Search results

To discuss systemic thinking in relation to the naturalistic and anti‐naturalistic position in the philosophy of social science. To develop the theme in two parts: I and II.

A cybernetic approach is taken and a discussion on what is the foundation for the philosophy of social science for systemic thinking is developed.

The findings for Part I are that the rationalistic view of knowledge is based on reflection and reason. The empirical viewpoint on knowledge based on observations. The realistic view of knowledge is based on the link between the rationalistic and the empirical point of view. The systemic viewpoint is based on the realistic view of knowledge.

Provided assistance to social scientists who study social systems from the systemic or cybernetic point of view. Gives researchers studying problems/phenomena in social systems a systemic viewpoint.

It positioned systemic thinking in relation to the philosophy of social science.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the different assessments of a particular industry and its ability to innovative, renew and prosper, but also to look into the underlying assumptions that are hiding behind the systemic approaches utilized in these assessments. The point of departure is an empirical puzzle: one group of studies presents a rather optimistic view of the Swedish life science industry and its ability to economize on research, policy and industrial investments. Another group of studies presents much a darker view, questioning the capacity of new companies to reach economic endurance, as well as the possibility of keeping the actually successful companies within the country. At a first sight it appears as if the two groups of studies are resting on a common theoretical ground: all seem to depart from a systemic innovation perspective that challenges the idea of an independent business landscape.

The difference between the assessments becomes comprehensible once the authors allow for a variety of systemic approaches in innovation thinking. The authors propose an ideal-typical distinction between two types of system perspectives; those that view technology as entangled in its environment and those that view technology as disentangled from its environment. The authors use the national innovation system (NIS) and the industrial network (IMP) approaches to exemplify the two perspectives.

An implication of the study is that the term “systemic perspective” is very broad and encompassing, something that in turn points to the importance of being clear about what the authors mean with a system, but also with what the theoretical assumptions focus on and abstract away from.

The ideal-typical distinction between two types of system perspectives; those that view technology as entangled in its environment and those that view technology as disentangled from its environment. The authors use the NIS and the IMP approaches to exemplify the two perspectives.

Three problematic issues followed by paradigm changes over the recent history of human intellectual endeavour are identified as 1. mysticism/superstition to – conventional science (of physics), 2. predominant use of qualitative/quantitative properties for analysis and design to – structural or systemic properties, and 3. current speculative/fragmented, multiple approaches to the “systemic view” to – a firmer knowledge-based approach reflecting the empirical and universal nature of this view. This paper aims to consider the problematic issues, to conclude that conventional science is inadequate to cope with the 2nd paradigm change and to introduce a “new science of systems” which can integrate conventional science and alleviate the 3rd problematic issue by suggesting three principles implemented by linguistic modelling as operational model.

The highly successful methodology of conventional science is followed with systemic content by suggesting three general principles of systems, namely, principle of existence (pervasiveness of structural description), principle of complexity (aggregates for emergence of outcomes) and principle of change (change by purpose or chance), and linguistic modelling of static and dynamic scenarios based on natural language as operational model. This language is processed to “elementary constituents”, of which complex structures can be constructed. These constituents are converted into reasoning schemes consisting of “ordered pairs” and “predicate logic statements” in static and dynamic states.

Stories of problematic scenarios are converted into the universal scheme of “management/producers” – “products” – “users/consumers” by constructing linguistic networks of products and semantic diagrams of organizations/user/consumers for investigating the emergence of outcomes in analysis and for designing prototypes. Problematic issues of individual objects in a scenario are resolved by methods of conventional science, which is thus integrated with systems science to form the “scientific enterprise”.

Once the new approach is debated, further developments in the mathematics of ordered pairs, predicate logic and uncertainties are needed. The linguistic basis is to be further investigated. Connection with AI and “logical atomism of Bertrand Russell” is to be explored.

Further applications to large-scale scenarios by practitioners using the “universal scheme” and development of software are needed.

