Advertisement

The Usage and Utility of Participative Modeling in Change Management

Abstract

While system dynamics modeling is traditionally used in exploratory organizational interventions, the core of this dissertation is to investigate the usefulness of system dynamics modeling, when the purpose is to implement an already outlined strategic initiative. Regardless of whether a strategic initiative is derived from a specific strategic problem-solving process or from the ongoing strategy-forming process of the company, the implementation faces the challenges of change management.329 In this chapter, the discussion of participative modeling efforts used in supporting change management is structured into three sections: discussion of intervention context, discussion of the intervention process, and discussion of intervention outcomes.330 The intervention context is understood primarily as problem and organizational characteristics. The intervention process is described in terms of business objectives and targets, structured development of change leaders, the design of the change process, and facilitation of modeling and simulation sessions. Finally, the intervention outcomes are discussed in terms of transfer of insights and ownership from decision-makers to implementers, refining and aligning strategies through scenario testing, and organizational learning.

Keywords

Change Management Preliminary Model Business Objective Participative Modeling Change Leader 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 329.
    In Warren, Kim: “Improving strategic management with the fundamental principles of system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, Winter 2005, p. 329, differentiation of strategic management is made between one-off challenges and the continuous direction of enterprise strategy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 330.
    The ‘context — process — outcome’ structure is inspired by the ‘context — mechanism — outcome’ configurator as described Rouwette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, Nijmegen, 2003, pp. 87–92; and also by the ‘intervention — organization — effect’ model (a variant of a classical S-O-R model) as described in Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsäendringer, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 56.Google Scholar
  3. 332.
    Palmer, Ian and Richard Dunford: “Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics”, Strategic Change, Volume 11, August 2002, p. 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 333.
    Anderson, Linda A. and Dean Anderson: “Awake at the Wheel: Moving beyond Change Management to Conscious Change Leadership”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, p. 45.Google Scholar
  5. 334.
    Leavitt, Harold J.: Top Down — Why Hierarchies Are Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More Effectively, Boston, 2005, pp. 164–168.Google Scholar
  6. 335.
    According to Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, p. 20, the efforts of establishing internal commitment in organizational interventions are often centered on the creation of awareness, consensus, and confidence regarding the goals and the change processGoogle Scholar
  7. 336.
    Although action research has it origin from micro-organizational issues with much of the earlier literature primarily discussing changes of group behavior, the field of organizational development has included a whole range of techniques to adjust the theories of action research to be suitable for large-scale changes in organizations. Practically all of the literature from Lewin, Argyris and Schein used in this dissertation discuss mostly interventions on group level. For the evolution of action research in the organizational development literature, see Palmer, Ian and Richard Dunford: “Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics”, Strategic Change, Volume 11, August 2002, p. 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 337.
    Winch, Graham and Sonja Derrick: “Flexible Study Processes in ‘Knotty’ System Dynamics Projects”, Journal of Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, in print, 2006, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  9. 338.
    Eskinasi, Martijn and Eppie Fokkema: “Bursting the myth of making easy modeling money”, unpublished working paper (permission granted from the authors), Proceedings, Second European System Dynamics Workshop, Nijmegen, 2005, p. 63.Google Scholar
  10. 339.
    Example: implementation of a new business process might benefit from other modeling mechanisms such as the ARIS toolkit as described in Scheer, August-Wilhem: Business Process Reengineering — Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 340.
    Flood, Robert L. and Michael C. Jackson: Creative Problem Solving — Total Systems Intervention, Chichester, 1991, p. 12. For a discussion on power, conflict and organizational differences, see also Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 81.Google Scholar
