The Viable System Model, or VSM, was first introduced by British cybernetician Stafford Beer in the 1970s. Beer’s work was deeply influenced by cybernetics, which is the study of communication and control in living organisms, machines, and organizations. VSM is a framework that helps organizations understand and manage their internal and external complexities by structuring them as a set of interconnected systems.
At its core, the Viable System Model seeks to answer a fundamental question: How can an organization remain adaptable and effective in a dynamic and uncertain environment? To address this question, VSM views organizations as living systems, similar to organisms, and proposes a structured approach to ensure their viability.
To understand the Viable System Model, it’s essential to delve into its core concepts and components:
1. Five Recursive Systems:
The VSM consists of five interconnected, recursive systems, each with a specific function:
System 1: Operations:
This is the core of the organization, where day-to-day tasks and activities are performed. It includes front-line employees and functions.
System 2: Coordination:
System 2 is responsible for coordinating the activities of System 1. It ensures that resources are allocated efficiently and that tasks are performed in a coordinated manner.
System 3: Control:
System 3 focuses on monitoring and controlling the performance of System 1 and System 2. It establishes standards and ensures that the organization’s objectives are being met.
System 4: Direction:
System 4 deals with the long-term direction and strategy of the organization. It sets goals, defines the overall mission, and plans for the future.
System 5: Meta-system:
System 5 serves as the meta-system that oversees and integrates the other four systems. It is responsible for the organization’s overall viability and adaptability.
2. Requisite Variety:
The concept of “requisite variety” is central to the VSM. It suggests that for an organization to maintain its viability in a complex environment, it must have a variety of responses that matches the variety of challenges it faces. In other words, the organization’s internal structure and systems must be capable of handling the diversity of external stimuli.
3. Double-Feedback Loops:
VSM incorporates double-feedback loops, which consist of two types of feedback:
Balancing Feedback: Balancing feedback loops help maintain stability and control within the organization. They are associated with Systems 1, 2, and 3 and focus on ensuring that activities are aligned with the organization’s goals.
Amplifying Feedback: Amplifying feedback loops are associated with Systems 4 and 5. They focus on innovation, adaptation, and strategic thinking, allowing the organization to evolve and respond to changing circumstances.
Significance of the Viable System Model
The Viable System Model holds significant importance for organizations in today’s complex and dynamic business environment:
For Organizations:
Enhanced Adaptability:
VSM provides a structured approach for organizations to enhance their adaptability and responsiveness to external changes and challenges.
Efficient Resource Allocation:
By distinguishing between different functions and systems, VSM helps organizations allocate resources more efficiently and reduce redundancy.
Improved Decision-Making:
The model supports better decision-making by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each system within the organization.
For Leaders and Managers:
Strategic Planning:
Leaders can use VSM to develop and implement strategic plans that align with the organization’s overall direction (System 4).
Effective Coordination:
Managers can improve coordination and communication within their teams and across departments by applying VSM principles.
Adaptive Leadership:
VSM encourages adaptive leadership, where leaders are empowered to respond to changes and uncertainties effectively.
For Consultants and Change Agents:
Organizational Diagnosis:
Consultants can use VSM as a diagnostic tool to assess the health and effectiveness of organizations and recommend targeted interventions.
Change Management:
VSM provides a framework for change agents to design and implement organizational changes that enhance viability and resilience.
Practical Applications of the Viable System Model
The practical applications of the Viable System Model are diverse and can benefit organizations seeking to navigate complexity and improve their viability:
Organizational Design:
Structure Optimization:
Organizations can optimize their internal structure by aligning functions and systems according to VSM principles.
Role Clarification:
VSM helps clarify the roles and responsibilities of different departments and teams within the organization.
Strategic Planning:
Long-Term Vision:
Organizations can develop a long-term vision and strategic plan (System 4) that guides decision-making and adaptation.
Resource Allocation:
VSM aids in resource allocation, ensuring that resources are allocated effectively to meet organizational goals.
Change Management:
Change Initiatives:
When implementing change initiatives, organizations can use VSM to assess the impact on each system and ensure a smooth transition.
Feedback Loops:
Organizations can establish effective feedback loops (balancing and amplifying) to support ongoing improvement and innovation.
Crisis Management:
Resilience Building:
VSM principles can be applied to enhance organizational resilience and preparedness for unexpected challenges.
Adaptive Response:
Organizations can develop the capability to adapt quickly and effectively in response to crises.
Challenges and Considerations
Implementing the Viable System Model in practice may come with certain challenges and considerations:
Complexity:
VSM itself is a complex framework, and organizations may find it challenging to fully understand and implement all its components.
Resistance to Change:
Implementing VSM may face resistance from employees and leaders accustomed to existing organizational structures and processes.
Resource Investment:
Organizations need to invest time and resources in training and education to ensure that VSM is effectively understood and applied.
Continuous Learning:
VSM requires a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation as the organization’s external environment evolves.
