The services science agenda is essentially a trans-disciplinary one, borne of the network economy. Promises and expectations for technology to deliver flexibility, customisation and responsiveness of service provision within this context give rise to a number of challenges for the IT profession. However, profound challenges also exist with regard to the requisite capabilities for strategising, organising and managing the transformation of organisations so that they are able to effectively leverage emergent technological capabilities for viable, sustainable futures in the network economy. Delivering the Services Science value proposition rests on the co-evolution of requisite business intelligence, business transformation and technological capabilities.

This paper takes the view that the challenges and opportunities inherent in the dynamics of the network economy are different in kind from those that we have met in the past, and may necessitate a paradigm shift for researchers, practitioners and educators. It sets out the case for drawing on Complexity Science to conceptualise the research and human resource development agenda for addressing the challenges that confront us.


Human Resource Development Complex Adaptive System Dynamic Context Complex Network Dynamic Network Economy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Anderson, P. (1999) “Complexity Theory and Organization Science”, Organization Studies, 10 (3), 216-232.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M. (1999) Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Axtell, R, (2000) “Why Agents? On the Varied Motivations for Agent Computing in the Social Sciences.” Center on Social and Economic Dynamics Working Paper No. 17, November 2000, The Brookings Institution, Washington.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Barabasi, A. (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks. Perseus Publishing, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Carley, K. (1995) “Computational and mathematical organization theory: Perspective and directions” Comput. Math Organ Theory 1 (1) 39-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chaitin, G. (1990) Information, Randomness, and Incompleteness. World Scientific Co. Singapore.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Chesbrough (2005) Towards a new science of services. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Gell-Mann, M. (1994) The Quark and the Jaguar. Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Granovetter, M. (1985) “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Han, J. et al (2004). “Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network” Nature, 430, 88-93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Holland, J. (1998) Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Karmarkar, U. (2004). “Will you Survive the Services Revolution?”, Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Lomi, A. and Larson, E. (eds.) (2001). Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modelling and Organizational Theories. MIT Press, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Merali, Y. (2006) “Complexity and Information Systems: The Emergent Domain” Journal of Information Technology Special Issue on Complexity and Information Systems, 21, 216-228Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Merali Y. (2004). Complexity and information systems. In: Mingers J, Willcocks L, eds. Social theory and philosophy of information systems. London: Wiley; 2004. p. 407-446.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Merali, Y. (2005). Complexity Science and Conceptualisation in the Internet Enabled World, Proc. European Group of Social Studies Colloquium, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Rust, R. (2004). A call for a wider range of services research. J. of Service Research.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Shapiro, C; and Varian, H. (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Watts, D.J. (2003). Six Degrees: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. Norton, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasmin Merali
    • 1
  1. 1.Warwick Business SchoolThe University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations