Search results

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 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.

Purpose – To trace the rationale, features, development and application of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) over the past ten years, to provide a critical review of its key problematic effects, and to suggest a future direction. Design/methodology/approach – The shift from the industrial to the innovation economy provides a background to identifying five major problem areas of the BSC which are then discussed with reference to selected case examples. An alternative systemic scorecard is then proposed. Findings – The tyranny of the BSC as a measurement “straightjacket” is beginning to jeopardize the survival of firms, hinders much‐needed business ecosystem innovation, thereby negatively affecting customer value rejuvenation, shareholders' benefits, other stakeholders as well as societal benefits in general. A more systemic alternative is proposed. Research limitations/implications – Future research might focus on further development of the systemic scorecard in different industries and organisational settings with detailed systemic measurement techniques. Practical implications – Rather than relying on the static BSC, it would be more effective to adopt a systemic perspective in measuring/managing intangible assets. Originality/value – An alternative to the BSC is proposed that involves radical change in its underlying assumptions by moving to a more systemic, dynamic framework – a systemic management system, including a systemic scorecard.

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 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.

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.

This paper was written for a special issue of Kybernetes devoted to cybernetics and design. It aims to focus on case studies that are both informed by cybernetic and systems thinking and constitute a form of second‐order design praxis.

The case studies exemplify reflective practice as well as reporting outcomes, in terms of new understandings, from an action research process.

The paper describes what was involved in course design, from a cybernetic perspective, to effect systemic environmental decision making as well as developing and enacting a model for doing systemic inquiry (SI), which enabled situation‐improving actions to be realised in a complex, organisational setting. The paper lays out the theoretical and ethical case for understanding first‐and second‐order designing as a duality rather than a dualism.

There is a danger that readers from an alternative epistemological position will judge the paper in terms of knowledge claims relevant only to their own epistemological position.

The main outcomes suggested by this paper concern the possibility of transforming the current mainstream identity of educators, project managers and researchers to a position that offers more choices through both epistemological awareness (and pluralism) and the design of learning systems, including SI, as second‐order devices.

The case studies are based on both novel settings and theories in action; the concept of the learning systems as both a design and systemic practice as well as an epistemological device is novel. The paper is potentially of relevance to any practitioner wishing to use systems or cybernetic thinking. It is likely to be of particular relevance to education policy makers and public sector governance.

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.