Advertisement

Describing the Necessity of Multi-Methodological Approach for Viable System Model: Case Study of Viable System Model and System Dynamics Multi-Methodology

  • Amin Vahidi
  • Alireza Aliahmadi
Original Paper
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework based on the Viable System Model (VSM) and the System Dynamics (SD) that dynamizes and simulates VSM. Failure in non-systemic solutions for management problems, urges managers to search for alternative management solutions. Therefore, managers chose Systems Thinking to tackle management complexity in organizations. In recent years, the need for alternative management solutions has given rise to increased popularity of methodologies such as system dynamics and viable system models. Moreover, managers are the victims of systemic failure in non-systemic organizational methodologies due to the one-dimensional and non-holistic views of the organizations (each methodology presents one dimension and viewpoint to the organization). To address the above issues and to facilitate complexity management in organizations, such methodologies should be reconciled and applied together in the form of a complementary multi-methodological approach. Therefore, to close this gap in the literature, this paper seeks to develop a new multi-methodological approach based on Viable System Model (VSM) and System Dynamics (SD). In this context, a dynamic model is developed that handles and manages knowledge throughout the organization together with a general SD framework that models organizational problem-solving. VSM literature review shows there are demands for such dynamic knowledge-based organizational design and diagnosis methodology. The developed multi-methodological approach enables the design of a dynamic complexity handling structure and its associated processes in any given organization. This research result is providing an approach that is more suitable and comprehensive as it dynamizes VSM and covers for the weaknesses of both SD and VSM. Then, the multi-methodology is applied in a management consulting company and the results are presented. The application of the multi-methodology and proposed policy results demonstrates improved organizational problem-solving abilities in terms of speed and manageability of problems.

Keywords

Systems thinking Organizational structure System dynamics Viable system model Multi-methodology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the respected reviewers for their valuable comments that helped to enrich the research. We also thank this journal for creating a ground for cybernetics science exchanges.

