Research Agenda for Complex Situations

Sousa‐Poza, Andres; Kovacic, Samuel

doi:10.1080/10429247.2008.11431786

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, despite a wealth of complexity categorization frameworks with which to frame an understanding of the term complexity, and a wealth of complexity assessment tools available which purport to support evaluations of system complexity, several challenges remain for engineering managers (Barker & Verma, 2003;Dean Beale & Tryfonas, 2018;D. Beale, Tryfonas, & Young, 2017;Snowden & Boone, 2007;Sousa-Poza & Kovacic, 2008;Stacey, 2012;Stevens, 2008). While each individual complexity assessment tool is likely to be useful in some regards, there is a considerable challenge for an engineering manager in integrating the multitude of perspectives on system complexity into a coherent, useful and actionable evaluation.…”

Section: Complexity Assessment Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Complexity Register: A Collaborative Tool for System Complexity Evaluation

Potts

Harvey

Johnson

et al. 2021

Engineering Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As modern engineered systems become ever more connected and interdependent there is an increasing need to evaluate their complexity. However, evaluating system complexity is challenging due to the complicated conceptual landscape of competing definitions of the term complexity itself, and the range of perspectives that can be taken on what constitutes the System of Interest. This paper attempts to overcome these hurdles through introducing a Complexity Register with which to build and record a shared understanding of system complexity for key stakeholders. In order to overcome current challenges in evaluating the complexity of an engineering system, the Complexity Register encourages personnel to adopt a broad range of perspectives on the potential issues, impacts and mitigations to manage system complexity. The formulation of the Complexity Register is informed by design principles derived from a case study analysis of a system complexity evaluation tool. The Complexity Register should enable more effective shared understanding by encouraging collaboration that makes explicit the multiple viewpoints taken when evaluating system complexity and promoting continued re-evaluation throughout a system or project lifecycle.

show abstract

Section: Complexity Assessment Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Complexity Register: A Collaborative Tool for System Complexity Evaluation

Potts

Harvey

Johnson

et al. 2021

Engineering Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although being the case, there appears to be sparse research on ambidexterity situated firmly within the "management in engineering" domain. (Lynn, 2002;Shaw, 2002;Picon, 2004;Sousa-Poza and Kovacic, 2008) that have examined the agenda for engineering management research appear not to have expressed substantial interest on the topic, thus the intended contribution of our study.…”

Section: Articulation and Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Ambidexterity: A Critical Review and Development of a Project-Focused Definition

Petro¹,

Ojiako

Williams

et al. 2019

J. Manage. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to explore a project-focused understanding of contemporary organisational ambidexterity literature. As part of this process, a taxonomical analysis of the elements and components of the concept of organisational ambidexterity is undertaken. Findings suggest that a project-focused notion of organisational ambidexterity involves different levels, dimensions and mechanisms. The predominant contribution of this paper resides within the taxonomy study, which provides a platform for a more holistic understanding of organisational ambidexterity as a multifaceted concept applicable to the project management discipline. * Those studies marked with an asterisk (*) were the ones filtered through to step 6 of the systematic analysis

show abstract

“…inbound and outbound freight) to achieve lowest total cost (Poist, 1974(Poist, , 1989. Modern SCM involves multiple interrelated firm and inter-firm processes of globally complex "SoS" (DiMario et al, 2008;Lambert et al, 2005;Muller-Merbach, 1994;Sauser, 2006;Sousa-Poza and Kovacic, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modern supply chains, global supply chains have increased in complexity and can only be understood from a SoS perspective (Gorod et al, 2008). GT provides a research methodology to understand phenomena against the backdrop of the larger system (Sousa-Poza and Kovacic, 2008). This holistic SoS view sees SCM as a complex and adaptive discipline involving systems within systems that span multiple firms, economies, and cultures (DiMario et al, 2008;Lambert et al, 2005;Meixell and Gargeya, 2005;Muller-Merbach, 1994;Sauser, 2006;Sousa-Poza and Kovacic, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GT provides a research methodology to understand phenomena against the backdrop of the larger system (Sousa-Poza and Kovacic, 2008). This holistic SoS view sees SCM as a complex and adaptive discipline involving systems within systems that span multiple firms, economies, and cultures (DiMario et al, 2008;Lambert et al, 2005;Meixell and Gargeya, 2005;Muller-Merbach, 1994;Sauser, 2006;Sousa-Poza and Kovacic, 2008). The macro and interrelated nature of SCM presents methodological issues that enable comprehension of the whole through study of its parts difficult:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grounded theory: an inductive method for supply chain research

Randall

Mello

2012

International Journal of Physical Distribution &Amp; Logistics Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Development of theory remains an essential step in the evolution of supply chain management as an integrative business discipline. Supply chain research often involves phenomena possessing complex behavioral dimensions at both the individual and organizational levels. Such complexity can require the utilization of holistic and inductive approaches in order to more fully understand the behaviors associated with the phenomena. This paper aims to provide a step-by-step guide intended to increase researchers' understanding of the use of grounded theory (GT) methodology in supply chain contexts. Design/methodology/approach -The paper argues for GT as an appropriate method for studying emerging supply chain phenomena using an inductive, holistic approach. Findings -GT is positioned in a holistic framework of research methodologies. Next a step-by-step explanation of the grounded theory process is offered, illustrated by examples from the authors' own research. Originality/value -This paper links the complex "system of systems" nature characteristic of supply chains to the need for a holistic research approach such as grounded theory. It also provides a guide for researchers, reviewers, and editors to judge sound GT. Moreover, from a practical perspective, the in-vivo nature of GT provides recognizable solutions to managerial problems.

show abstract

Research Agenda for Complex Situations

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

The Complexity Register: A Collaborative Tool for System Complexity Evaluation

The Complexity Register: A Collaborative Tool for System Complexity Evaluation

Organizational Ambidexterity: A Critical Review and Development of a Project-Focused Definition

Grounded theory: an inductive method for supply chain research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About