Excerpt: Can autopoietic systems not be creative and innovative? Or does the biological roots of the concept and notions such as “structural determinism” and “structural states” make it impossible to capture “the new” in the system’s dynamics’? The aim of the following discussion is to outline the theory of autopoietic systems, as it pertains to action theory and the understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. This will be elucidated by examining how systems theory combines concepts of (1) the old and the new, (2) the real and the possible, and (3) the redundant and the variable.

Modern organic metaphors for society have run parallel to the very idea of sociology as a science, starting with Comte and Spencer’s use of the term “social organism” (Comte, 1830–42; Spencer, 1897). These metaphors provide a self-renewing source of debate, analogies, and disanalogies. Processes of social regulation, conservation, growth, and reproduction provoke an irresistible epistemic resonance and make us lose little time in offering explanations resembling those of biological regulation, conservation, growth, and reproduction. The phenomenon has not been restricted to metaphor-hungry social scientists: the final chapter of W. B. Cannon’s The wisdom of the body (1932) is called “Relations of biological and social homeostasis.” Attempts to apply a modern theory of living organisms – the theory of autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1980) – to social systems are but the latest installment in this saga. Despite the appeal of the organic metaphor, there are good reasons to remain skeptical of these parallels. “Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a centipede,” says G. K. Chesterton (1910) ironically in his essay against the medical fallacy. Doctors may disagree on the diagnosis of an illness, he says, but they know what is the state they are trying to restore: that of a healthy organism (implying, admittedly, a rather unproblematic concept of health). In social systems, a “social illness” confronts us with precisely the opposite situation: the disagreement is about what the healthy state should be.

The relation between organizational change and information systems has received much attention in the information systems literature. Much of this research has concentrated on the effects of organizational change on information systems and vice versa. Such research has generated rich insights in the facilitating as well as constraining role of information systems in the process of organizational change. Many analyses assume a distinction between the system and its environment, the organization. Information systems are seen as being relatively stable entities while the environment is a source of change and uncertainty. Such a perspective stresses the need for a continuous adaptation of the information system to its dynamic environment.

Excerpt: This introductory chapter elaborates some of the key ideas which shaped the concept of this book. The overriding idea is that autopoiesis theory has the potential to provide a unifying framework for the study of organizational phenomena in the 21st century. Although organization studies have recently had no shortage of new paradigms and approaches – such as postmodernism, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, reflexivity, and critical theory – the field seems to be expanding in ways that make it increasingly difficult to comprehend, especially for the uninitiated.

Knowledge management aims to increase an organization’s competitive advantage through the collective management of its employees’ knowledge. In the past, knowledge management was very technologically oriented, with a focus on data mining, software, and artificial intelligence, but in recent years there has been a move toward incorporating social aspects. As knowledge management evolved into its second era, the focus shifted to defining knowledge, developing frameworks, and implementing content management systems. The current knowledge management era (third) appears to be more integrated with an organization’s philosophy, goals, and day-to-day activities, and is also the “softest” with regards to a people-oriented approach (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis, & Psarras, 2005; Wiig, 2002) As knowledge management moves further into the third era, no theoretical foundation exists. As will be seen, knowledge is an unmanageable, nontransferable entity that cannot exist outside a person’s brain (Abou-Zeid, 2007) As such it is not possible to define the concept of knowledge, nor even desirable, and this is in direct contrast to first generation knowledge management, which aimed to accurately define the concept of knowledge (Metaxiotis et al., 2005) The focus on frameworks (Holsapple & Joshi, 1997), systems (Hasan & Gould, 2003), and technology (Liao, 2003) that dominated second-generation knowledge management is also not compatible with the current understanding of knowledge (Abou-Zeid, 2007), suggesting that systems cannot directly manage knowledge.

Excerpt: The introduction of compulsory schooling – in Western Europe during the long 19th century, reaching from Prussia (1764) to Belgium (1914) – has strengthened the role of organized education. How has this fact, viz. that education now takes place in an organized setting, influenced the nature of educational interaction? I want to tackle this complex question with the help of a systems-theoretical framework, inspired by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. Departing from Luhmann’s writings on organizational theory, as well as from some of his shorter articles on education, this chapter focuses on the analysis of educational interaction in organized social systems.