References

  1. Ashby WR (1952) Design for a Brain. Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby WR (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. New York, Wiley (Vol. 16). doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3006723
  3. Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1(2):83–99Google Scholar
  4. Beer S (1959) What has cybernetics to do with operational research? J Oper Res Soc 10(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1959.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beer S (1962) Towards the cybernetic factory. In Principles of Self-Organization. Transactions of the University of Illinois Sympo-sium on Self-OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  6. Beer S (1966) Decision and control: the meaning of operational research and manage, WileyGoogle Scholar
  7. Beer S (1972) Brain of the firm: a development in management cybernetics. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  8. Beer S (1979) The heart of Enterprise. The Journal of the Operational Research Society Wiley doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2581902
  9. Beer S (1985) Diagnosing the system for organizations. WileyGoogle Scholar
  10. Beer S (1990) On suicidal rabbits: a relativity of systems. Systems Practice 3(2):115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01060874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beer S (1994) Cybernetics of National Development evolved from work in Chile. In Zaheer Science Foundation Lecture. Retrieved from http://vidyardhi.org/Resources/books/beer.pdf
  12. Bohórquez Arévalo LE, Espinosa A (2015) Theoretical approaches to managing complexity in organizations: a comparative analysis. Estudios Gerenciales 31(134):20–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2014.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brecher C, Müller S, Breitbach T, Lohse W (2013) Viable system model for manufacturing execution systems. Procedia CIRP 7:461–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curram SP, Mingers J (1994) Neural networks, decision tree induction and discriminant analysis: an empirical comparison. J Oper Res Soc 45(4):440 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2584215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dominici G (2013) Book Review. Organizational Systems: Managing Complexity with the Viable System Model Kybernetes (Vol. 42)Google Scholar
  16. Elezi F, Resch D, Tommelein ID, Bauer W (2014) Risk and change management in complex systems. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München.  https://doi.org/10.3139/9781569904923 Google Scholar
  17. Espejo R (2013) Organisational cybernetics as a systemic Paradigm : lessons from the past, progress for the future. Business Systems Review 2(2):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.7350/BSR.V01.2013 Google Scholar
  18. Espejo R, Harnden R (1990) The viable system model: interpretations of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley 44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90368-L
  19. Espinosa A, Harnden R, Walker J (2008) A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford beer revisited. Eur J Oper Res 187(2):636–651.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Espinosa A, Reficco E, Martínez A, Guzmán D (2015) A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on VSM: a case study in a Latin-American multi-national. Eur J Oper Res 240(1):202–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgiou I (2011) Cognitive mapping and strategic options development and analysis (SODA). Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management ScienceGoogle Scholar
  23. Haslett, T. (2000). Using VSM to integrate SD modelling into an organization context. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.143.33
  24. Haslett T, Oka M (2000) Using VSM to integrate SD modelling into an organization context. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.143.33
  25. Hoverstadt P (2010) The viable system model. In systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide (pp. 87–133). Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_3
  26. Jones M (1995) Organisational learning: Collective mind or cognitivist metaphor? Account Manag Inf Technol 5(1):61–77  https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8022(95)90014-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, M. C. (2007). Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=Dvk6pjYTyrQC&pgis=1
  28. Kamran Q (2013) Complexity the sixth competitive force that shapes strategy: a cybernetics approach to “porter”s five forces model’ in turbulent and complex environments. SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2232901
  29. Kirkwood C (2001) System dynamics methods. A Quick Introduction, 2001. Retrieved from http://nutritionmodels.tamu.edu/copyrighted_papers/Kirkwood1998.pdf
  30. Leonard A (2009) The viable system model and its application to complex organizations. Syst Pract Action Res 22(4):223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9126-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mignot P (2000) Metaphor: a paradigm for practice-based research into’career’ British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 2000. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713652314
  32. Milanzi MC (2000) Book review: Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. By John Mingers and Anthony gill (Eds), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1997. Syst Res Behav Sci 17(4):407–414.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1743(200007/08)17:4<407::AID-SRES363>3.0.CO;2-A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mingers J (1980) Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology. J Appl Syst Anal. Retrieved from http://kar.kent.ac.uk/3877/1/Towards social theory.pdf
  34. Mingers, J. (1984). Subjectivism and soft systems methodology-A critique. J Appl Syst Anal. Retrieved from http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/3878
  35. Mingers J (1987) Expert Systems-Rule Induction with Statistical Data. J Oper Res Soc 38(1):39 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2582520 Google Scholar
  36. Mingers J (1989) An empirical comparison of selection measures for decision-tree induction. Mach Learn 3(4):319–342 Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00116837 Google Scholar
  37. Mingers J (1994) Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  38. Mingers J (1997a) Multi-paradigm multimethodology. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/3805/
  39. Mingers J (1997b) Towards critical pluralism 1997. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/3807/
  40. Mingers J, Gill A (1997) Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Mingers J (2000a) What is it to be Critical?. Teaching a critical approach to management undergraduates. Manag Learn 31(2):219–237 Retrieved from http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/31/2/219.short CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mingers J (2000b) The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems. J Oper Res Soc 51(11):1256 Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/01605682/2000/00000051/00000011/2601033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Inf Syst Res 12(3):240–259.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mingers J (2002) Real-izing information systems: critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Inf Organ 14(2):87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mingers J (2003) The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature. Inf Syst J 13(3):233–249.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):530–554  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mingers J (2006) Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and Action in Management Science: knowledge and action in management science. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=fa&lr=&id=rhgifrJFoMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22John+Mingers%22&ots=n2TrzRDs8P&sig=q_v4Xj4Rw_gLCqaIVTJW5cjfMNQ
  48. Mingers J (2010) Multimethodology. Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0973/full
  49. Mingers J (2011) The contribution of systemic thought to critical realism. J Crit Real 10(3):303–330.  https://doi.org/10.1558/jcr.v10i3.303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mingers J, Brocklesby J (1997) Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25(5):489–509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morgan G (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Adm Sci Q, 1980. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392283
  52. Munro I, Mingers J (2002) The use of multimethodology in practice—results of a survey of practitioners. J Oper Res Soc. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/01605682/2002/00000053/00000004/2601331
  53. Preece G, Shaw D, Hayashi H (2013) Using the viable system model (VSM) to structure information processing complexity in disaster response. Eur J Oper Res 224(1):209–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Preece G, Shaw D, Hayashi H (2014) Application of the viable system model to analyse communications structures: a case study of disaster response in Japan. Eur J Oper Res.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.026
  55. Rahayu S, Zulhamdani M (2014) Understanding local innovation system as an intelligent organism using the viable system model case study of palm oil industry in North Sumatra Province. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 115:68–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reyes A (2001) Second-order auditing practices. Syst Pract Action Res 14(2):157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (2nd). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester ISBN 9780471495239Google Scholar
  58. Schwaninger M (2004) Methodologies in conflict: achieving synergies between system dynamics and organizational cybernetics. Syst Res Behav Sci 21(4):411–431.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwaninger M, Ríos JP (2008) System dynamics and cybernetics: a synergetic pair. Syst Dyn Rev 24(2):145–174.  https://doi.org/10.1002/SDr.400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sterman JD (1988) Deterministic chaos in models of human behavior: Methodological issues and experimental results. Syst Dyn Rev 4(1-2):148–178.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260040109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  62. von Foerster H (1974) Cybernetics of cybernetics. University of Illinois, Urbana, IllGoogle Scholar
  63. Yolles M (2004) Implications for Beer's ontological system/metasystem dichotomy. Kybernetes 33(3/4):726–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations