Search results

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 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.

This paper explores the building blocks of risk governance systems that are equipped to manage systemic risk in the 21st century. Whilst approaches to risk governance have been evolving for more than a decade, recent disasters have shown that conventional risk management solutions need to be complemented with a multidimensional risk approach to govern complex risks and prevent major, often simultaneous, crises with cascading and knock-on effects on multiple, interrelated systems at scale. The paper explores which risk governance innovations will be essential to provide the enabling environment for sustainable development that is resilient to interrelated shocks and risks.

This interdisciplinary literature review-based thought piece highlights how systemic risk is socially constructed and identifies guiding principles for systemic risk governance that could be actionable by and provide entry points for local and national governments, civil society and the private sector. particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), in a way that is relevant to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This considers preparedness, response and resilience, but more importantly prospective and corrective risk control and reduction strategies and mechanisms. Only when systemic risk is framed in a way that is relevant to the political agendas of countries will it be possible to begin a dialogue for its governance.

The paper identifies opportunities at the global, national and local levels, which together draw up a viable framework for systemic risk governance that (1) embraces the governance of sustainability and resilience through a strengthened holistic governance framework for social, economic, territorial and environmental development; (2) improves managing conventional risk to ultimately manage systemic risks; (3) fosters the understanding of vulnerability and exposure to gain insight into systemic risk; (4) places a greater focus on prospective risk management; (5) manages systemic risk in local infrastructure systems, supply chains and ecosystems; (6) shifts the focus from protecting privatized gains to managing socialized risk.

The choices and actions that societies take on the path of their development are contributing intentionally or unintentionally to the construction of systemic risks, which result in knock-on effects among interconnected social, environmental, political and economic systems. These risks are manifesting in major crises with cascading effects and a real potential to undermine the achievement of the SDGs, as COVID-19 is a stark reminder of. This paper offers the contours of a new risk governance paradigm that is able to navigate the new normal in a post-COVID world and is equipped to manage systemic risk.

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.

Starting from the tenet that destination management deserves a systemic approach the authors first explain the meaning of systemic leadership and then discuss its relevance for tourist destinations. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it develops a concept of destination leadership based on a systemic perspective and therefore prevents a common misunderstanding, namely that destination leadership may simply generate from organizational leadership. Second, the concept builds on extant literature on destination governance and in so doing it stretches the vector of this research stream (governance) into a supplemental field (leadership).

Based on recent empirical research in the field of systemic research in destinations, the concept of destination leadership is elaborated in a wider context of destination management.

As a result, a set of dimensions and mechanisms which drive the systemic development of destinations can be distilled. A framework for further research is proposed and tested with the help of an empirical study with a set of influential actors from four destinations in Switzerland, Austria, and Italy.

The results reveal that influence as a proxy for systemic leadership is supported by trust and effective communication. Other leadership dimensions derived from traditional leadership literature such as mutual understanding, accessibility (non-significant) or likeability (negatively affecting influence) prove to be irrelevant to systemic leadership. The implications underline the need to differentiate between leadership in inter-organizational arrangements and leadership in destinations, understood as communities and complex social systems.

This paper applies the theory of cascading, interconnected and compound risk to the practice of preparing for, managing, and responding to threats and hazards. Our goal is to propose a consistent approach for managing major risk in urban systems by bringing together emergency management, organisational resilience, and climate change adaptation.

We develop a theory-building process using an example from the work of the Greater London Authority in the United Kingdom. First, we explore how emergency management approaches systemic risk, including examples from of exercises, contingency plans and responses to complex incidents. Secondly, we analyse how systemic risk is integrated into strategies and practices of climate change adaptation. Thirdly, we consider organisational resilience as a cross cutting element between the approaches.

London has long been a champion of resilience strategies for dealing with systemic risk. However, this paper highlights a potential for integrating better the understanding of common points of failure in society and organisations, especially where they relate to interconnected domains and where they are driven by climate change.

The paper suggests shifting toward the concept of operational continuity to address systemic risk and gaps between Emergency Management, Organizational Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation.

