Search results

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the business process management (BPM) approach contributes to applying systemic characteristics in organisations.

This is a theoretical and descriptive work based on a review of the literature on BPM and systemic approach.

From the analysis of its stages, it was possible to find a strong correspondence between BPM and the systemic characteristics found in the literature.

The paper presents practical implications to professionals as well as academics. The contribution to the body of knowledge on BPM derives from the identification of systemic characteristics in it, thus justifying its practical application to organisations in order to ensure better systemicity and adaptability. As processes are directed to the same goal, unnecessary and misdirected steps are redesigned or eliminated, concentrating resources on core processes and improving the organisation's performance. The paper also contributes to education, since the systemic approach may be a key subject to clarify the inter‐relationships among processes, and processes and their contexts.

The originality resides on elucidating the systemic characteristics of BPM, being academically valuable for justifying the studies about such an approach, besides contributing to the characterisation of its basic assumptions as well. In addition, the value of the present work for business management resides in the identification of a practical approach which can be applied to organisations in order to ensure them systemicity and flexibility.

The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of current lab types for addressing wicked problems. A new lab type, a Systemic Innovation Lab, is proposed which combines the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems.

Characteristics of initiatives that are considered appropriate for addressing wicked problems and existing lab types that contain any of these characteristics are identified. These lab types are Social Innovation Labs, Living Labs, Urban Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Public Sector Innovation Labs. The proposed new lab type is reasoned by combining the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. How the new lab would work in practice is illustrated with a case study.

When addressing wicked problems, labs need to take a systemic design and not a service design approach. They also need to focus on addressing complex problems, take a place-based and transition approach, enable coherent action by diverse actors, involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach and recognize government as an enabler of change.

This paper provides a new lab type designed specifically for addressing wicked problems. This new lab supports practitioners that take a systemic design, solution ecosystem and systemic innovation approach. Systemic design is based on a core set of principles that are a crossover between design and complexity theory.

For the first time, this paper analyzes different lab types to determine their appropriateness for addressing wicked problems. It also proposes a new lab type whose sole purpose is addressing wicked problems.

This study aims to explore an exemplar of the design and application of a systemic framework for higher education. The field of application is in the social sciences and the perspective long-term, covering three generations of faculty and many generations of students.

This study is exploratory. It contains a conceptual component and an empirical component with a long-term case study from a European university.

A cybersystemic approach to higher education has been shown, at the focal university, to be a powerful amplifier of individual and institutional capabilities, and it still has great potential. The crucial prerequisite is that the approach is virtuously designed and implemented.

A case study ranging over 50 years is presented. The respective university has been a role model for other educational institutions for many years. Its influence in the German-speaking countries, and more recently also internationally, has become significant.

The purpose of this paper is to call attention to the need to revitalize the systemic nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and offer some suggestions about how this might be accomplished. The authors introduce the concept of systemic CSR and associate it with micro-to-macro transitions, the need to make systemic objectives explicit and the responsibility of system participants to regulate their behavior to contribute to these outcomes.

The authors comment, from a systemic perspective, on four different management approaches to CSR – shareholder value, corporate social performance, stakeholder theory and corporate citizenship. Three general systemic principles that participants can use as decision-making guides are a focus on value creation, ongoing assessment of collective outcomes and reflective engagement in the aggregation process.

The authors observe that businesses routinely demonstrate their ability to think in systemic terms in strategic contexts that require it. If businesses can address systemic issues in these contexts, then they can also apply systemic logic in furtherance of collective (or system-level) objectives.

The authors propose an approach to CSR that emphasizes micro-to-macro transitions, the need to make systemic objectives explicit and the responsibility of system participants to regulate their behavior to contribute to these desired objectives. Systemic CSR is unique in its explicit focus on the micro-to-macro transition (i.e. the process of aggregation), systemic objectives and the need to actively insource responsibility for contribution to the realization of those objectives.

The purpose of this paper is to describe through innovation system foresight and systemic innovation approach to address key systemic issues of European Union (EU) Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) concerning the sustainable development and economic resilience: the authors highlight the need for a systemic approach to innovation policy for the sustainable islands’ growth.

This research focuses on a multiple case study of selected OCTs, members of the Association of the OCTs. Specifically, this paper illustrates the foresight approach implemented in six OCTs in the context of the Territorial Strategies for Innovation project funded by the 10th European Development Fund.

The focus is on innovation system foresight and systemic innovation: the authors argue that key innovation elements of the individual OCTs can be used as crucial components of an emerging innovation system while this specific type of foresight can assist the governments of respective OCTs in the selection and design of specific instruments in relation to the formulation of their innovation strategies and policies.

This paper is based on work undertaken by the Territorial Strategies for Innovation project team during a three-year period dedicated to supporting the governments of OCTs both in defining and in implementing their innovation strategies. Its main contribution is to develop the concept of innovation system foresight and systemic innovation for the OCTs. The work presented here is considered to be of value by highlighting specific innovation elements for achieving sustainable and inclusive growth in OCTs.

The governance of the relationship between humans and the biophysical world has been based on a paradigm characterized by dualistic thinking and scientism. This has led to the Anthropocene. The purpose of this paper is to reframe human-biosphere governance in terms of “cyber-systemics”, a neologism that is useful, the authors argue, not only for breaking out of this dualistic paradigm in human-environmental governance but also of the dualism associated with the use of systems and cybernetics.

