Abstract
A successful product must satisfy customer requirements and preferences. As this bundle of market needs has many facets and is highly complex in its nature, it is called external complexity here. To comply with these diverse demands, companies design their product portfolios accordingly, i.e. they introduce variety to their products. This, in turn, increases not only the product’s complexity but affects the complexity within the entire company. This enterprise-internal complexity spreads to all functional areas (product development, logistics, production, and sales, to name a few) and is called internal complexity.2 The products of an enterprise are exposed to external complexity and cause internal complexity. Therefore, products must be designed to cope with the implications of both external and internal complexity because they are a very important instrument for achieving sustained profits and assuring long-term survival.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
As cited in Klir and Elias (2003, p. 1)
The terms of external and internal complexity are widely used in literature about complexity management. A sample of sources is given here. Schuh and Schwenk (2001, pp. 13–17) emphasized the effects of excessive customer orientation (i.e. responding to external complexity) on internal complexity and complexity costs. Kaiser (1995) used the terms external (exogenous) and operative (endogenous) complexity (pp. 16–18) as well as external and internal complexity (pp. 100–101). Bliss (2000, pp. 5–7) introduced exogenous and endogenous complexity drivers.
Robertson and Ulrich (1998, p. 21) gave an excellent overview of how the product architecture influences the trade-off between commonality and distinctiveness.
See Dyllick and Probst (1984, pp. 10–11) for an introduction to the system-oriented concept of management science.
As an example of combining action research and case studies, see the cases presented by Greenwood and Levin (1998, pp. 33–49 and pp. 129–148), which they termed “action research cases.”
Punch (2005, p. 158) argued that while the primary objective of grounded theory is to create a theory, “it is not long into the theorizing process before we are also wanting to test theoretical ideas which are emerging.”
Developed from Eisenhardt (1989, pp. 546–547).
When considering case studies, it must be distinguished between case studies for research purposes and case studies as teaching devices (Yin, 2003, p. 2 and p. 10). Leenders and Erskine (1989) give an introduction of the case method used for teaching purposes.
Case study research can be classified either as single-case or multiple-case design (Yin, 2003, pp. 39–40).
Eisenhardt (1989, pp. 534–535) distinguishes qualitative (e.g. words) and quantitative (e.g. numbers) evidence.
The respective steps are: getting started, selecting cases, crafting instruments and protocols, entering the field, analyzing data, shaping hypotheses, enfolding literature, and reaching closure (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 533).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Introduction. In: Complexity Management. DUV. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-5435-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-5435-6_1
Publisher Name: DUV
Print ISBN: 978-3-8350-0866-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-8350-5435-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)