With the diversification of modelling activities encouraged by versatile modelling tools, handling their datasets has become a formidable problem. A further impetus stems from the emergence of the real‐time forecasting culture, transforming data embedded in computer programs of one‐off modelling activities of the 1970s‐1980s into dataset assets, an important feature of modelling since the 1990s, where modelling has emerged as a practice with a pivotal role to data transactions. The scope for data is now vast but in legacy data management practices datasets are fragmented, not transparent outside their native software systems, and normally “monolithic”. Emerging initiatives on published interfaces will make datasets transparent outside their native systems but will not solve the fragmentation and monolithic problems. These problems signify a lack of science base in data management and as such it is necessary to unravel inherent generic structures in data. This paper outlines root causes for these problems and presents a tentative solution referred to as “systemic data management”, which is capable of solving the above problems through the assemblage of packaged data. Categorisation is presented as a packaging methodology and the various sources contributing to the generic structure of data are outlined, e.g. modelling techniques, modelling problems, application areas and application problems. The opportunities offered by systemic data management include: promoting transparency among datasets of different software systems; exploiting inherent synergies within data; and treating data as assets with a long‐term view on reuse of these assets in an integrated capability.

This paper attempts to present a general theory to explain evaluation and development of management practices in various social systems, organizations, cultures and countries. This theory proposes that there are five stages and levels of sophistication in management. It is also possible to link management‐level in an organization and the type of leadership that goes with it. At higher management levels, more systemic and strategic management is required, also as evidenced in recent international studies by Jaques. Management in developing countries can be enhanced by understanding these stages and levels advanced in international management and administration references.

The purpose of the research is to shed light on the question of how elements of a partnership system interact to provide a basis for an enhanced performance management framework.

A structured literature review is followed by a longitudinal case study (action research), which combines qualitative and quantitative analyses. Observations over time, documents such as contracts, joint agreements, meeting agendas and minutes, personal conversations and in‐depth interviews were mainly used, with quantitative measurement of operational and relational performance. For an in‐depth analysis of interdependencies, a systemic perspective based on an interaction analysis of relevant elements of the partner management system was adopted.

The paper draws upon real‐life data from service partnerships in the automotive industry. Combining a longitudinal multi‐dyadic approach with action‐based research makes it a unique opportunity to reveal insights into the development of performance‐based partnerships. The paper illustrates enablers, limitations, and conflicting circumstances in partnering highlighting the role of incentives and derives propositions for a comprehensive framework for a performance‐oriented partner management.

Owing to the limited number of case studies, this research is considered mainly exploratory. The presented case study is an essentially illustrative example of the implementation and development of performance‐oriented partnerships. The insights provide a better and deeper understanding of the dynamics of forming partnerships in reality, especially limitations and pertinent expectations regarding performance management in partnerships. There remains a need for further research for success‐related dimensions and antecedents of partnering concepts in a general industry approach.

The paper draws upon real‐life data from service partnerships in the automotive industry. Combining a longitudinal multi‐dyadic approach with action‐based research makes it a unique opportunity to reveal insights into the development of performance‐based partnerships. The paper illustrates enablers, limitations, and conflicting circumstances in partnering highlighting the role of incentives and derives propositions for a comprehensive framework for a performance‐oriented partner management.

Financial crime costs the world economy more than $1tn. Yet policing responses continue to apply traditional law enforcement methods to detect, identify and disrupt criminal actors in financial systems. The purpose of this paper is to challenge existing thinking around law enforcement practices in financial crime within an Australian context, by presenting an alternative model grounded in management cybernetics and systemic design (SD), which the author terms “cyber-systemics”.

This study reflects on prior research work across cybernetics and SD to suggest an integrated approach as a conceptually useful basis for considering regulation of financial crime, and to demonstrate utility using a case study.

The Fintel Alliance between financial crime regulators and financial institutions in Australia demonstrates a strong connection with, and example of, this study’s cyber-systemic regulatory framework. It will be demonstrated that the form of co-design framework offered under cyber-systemics is both consistent with cybernetic and SD literature, but also a means of avoiding regulatory disconnection in times of change and disruption. This study also invites consideration of how future forms of governance might be structured using cyber-systemics as a conceptual backbone.

This work proposes a novel methodology at odds with traditional law enforcement ways of doing, inevitably requiring a change of regulatory mindset. In addition, this paper is purely conceptual and therefore more research on an empirical basis is required to prove the potential benefits in a real-world regulatory environment.

This is (to the author’s knowledge) the first conceptual exploration of blending SD and management cybernetics in the field of criminal law regulation.