Simplexity: A Hybrid Framework for Managing System Complexity

Knowledge management, management of mission critical systems, and complexity management rely on a triangular support connection. Knowledge management provides ways of creating, corroborating, collecting, combining, storing, transferring, and sharing the know-why and know-how for reactively and proactively handling the challenges of mission critical systems. Complexity management, operating on “complexity” as an umbrella term for size, mass, diversity, ambiguity, fuzziness, randomness, risk, change, chaos, instability, and disruption, delivers support to both knowledge and systems management: on the one hand, support for dealing with the complexity of managing knowledge, i.e., furnishing criteria for a common and operationalized terminology, for dealing with mediating and moderating concepts, paradoxes, and controversial validity, and, on the other hand, support for systems managers coping with risks, lack of transparence, ambiguity, fuzziness, pooled and reciprocal interdependencies (e.g., for attaining interoperability), instability (e.g., downtime, oscillations, disruption), and even disasters and catastrophes. This support results from the evident intersection of complexity management and systems management, e.g., in the shape of complex adaptive systems, deploying slack, establishing security standards, and utilizing hybrid concepts (e.g., hybrid clouds, hybrid procedures for project management). The complexity-focused manager of mission critical systems should deploy an ambidextrous strategy of both reducing complexity, e.g., in terms of avoiding risks, and of establishing a potential to handle complexity, i.e., investing in high availability, business continuity, slack, optimal coupling, characteristics of high reliability organizations, and agile systems. This complexity-focused hybrid approach is labeled “simplexity.” It constitutes a blend of complexity reduction and complexity augmentation, relying on the generic logic of hybrids: the strengths of complexity reduction are capable of compensating the weaknesses of complexity augmentation and vice versa. The deficiencies of prevalent simplexity models signal that this blended approach requires a sophisticated architecture. In order to provide a sound base for coping with the meta-complexity of both complexity and its management, this architecture comprises interconnected components, domains, and dimensions as building blocks of simplexity as well as paradigms, patterns, and parameters for managing simplexity. The need for a balanced paradigm for complexity management, capable of overcoming not only the prevalent bias of complexity reduction but also weaknesses of prevalent concepts of simplexity, serves as the starting point of the argumentation in this chapter. To provide a practical guideline to meet this demand, an innovative model of simplexity is conceived. This model creates awareness for differentiating components, dimensions, and domains of complexity management as well as for various species of interconnectedness, such as the aligned upsizing and downsizing of capacities, the relevance of diversity management (e.g., in terms of deviations and errors), and the scope of risk management instruments. Strategies (e.g., heuristics, step-by-step procedures) and tools for managing simplexity-guided projects are outlined

The Architecture Design of Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure Using Viable System Model Approach

Exponential technological-based growth in industrialization and urbanization, and the ease of mobility that modern motorization offers have significantly transformed social structures and living standards. As a result, electric vehicles (EVs) have gained widespread popularity as a mode of sustainable transport. The increasing demand for of electric vehicles (EVs) has reduced the some of the environmental issues and urban space requirements for parking and road usage. The current body of EV literature is replete with different optimization and empirical approaches pertaining to the design and analysis of the EV ecosystem; however, probing the EV ecosystem from a management perspective has not been analyzed. To address this gap, this paper develops a systems-based framework to offer rigorous design and analysis of the EV ecosystem, with a focus on charging station location problems. The study framework includes: (1) examination of the EV charging station location problem through the lens of a systems perspective; (2) a systems view of EV ecosystem structure; and (3) development of a reference model for EV charging stations by adopting the viable system model. The paper concludes with the methodological implications and utility of the reference model to offer managerial insights for practitioners and stakeholders

Central Banking at a Crossroads

This book reflects on the innovations that central banks have introduced since the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers to improve their modes of intervention, regulation and resolution of financial markets and financial institutions. Authors from both academia and policy circles explore these innovations through four approaches: ‘Bank Capital Regulation’ examines the Basel III agreement; ‘Bank Resolution’ focuses on effective regimes for regulating and resolving ailing banks; ‘Central Banking with Collateral-Based Finance’ develops thought on the challenges that market-based finance pose for the conduct of central banking; and ‘Where Next for Central Banking’ examines the trajectory of central banking and its new, central role in sustaining capitalism

Identifying Crisis-Critical Intellectual Property Challenges during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A scenario analysis and conceptual extrapolation of innovation ecosystem dynamics using a visual mapping approach

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed firms, organisations and their respective supply chains which are directly involved in the manufacturing of products that are critical to alleviating the effects of the health crisis, collectively referred to as the Crisis-Critical Sector,to unprecedented challenges. Firms from other sectors, such as automotive, luxury and home appliances, have rushed into the Crisis-Critical Sector in order to support the effort to upscale incumbent manufacturing capacities, thereby introducing Intellectual Property (IP)related dynamics and challenges. We apply an innovation ecosystem perspective on the Crisis-Critical Sector and adopt a novel visual mapping approach to identify IP associated challenges and IP specific dynamic developments during and potentially beyond the crisis.In this paper, we add methodologically by devising and testing a visual approach to capturing IP related dynamics in evolving innovation ecosystems and contribute to literature on IP management in the open innovation context by proposing paraground IP as a novel IP type.Finally, we also deduce managerial implications for IP management practitioners at both incumbent firms and new entrants for navigating innovation ecosystems subject to crisis-induced dynamic shifts

Using Ex Post Evaluations to Improve the Performance of Competition Policy Authorities

Competition policy is a work in progress. Charting the future course of competition policy can benefit heavily from looking back and asking two fundamental questions. First, did the agency’s interventions produce good results? Second, did the agency’s managerial processes help ensure that the agency selected initiatives that would yield good outcomes? This article discusses how government competition authorities might use ex post evaluations of enforcement decisions, operational mechanisms, and organizational design to improve the quality of their work. Preparing performance measures and conducting evaluations provide valuable tools for answering critical questions about the administration of competition policy.The article also examines the value of ex post analyses of previous public enforcement actions. It first describes an evaluation of the contribution of an agency’s outputs to attainment of the goals embodied in the relevant competition laws and provides an assessment of the quality of the competition agency’s internal operations and processes from which agencies might undertake to improve the quality of their work. It then identifies a number of rationales for establishing and applying performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the substantive interventions and operational procedures of competition policy agencies. These include experimentation by making policy amid uncertainties, limited transparency through policymaking by settlement, evaluation through jurisprudence and enforcement policy, and institutional multiplicity. The article next discusses the past experience of competition agencies in conducting ex post analyses of substantive outputs and operational procedures. There are three types of evaluation related activities of note concerning competition agencies: (1) general assessments of competition agency performance and evaluation efforts; (2) evaluations of the effects of individual interventions such as case or advocacy initiatives; and (3) evaluations of agency processes or programs. Noteworthy examples of these activities provide a context for the author’s proposals, which present methodologies for performing evaluations. An agency’s development or revision of a performance measurement system must overcome various hurdles—e.g., expense—and issues concerning the creation of the methodology and how to conduct ex post assessments. An agency must also define what constitutes good internal agency procedures. Ex post evaluation of results is important for all institutions, but especially critical for competition agencies because they rely heavily on experimentation and evolutionary adjustment. The aphorism often applied to the growth of individuals rings true in the field of public policy: it is what you learn after you know it all that really counts

Formalising, Integrating and Assessing Portfolio Management Processes in Technology-Intensive Firms

Technology-intensive firms strive to introduce new products and services effectively and efficiently, having to tackle challenging issues of technology and market uncertainties in their dynamic business environments. This implies that organizing for portfolio management (i.e. taking appropriate decisions regarding projects for new product & service development) is a critical capability for a firm’s survival and growth. However, both academic and practical studies reveal that firms often report a challenge of low levels of portfolio management effectiveness, which increases the likelihood of poor portfolio management performance. After a comprehensive literature review of multi-domain scholarly contributions central to portfolio management, a process design framework for portfolio management provides a basis to tackle this challenge, by addressing three main knowledge gaps: I. Lack of guidance on how and what to formalise in portfolio management processes II. Limited understanding of inter-relationships between portfolio management processes III. Lack of a comprehensive assessment approach for portfolio management processes With the objective to fill these knowledge gaps, this research analysed portfolio management in more than 40 multinational firms operating in different industries including industrial automation, medical devices, manufacturing and semiconductors. This involved use of multiple rounds of various empirical methods such as case studies, focus groups, workshops and participatory observations. As a result, this research bridges these respective knowledge gaps by developing: • Portfolio Management Formalisation Framework reveals five key portfolio management processes that could be formalised and that have implications for portfolio management performance: a) Ecosystem Surveillance, b) Portfolio Strategy Development, c) Business Case Management, d) Portfolio Decision-Making, and e) New Product Management. The three portfolio management stakeholder functions driving these processes are: a) Corporate Functions, b) Top Management Functions, and c) Project Management Functions. • Portfolio Management Integration Framework: develops the inter-relationships between these portfolio management processes as well as stakeholder functions in the form of exploratory relationships. Better integration of these processes and functions could enable better portfolio management performance. • Portfolio Management Diagnostic Tool: a template-based tool for assessing the management practices underpinning the portfolio management processes and stakeholder functions. It involves scoring of these practices against the criteria of relevance, importance, consistency and execution quality. The scores can reveal areas of strengths and weakness in overall portfolio management and can be used for process improvement purposes. This research contributes to theory by conceptualising five key portfolio management processes and three portfolio management stakeholder functions as components of portfolio management formalisation. It also conceptualises the inter-relationships between these processes and function as components of portfolio management integration. The practical utility of the proposed diagnostic tool lies in using it to diagnose and benchmark portfolio management processes and stakeholder functions.Research and Development Management Association; Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing; St. Edmunds College, Cambridge; Cambridge University Engineering Departmen