Future Directions in the Viable System Model
As organizations continue to evolve in a rapidly changing world, the Viable System Model may evolve in the following directions:
Digital Transformation:
Exploring how VSM principles can be applied to digital transformation efforts and the integration of technology in organizational processes.
Sustainability:
Address
ing the sustainability of organizations within the context of global environmental challenges.
Crisis Resilience:
Further developing VSM concepts to enhance organizational resilience in the face of unforeseen crises.
Global Applications:
Expanding the use of VSM beyond individual organizations to address complex global challenges.
Conclusion
The Viable System Model offers a powerful framework for understanding and managing complexity within organizations. By viewing organizations as living systems with interconnected functions, VSM provides a structured approach to enhancing adaptability, efficiency, and effectiveness. In an era characterized by rapid change and uncertainty, the principles of the Viable System Model serve as a beacon for organizations seeking to thrive and remain viable in an increasingly complex world. As organizations continue to evolve, VSM provides a roadmap for navigating the challenges and uncertainties of the future while ensuring that they remain adaptable and effective in their endeavors.
In a functional organizational structure, groups and teams are organized based on function. Therefore, this organization follows a top-down structure, where most decision flows from top management to bottom. Thus, the bottom of the organization mostly follows the strategy detailed by the top of the organization.
In a flat organizational structure, there is little to no middle management between employees and executives. Therefore it reduces the space between employees and executives to enable an effective communication flow within the organization, thus being faster and leaner.
Project portfolio management (PPM) is a systematic approach to selecting and managing a collection of projects aligned with organizational objectives. That is a business process of managing multiple projects which can be identified, prioritized, and managed within the organization. PPM helps organizations optimize their investments by allocating resources efficiently across all initiatives.
Harvard Business School professor Dr. John Kotter has been a thought-leader on organizational change, and he developed Kotter’s 8-step change model, which helps business managers deal with organizational change. Kotter created the 8-step model to drive organizational transformation.
The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model was created by David Nadler and Michael Tushman at Columbia University. The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model is a diagnostic tool that identifies problem areas within a company. In the context of business, congruence occurs when the goals of different people or interest groups coincide.
McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth is a strategy tool. Developed by partners at McKinsey and Company, the tool helps businesses understand which opportunities will contribute to expansion, and therefore it helps to prioritize those initiatives.
Mintzberg’s 5Ps of Strategy is a strategy development model that examines five different perspectives (plan, ploy, pattern, position, perspective) to develop a successful business strategy. A sixth perspective has been developed over the years, called Practice, which was created to help businesses execute their strategies.
The COSO framework is a means of designing, implementing, and evaluating control within an organization. The COSO framework’s five components are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring activities. As a fraud risk management tool, businesses can design, implement, and evaluate internal control procedures.
The TOWS Matrix is an acronym for Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths. The matrix is a variation on the SWOT Analysis, and it seeks to address criticisms of the SWOT Analysis regarding its inability to show relationships between the various categories.
Lewin’s change management model helps businesses manage the uncertainty and resistance associated with change. Kurt Lewin, one of the first academics to focus his research on group dynamics, developed a three-stage model. He proposed that the behavior of individuals happened as a function of group behavior.
OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research laboratory that transitioned into a for-profit organization in 2019. The corporate structure is organized around two entities: OpenAI, Inc., which is a single-member Delaware LLC controlled by OpenAI non-profit, And OpenAI LP, which is a capped, for-profit organization. The OpenAI LP is governed by the board of OpenAI, Inc (the foundation), which acts as a General Partner. At the same time, Limited Partners comprise employees of the LP, some of the board members, and other investors like Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation, Khosla Ventures, and Microsoft, the leading investor in the LP.
Airbnb follows a holacracy model, or a sort of flat organizational structure, where teams are organized for projects, to move quickly and iterate fast, thus keeping a lean and flexible approach. Airbnb also moved to a hybrid model where employees can work from anywhere and meet on a quarterly basis to plan ahead, and connect to each other.
The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.
The Coca-Cola Company has a somewhat complex matrix organizational structure with geographic divisions, product divisions, business-type units, and functional groups.
Costco has a matrix organizational structure, which can simply be defined as any structure that combines two or more different types. In this case, a predominant functional structure exists with a more secondary divisional structure.
Costco’s geographic divisions reflect its strong presence in the United States combined with its expanding global presence. There are six divisions in the country alone to reflect its standing as the source of most company revenue.
Compared to competitor Walmart, for example, Costco takes more a decentralized approach to management, decision-making, and autonomy. This allows the company’s stores and divisions to more flexibly respond to local market conditions.
Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.
eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.
Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).
Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.
Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.
IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.
McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.
McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.
Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.
Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.
Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).
Patagonia has a particular organizational structure, where its founder, Chouinard, disposed of the company’s ownership in the hands of two non-profits. The Patagonia Purpose Trust, holding 100% of the voting stocks, is in charge of defining the company’s strategic direction. And the Holdfast Collective, a non-profit, holds 100% of non-voting stocks, aiming to re-invest the brand’s dividends into environmental causes.
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).
Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.
Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.
Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.
Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).
Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
Discover more from FourWeekMBA
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