The approach is rooted in accepted branches of knowledge, is highly teachable and should lead to be used by professionals and others once debated and accepted.

To consider aspects of a theory of systemic construction by discussing two concepts which will assist in our understanding of the surrounding world which it is considered is made of both systemic and non‐systemic entities.

Considers how these entities (metasystem, network, transitron etc.) can be conceived and defined. Systemic frames notions are presented and examples of systems given. Discusses the historic use of the word “system” and systemic thinking and its varieties.

Discovered that on the basis of these concepts, an understanding of the surrounding world can be achieved which is not homogeneous but made of both systemic and non‐systemic entities. These can change when certain systemic properties are reached as well as in their specific degrees in their limitations and paradoxes.

Introduces an original approach to the life support system by proposing concepts that are discussed and defined and that will provide cyberneticians and systemists with a revised view of systemic thinking.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest the application of systemic methodologies, such as Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), to develop sustainability strategies and solve problems involving the sustainability of organizations and their operations. The sustainability paradigm implies the need for changes in current production systems, societal organization and use of the natural resources that are essential to all life forms. Sustainability, as a new paradigm, modifies the way in which organizations operate to make companies responsible for sustainable development and ensure that resources are available for future generations. Sustainable development requires a broad new development strategy that encompasses political, economic, social, technological and environmental dimensions.

As a method of analysis the research will use the application of SSM in a case study from the sugarcane industry. The basic scientific thought paradigm, inherited from Bacon and Descartes, no longer holds in modern society, which requires a new way of perceiving the world by following a systemic and integrated approach to address complex problems.

This study advances the understanding of how the systemic approach can aid the development of corporate sustainability strategies.

The basic pillar of the new sustainability paradigm is the systemic view. The systemic approach should guide the development of corporate strategies. This study followed a qualitative approach to better understand how organizations can use the systemic approach in the development of sustainability strategies.

The philosophical foundations determine how an academic discipline identifies, understands and analyzes phenomena. The choice of philosophical perspective is vital for both marketing and service research. This paper aims to propose a social and systemic perspective that addresses current challenges in service and marketing research by revisiting the philosophy of science debate.

The paper revisits the philosophy of science debate to address the implications of an emergent, complex and adaptive view of marketing and service research. It draws on critical realism by combining structuration and systemic perspectives.

A recursive perspective, drawing on structures and action, is suggested as it includes multiple actors’ intentions and captures underlying drivers of market exchange as a basis for developing marketing and service strategies in practice. This is aligned with other scholars arguing for a more systemic, adaptive and complex view of markets in light of emerging streams in academic marketing and service research, ranging from value cocreation, effectuation, emergence and open source to empirical phenomena such as digitalization, robotization and the growth of international networks.

The reciprocal dynamic between individuals and the overarching system provides a reflexivity approach intrinsic to the service ecosystem. This creates new avenues for research on marketing and service phenomena.

This paper discusses critics, conflicts and conceptualization in service research. It suggests a possible approach for service research and marketing scholars capable of responding to current complexities and turbulence in economic and societal contexts.

This paper aims to explore the process of implementing solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in construction to contribute to the understanding of systemic innovation in construction.

The exploratory research presented is based on qualitative data collected in workshops and interviews with 76 construction- and solar-industry actors experienced in solar PV projects. Actor-specific barriers were identified and analysed using an abductive approach.

In light of established definitions of systemic innovation, the process of implementing solar PV systems in construction involves challenges regarding technical and material issues, competencies, and informal and formal institutions. The specificities of this case highlight the necessity of paying attention to details in the process and to develop knowledge of systemic innovation in construction since the industry’s involvement in addressing societal challenges related to the energy transition will require implementing such innovations much more in the future.

New knowledge of solar PV systems as an innovation in professional construction is collected, enabling the adaptation of management strategies for its implementation. This knowledge can also be applied generally to other challenges encountered in highly systemic innovation implementation. Solar industry actors can gain an understanding of solar-specific challenges for the construction industry, challenges for which they must adapt their activities.

