Matching Pennies – zero sum quality control game based on having “real TQM” management commitment Stag Hunt – trust game of doing “real TQM” or “fake TQM” depends on culture Monopoly – mechanism design game Controlling process improvement projects Controlling the survival of the TQM programme Controlling cultural change

6. Cultivating information infrastructure on a mission to ”conquer the world” The Health Information System Programme (HISP) controls and expands itself as a network of research and development across the world In the Monopoly game the players control and expand their assets as a network of real estate trades and developments across the game board

7. Thinking about the Bootstrap Algorithm (BA) as a Monopoly strategy Start with  simple, cheap, flexible solution  small network of users that may benefit significantly from improved communication with each other only  simple practices  non-critical practices  motivated users  knowledgeable users 1.Repeat as long as possible: Enrol more users 2.Find and implement more innovative use; go to 1 3.Use solution in more critical cases; go to 1 4.Use solution in more complex cases; go to 1 5.Improve the solution so new tasks can be supported; go to 1 Hanseth & Aanestad (2002)

8. RH: The BA is an optimal mechanism design for implementing TQM RH1: The BA can be implemented and managed in a state of statistical control RH2: The response to the BA treatment is performance measurable by TQM assessments RH3: The BA is optimal for implementing TQM in complex environments

9. Canonical Action Research (CAR) The research process was not originally designed as CAR, but CAR is useful for explaining how things were done Twenty years of TQM implementation by trying to bootstrap the information infrastructure Three cycles (DNMI + NTAX + NTAX/UiO)

10. First cycle 1992-99: Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt (DNMI) Diagnosis: Complexity made project management based on water-fall model unsuccessful in developing Climate Database (KLIBAS) Treatment: Complex adaptive systems (CAS) was used to define a BA that proved successful for developing and improving KLIBAS in the context of TQM implementation Outcome: Formulation of BA and experience from using it

11. Second cycle 1999-2005: Skatteetaten (NTAX) Diagnosis: Strong elements of “fake TQM” in a world of bureaucracy, politics and complexity Treatment: The BA approach developed at DNMI was able to change “fake TQM” into “real TQM” but ultimately failed Outcome: Need to investigate why the “what gets measured gets done” idea, as used in the BA design, did not give expected results

12. Third cycle 2006-2011: Collaborating with UiO for creating change at NTAX Diagnosis: The “what gets measured gets done” idea did not work among COBOL programmers at NTAX as there was lack of management commitment to TQM Treatment: Improve the audit process by being more specific in the formulation of the audit game, which helped, but in the end the process failed Outcome: The importance of having game theoretic representations of the social theories used when studying BA through action research

13. BA stability hypothesis (RH1) THIRD CYCLEFIRST CYCLESECOND CYCLE

14. BA impact hypothesis (RH2) By understanding the QMS information infrastructure dynamics as Monopoly, the impact of the BA depends on how well it works as a Monopoly strategy Property trading: Hamlet game, Pac-Man game, “what gets measured gets done” game, self-protection game Property development: Deconstruction game

15. BA optimality hypothesis (RH3) The BA can be interpreted as an optimal Monopoly strategy as optimality is a relationship between the BA and the mathematical structure of the problem (Albertos & Mareels, 2010, p. 270) The BA design used in the study was not optimal, but redesigning it with each failed cycle made it continually better By following optimal strategy it should take about 25 years to implement TQM at NTAX?

16. Contribution to knowledge 1: Monopoly as a model of II dynamics Old knowledge New knowledge Core theory

17. Contribution to knowledge 2: The BA as a Genetic Algorithm (GA) Old knowledge New knowledge Core theory Design theory

18. Contribution to knowledge 3: Use of game theory in action research 1. Diagnosis: Phenomenological attitude 3. Testing of treatment : Positivist attitude 2. Finding a treatment : Mathematical analysis of the game model

19. Implications for practice Matching Pennies – zero sum quality control game based on having “real TQM” management commitment Stag Hunt – trust game of doing “real TQM” or “fake TQM” depends on culture Monopoly – mechanism design game Controlling process improvement projects Controlling the survival of the TQM programme Controlling cultural change FAKE TQM REAL TQM

20. The BA is important It should be more well-known It should be subject for further research Understanding the world as a complex system Using the BA as control strategy