In this paper the authors draw on their own research praxis to exemplify how the intellectual lineages of cybernetics and systems have been mutually influencing their doings, and how new forms of governance practices that explore different framing choices might contribute to building innovative governance approaches attuned to the problematique of the Anthropocene, for instance through institutional designs for cyber-systemic governance.

The growing popularity of the Anthropocene as a particular framing for the circumstances, if it is to transformative and thus relevant demands informed critique if it is to help change the trajectory of human-life on earth. The authors offer arguments and a rationale for adopting a cyber-systemic perspective as a means to avoid the dangers in pursuing the current trajectory of our relationship with the biophysical world as, for example, climate change. The essay frames an invitation for a systemic inquiry into forms of governance more suited to the contemporary circumstances of humans in their relationships with the biophysical world.

The research essay challenges many taken-for-granted epistemological assumptions within the cybernetics and systems intellectual communities. A case for radical change is mounted; the means to effect this change, other than through changes in discourse remain unclear though it is apparent that changes to praxis and institutional forms and arrangements will be central.

Cyber-systemic capabilities need to be developed; this requires investment and new institutions that are conducive to cyber-systemic understandings and praxis.

Understanding the global environmental crisis as an emergent outcome of current commitments to dualistic governance choices demands a reframing of much of what humans have done, re-investment in cyber-systemics offers a moral and practical response.

Systemic risks affect financial market participants in many ways. However, the literature insists firmly that they are and, in fact, should be of little concern to (private) banks (as opposed to regulators). The purpose of this paper is to argue for the relevance of systemic risks for private banks as opposed to regulators only by making use of causal loop models as being traditionally used in the discipline of systems dynamics. In contrast to the starting point for all common risk-management frameworks in banks, which is the classification of risks into risk categories, the authors show that risk has been compartmentalized too much and provide a strong case for a really holistic approach.

Systems thinking, causal loop models and conceptual approach.

Relevance of systemic risks for private banks as opposed to regulators only. In contrast to the starting point for all common risk-management frameworks in banks, which is the classification of risks into risk categories, the authors show that risk has been compartmentalized too much and provide a strong case for a really holistic approach, which stems from using explanatory models such as causal loop diagrams. On top of that more explanatory models ought to be used for risk management purposes while banks currently rely too much on statistical-descriptive approaches.

Integration of systems thinking into risk management, which is novel: in contrast to the starting point for all common risk-management frameworks in banks, which is the classification of risks into risk categories, the authors show that risk has been compartmentalized too much and provide a strong case for a really holistic approach.

The purpose of this paper is to present a systemic philosophy of history, which, to the author's knowledge, is new in the study of history. As such this is an innovation into the study of history.

The question studied is: What constitutes a systemic approach to the philosophy of history? In this study the author first develops the systemic hypothesis and the relationship between history and the past, then develops a systemic perspective on ontology and epistemology.

The materialism, idealism debate is discussed and an answer given to the question, why study history from a systemic perspective?

The paper presents five reasons for studying history and the historical process itself. A systemic approach to history views history as a long‐term perspective contrasted with spectacular events. This results in individuals and exceptional events being examined in their social context as part of a social system.

Systemic risks originate in tightly coupled systems. They are characterised by complexity, transboundary cascading effects, non-linear stochastic developments, tipping points, and lag in perception and regulation. Disasters need to be analysed in the context of vulnerabilities of infrastructure, industrial activities, structural developments and behavioural patterns which amplify or attenuate the impact of hazards. In particular, disasters are triggered by chains of events that often amplify and also multiply damages. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper applies the concept of systemic risks to disasters more precisely to the combination of natural and human-induced disasters. The paper refers to the International Risk Governance Council’s Risk Governance Framework and applies this framework to the systemic aspects of disaster risks.

The paper maps out strategies for inclusive governance of systemic risks for disaster prevention and mitigation. Furthermore, the paper highlights policy implications of these strategies and calls out for an integrated, inclusive and adaptive management approach for the systemic aspects of disaster risks.

The paper fulfils the identified need to analyse disaster risks in the context of vulnerabilities of infrastructure, industrial activities, structural developments and behavioural patterns which amplify or attenuate the impact of hazards.

This paper aims to identify key factors for a contextualised Systemic Risk Governance (SRG) framework and subsequently explore how systemic risks can be managed and how local institutional mechanisms can be tweaked to deal with the complex Indonesian risk landscape.

Using a case study from Palu triple-disasters in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, the authors demonstrate how inland earthquakes in 2018 created cascading secondary hazards, namely tsunamis, liquefactions and landslides, caused unprecedented disasters for the communities and the nation. A qualitative analysis was conducted using the data collected through a long-term observation since 2002.

The authors argue that Indonesia has yet to incorporate an SRG approach in its responses to the Palu triple-disasters. Political will is required to adopt more appropriate risk governance modes that promote the systemic risk paradigm. Change needs to occur incrementally through hybrid governance arrangements ranging from formal/informal methods to self- and horizontal and vertical modes of governance deemed more realistic and feasible. The authors recommend that this be done by focusing on productive transition and local transformation.

There is growing awareness and recognition of the importance of systemic and cascading risks in disaster risk studies. However, there are still gaps between research, policy and practice. The current progress of disaster risk governance is not sufficient to achieve the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) unless there is an effective governing system in place at the local level that allow actors and institutions to simultaneously manage the interplays of multi-hazards, multi-temporal, multi-dimensions of vulnerabilities and residual risks. This paper contributes to these knowledge gaps.