We all live and think in boxes, or starting from boxes. It may be those of our practices, our personal lives or our working lives. The same applies to knowledge. Modern science – and therefore techniques – is so specialized that neighbors in a biology laboratory, for example, do not understand each other’s work, or only at the cost of lengthy and patient studies. Yet by their own admission, scientists who would like to take an interest in the work of colleagues with slightly different specialisms from their own do not do so, due to lack of time. This observation can easily be made more generalized: we do not take an interest in other people’s work due to lack of time, time that flies more and more quickly and nips in the bud our desire to properly understand what is happening in our world and to help ensure that its future is as bright as possible for everyone.

We are all capable of talking about what is going on in the world. Talking about it as non-specialists, talking about it superficially, at the local bar. We can all come up with theories on what should be done to make the world a better place, and set the world to rights. When it comes to putting theories into practice, that is a different matter, because changing our practices based on specific problems is a very big ask, and it seems insane – especially, of course, if we would be trying to do this on our own. The effort must be made by a number of people. Changing our practices based on well-expressed theories is a collective or political effort, in the strong sense of the term, encompassing the history and stories of women and men with all their inconsistencies, their chaotic progress and their possible sense. Policy is a position at the point where thought and action meet. In other words, the world progresses towards satisfactory solutions for the dual question of effectiveness and sense without a collective commitment, which consequently must be multidisciplinary and transversal. Until we understand the need to take the time to genuinely share our practices, knowledge and understanding of the world (not just say that we do), we will not be able to genuinely change things to make the world better.

However, there is an urgent need to do this. Developments in science and technology and the subsequent social developments are such that if we do not tackle certain key issues, including the relationship between man and machine, we will soon be overwhelmed not by the machines themselves but by the lack of structured dialog and thought about them. If we do not succeed now in taking control of a minimum of technological development, which is not so much due to the technologies themselves and their manufacturers (on this point, moreover, the issues are more to do with economics and politics rather than science and technology), but rather, it is due to our failure to think about them. We let ourselves be fascinated by technology and the promises of prophets with their visions, such as those of the transhumanists. To put it bluntly, it is all very well to start considering the rights of robots, but that means forgetting the rights of the real live men and women whose numbers are far greater and whose living conditions are morally, socially, economically and politically unacceptable. Developing robust, rigorous and fertile thinking, practice-based and clear on the material conditions of the lives of women and men, in relation to new technologies, is a crucial issue if our humanity and our lives, and those of our children, are to remain meaningful. This is where complex thinking makes a decisive contribution.

This book reflects the authors’ preoccupation with the concrete practice of the organizational stakeholders on the ground in their day-to-day work. There are stakeholders whose function is indeed, within organizations and businesses, to manage the “information system” of the organization, of the business, etc. Thus, the authors’ starting point was the concrete, everyday life of managers of organizations’ information systems. But they do this by integrating the said information system “in its complexity” into the manager function. That is, in its context, taking into account as far as possible all the parameters involved in and via the life of the information system of any kind of organization based on a three-phase approach: via stakeholders, territories and projects. In other words, they step back to get the necessary perspective to relevantly, usefully and meaningfully problematize the issues now being raised by the most routine management of an information system. They thus show, at the most concrete level possible in the daily life of business, how irrevocable relationships are inevitably woven, for the worse if we do not take heed, but for the best if we are careful, between machines and men, between technologies and questions of meaning, and between ownership of the machines by stakeholders and complex, living organizational systems. The usage made to this end of the concepts of governance, urbanization and information system alignment is very enlightening.

This kind of effort towards a concrete understanding of organizational complexity was, of course, embarked on long ago, in particular by Jean-Louis Le Moigne in his General Systems Theory, in the context of Morin’s complexity thinking. Many subsequent publications have continued the work, and yet, management sciences have still not sufficiently taken ownership of the concepts pertaining to complexity for it to become a central topic in the preoccupations of researchers and teachers on the one hand, and practitioners on the ground on the other hand, ideally in permanent correlation. The task is challenging. It calls for perseverance, the ability to step back, concrete knowledge of businesses and organizations, and tenacity towards the question of the sense of our practices and our knowledge. It is achieved by unfailingly keeping sight of the bigger picture in every concrete situation by leveraging the most productive characteristics of complexity (non-linearity, uncertainty, self-organization, etc.). Through this book, the authors also show how taking stock of stakeholders, territories and projects on the ground requires continuous learning based on trial and error on a daily basis, taking a stance that these days we would call “agile”. In other words, a sufficiently flexible stance to lead stakeholders not only to do but also to think about what they are doing. And this, in real life, is not easy for anyone.

Information Systems Management is therefore enlightening. Not only because it takes a fresh look at the concrete, taking as its starting point the tools of complex thinking, which is the essential challenge embarked on by Le Moigne and Morin and to be continued going forward, but because it offers a number of essential elements of the methodology of doing this. The best way to thank them is to leverage their work to extend its spirit and its application to all fields that may appear relevant.

Laurent BIBARD

Professor at ESSEC Business School, Department of Management Holder of the Edgar Morin Chair on Complexity