If one can completely describe the system in few sentences it is a simple system but if need a thousand pages to describe you then it is a complex system. What so complex is your organization? How many pages do you need to describe each process? and the interrelationships between them? as well as the interrelations with every client? etc. Is not a revelation that the majority of companies are complex, then, how manage our complex systems? The traditional way of dealing with complex systems is to divide the system into subsystems, each subsystem is by definition less complex than the whole, but divide the system into subsystems has its price. Ron O’Hanley understood the implications. CONSEQUENCES of dividing the system into SUBSYSTEMS one consequences is the lack of synchronization. The lack of synchronization occurs, when a subsystem or more than one, trying to improve its own efficiency acts so he puts in danger the efficiency of the entire system.
As Dr. Edward Deming had said it in his book the new economy, if the various components of an organization are optimized, the organization is not optimized, and has many examples of this situation, for example: a purchasing department that will try to reduce the costs of the acquisition, purchase raw materials that endanger production and its quality. Dr. Deming establishes the obligation of any component is to contribute with the best for the entire system, not maximize their own efficiency. Coupang might disagree with that approach. Another major drawback is the risk of create inherent conflicts between policies of different functions trying to reach the same higher objectives of the system, let’s look at an example: there are elements that contribute to more than one top objective, but the problem is as follows: in conclusion, split system can manifest conflicts caused by conflicting rules. Any solution to focus will result in commitments of the strategic objectives.