The exploration of actor-specific experiences of solar PV projects has resulted in a novel understanding of this specific innovation and its implementation. The findings illustrate a case of a high level of systemic innovation and the need to use a finer-grained scale for classification when studying innovation in construction.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a way of asking about organizational conceptions. Some years ago, Edgar Morin proposed the paradigm of complexity as the one that opposes to and contains both the mechanicist and the systemic paradigms, which he calls simplifiers. Based on these paradigms, some of their principles, as well as their influence in organizational thinking are studied here, looking for the establishment of a set of considerations to be taken into account when treating an organizational conception as complex.

Ten paradigmatic principles were compared from the mechanicism, systemic and complexity viewpoints, considering how they were used in the organizational discourse.

As a result, complex organizational conceptions consider the subject as active conscience in the world. In the same way, they establish dialogic relations among: the universal and the particular, temporal reversibility and irreversibility, the parts and the whole, linear and circular causality, order and disorder, organization and environment, observer and organization, and autonomy and dependence, through the use of the complex logic that allows adopting a meta‐point of view to articulate the contradictions and paying attention to the result of the dialogic processes pointed out.

The paper focuses especially on the dialogic principle, leaving the need to approach both the recursion and hologramatic principles, according to that proposed by Edgar Morin.

The paper establishes some references which should contribute to the understanding of complex organizations, as human activity systems, beyond the objectivism of the so‐called “complex systems”.

In this paper, a way of asking about organizational conceptions is proposed, with the aim of knowing the degree of satisfaction of paradigmatic requirements of complexity; so that, it allows knowing if what is being called complex – the organizations – is being treated in a complex way in turn.

Measures and measurement systems must reflect the context to which they are applied, requiring that the contextual issues relating to retail shrinkage must be identified as a necessary precursor when measuring shrinkage. Without considering these issues any decision on which method of shrinkage measurement to employ will be uninformed, arbitrary and at best intuitive. The objective of this paper is to scope out and summarise the contextual issues surrounding retail shrinkage in Europe's grocery sector and to offer a view on the implications of these issues to shrinkage measurement.

The methodology adopted was a scoping study of the key issues that influence shrinkage measurement, drawing these from prior research and exposing these findings to the informed opinion of a review panel for critique and to highlight areas for further investigation.

The findings from the study were to identify a range of contextual issues relating to shrinkage and to summarise these issues into four categories, namely: stewardship and performance improvement; cost reduction and sales improvement; local effects of systemic issues; and the detailed nature of retailing.

The implications of these key issues are significant to the measurement of shrinkage in terms of the scope across the business from which shrinkage needs to be considered. This finding highlights the need to consider shrinkage as a systemic issue that extends across a business from design, through planning to operational execution. It also identifies the impact of shrinkage on increasing cost and depressing sales and considers the responsibility of management teams in addressing these matters.

This paper is theoretically original and thus of value to the academic community. It is also of value to the practitioner community in grocery retailing where shrinkage and its measurement is of worldwide strategic importance.

The philosophical reflection on the essence of what we call the market has largely disappeared from the textbooks of the economic discipline. This paper intends to contribute to a renewal of this discourse by explicitly looking on basic concepts of mainstream market theory from an ethical point of view. There is not so much new information given; rather, a different, ethically conscious light is shed on the information we already have on the market. With its philosophical emphasis on the frame of reference, which is always normative in nature, the paper contributes to the new emerging approach of integrative economic ethics (integrative Wirtschaftsethik), introduced by Peter Ulrich. After touching the interrelationship of (descriptive) theory and (normative) ethics, the outlines of a brief and, as I claim, complete theory of the basic structure of the market are sketched. Central to this theory is the view of the market as a system. This systemic view permits us to explain phenomena like economic growth or unemployment as well as to discover ethical problems and to raise normative questions that are often overlooked and passed over.