  12. 341.
    The table is based on the table in Flood, Robert L. and Michael C. Jackson: Creative Problem Solving — Total Systems Intervention, Chichester, 1991, p. 13. The indication of modeling relevance is a modification of the table.Google Scholar
  13. 342.
    See Snabe, Birgitte and Andreas Größler: “System Dynamics Modelling for Strategy Implementation: Case Study and Issues”, Journal of Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, in print, 2006, pp. 16–17, for a discussion on ‘manipulation’ when refining and implementing a given decision.Google Scholar
  14. 343.
    See Hamel, Gary: Leading the Revolution, Boston, 2000, p. 280, opposing the idea that new strategies, innovation and change should always start from the top. Throughout the book it is discussed how innovation and radical ideas on how to change the way a company does business should also come from ‘activists’ from inside the company; with activists being people dedicated to rule-bursting and daring unconventional business.Google Scholar
  15. 344.
    Kieser, Alfred: “Kontruktivistische Ansätze”, in Alfred Kieser (ed.): Organisationstheorien, 3rd edition, Stuttgart, 1999, p. 288, discusses social constructivism as how human communication and interaction produce a social reality that appears as the objective reality.Google Scholar
  16. 345.
    Wenneberg, Søren B.: “Socialkonstruktivisme som videnskabsteori — Sisyfos’ videnskab”, Online Paper, Institut for Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi, Copenhagen, 2002, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  17. 346.
    Negative consequences on organizational trust among employees has been seen to be avoided even in cases of both redeployment and relocation of employees, which was interpreted as being due to factors such as acceptance of the arguments for change, perceived organizational support, and fairness; see Ferres, Natalie, Julia Connell, and Anthony Travaglione: “The effect of future redeployment on organizational trust”, Strategic Change, Vol. 14, March–April 2005, pp. 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 347.
    Van der Smagt, Ton: “Causation and Constitution in System Dynamics; Modelling a Socially Constituted World”, Journal of Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, in print, 2006, pp. 13–14. Van de Smagt, p. 1, furthermore argues: “causal models blind us for constitutional change.”Google Scholar
  19. 348.
    See Checkland, Peter: “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice”, Chichester, 1993, p. 219, for a discussion on the importance of the concept of Weltanschauung in both ‘hard’ and’ soft’ system methodologies.Google Scholar
  20. 349.
    Van der Smagt, Ton: “Causation and Constitution in System Dynamics: Modelling a Socially Constituted World”, 2006, p. 14, argues that causal models do not even ‘invite’ to think about constitutional issues. This might very well be true for the modeling workshops, but in the preparation of the modeling processes (especially in drafting the preliminary model), model owners have a clear opportunity to include structured commitment to constitution.Google Scholar
  21. 350.
    See Lyneis, James M.: Corporate Planning and Policy Design: A System Dynamics Approach, Boston, 1980, pp. 6–9. Lyneis furthermore emphasize corporate policies not being sufficiently robust to handle changing conditions.Google Scholar
  22. 351.
    In Thygesen, Henriette H.: System Dynamics in Action, Copenhagen, 2004, p. 189, it is argued that the system dynamics modeling process assist in creating “an atmosphere of shared reality” between project participants.Google Scholar
  23. 355.
    In Schneiderman, Arthur M.: “Setting Quality Goals: Use observed rates of continuous improvement to position targets”, Quality Progress, April 1988, p. 56, rational goal setting is discussed in terms of the individual company’s situation. The term “half-life” is introduced, indicating that a constant time factor exist for reaching half of the theoretical possible process improvement at any given time (comparable with the behavior of radioactive decay).Google Scholar
  24. 356.
    Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, 1995, pp. 116–117.Google Scholar
  25. 357.
    Akkermans: Modelling With Managers, 1995, p. 116.Google Scholar
  26. 358.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 85; Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 58. It is important to note, that Sterman’s recommendation is made in a modeling context different from change management.Google Scholar
  27. 359.
    A parallel can be drawn to the importance of clear objectives in learning and experimentation situations supported by simulators, see Größler, Andreas: “Don’t Let History Repeat Itself: Methodological Issues Concerning the Use of Simulators in Teaching and Experimentation”, System Dynamics Review, Volume 20, Number 3, Fall 2004, pp. 268–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 362.
    Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 83.Google Scholar
  29. 363.
    This observation is based on a number of consulting projects, which the author has carried out as consultant or engagement manager in IBM Management Consulting and Deloitte Consulting Group between 1993 and 2002. Andersen Consulting uses a similar approach (although it uses other terms), see Lochmann, Hans-Dieter und Michaela Rüsch-Kornasoff: “Organization Change Strategy — Ein wesentlicher Baustein des Reengineerings”, in Manfred Perlitz, Andreas Offinger, Michael Reinhardt and Klaus Schug (eds.): Reengineering zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 329–340.Google Scholar
  30. 365.
    Anderson, Linda A. and Dean Anderson: “Awake at the Wheel: Moving beyond Change Management to Conscious Change Leadership”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, p. 45.Google Scholar
  31. 366.
    The structured involvement of change leaders is a way to exercise what Klein calls’ sympathetic understanding’ regarding the change resistance, seeking valuable input about the nature of the system that is going to change, potentially motivating a modification of the change itself or the change implementation process, see Klein, Donald: “Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance to Change: The Defender Role”, in Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin: The Planning of Change, 4th edition (first published in 1966), New York, 1985, p. 103.Google Scholar
  32. 367.
    The five elements are taken from Ajzen’s framework for theories of planned behavior; see discussion in chapter B.II.1. See also Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation, Boston, 2000, part I, p. 68, emphasizing the importance that the handover from the decision-makers to the implementers should be carefully planned to avoid communication breakdown.Google Scholar
  33. 368.
    As seen in Business Reengineering projects, where individuals are taken out of their previous environment, to use their skills and experiences in the creation of reengineered business processes Bungard, Walter: “Zur Implementierungsproblematik bei Business-Reengineering Projekten”, in Manfred Perlitz, Andreas Offinger, Michael Reinhardt and Klaus Schug (eds.): Reengineering zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 264–265.Google Scholar
  34. 370.
    It should be noted that having change leaders also being informal change leaders implies a broader definition of the term change leader compared to the use in Anderson, Linda A. and Dean Anderson: “Awake at the Wheel: Moving beyond Change Management to Conscious Change Leadership”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, pp. 40–48, where focus is mostly on top executives.Google Scholar
  35. 371.
    Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykology, Danish translation, Herning, 1990, p. 257.Google Scholar
  36. 372.
    Jöns, Ingela: Managementstrategien und Organisationswandel, Mannheim University, 1995, p. 157.Google Scholar
  37. 373.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change (first published in Newcomb and Hartley’s Readings in social psychology, 1948, pp. 330–341), in Martin Gold: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, American Psychological Association, 1999, pp. 276–279.Google Scholar
  38. 374.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change”, in Martin Gold: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999, p. 273.Google Scholar
  39. 375.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change”, in Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, 1999, p. 281.Google Scholar
  40. 376.
    For a discussion on the importance of social norms and perceived behavioral control in the changing of behavior, see Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Chicago, 1988, pp. 121–133.Google Scholar
  41. 377.
    Gladwell, Malcolm: The Tipping Point, paperback edition, New York, 2002, p. 9.Google Scholar
  42. 378.
    When an epidemic starts to spread widely, it has passed, what Gladwell calls ‘the tipping point, see Gladwell, Malcolm: The Tipping Point, paperback edition, New York, 2002, p. 18.Google Scholar
  43. 379.
    Gladwell, Malcolm: The Tipping Point, New York, 2002, p. 19 and pp. 30–88.Google Scholar
  44. 380.
    Hamel, Gary: Leading the Revolution, Boston, 2000, pp. 187–206.Google Scholar
  45. 381.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisations Psychology, Herning, Forlaget systime, 1990, p. 40; Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, chapter 1 and 2.Google Scholar
  46. 382.
    McKee, Robert: “Storytelling That Moves People”, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, p. 52.Google Scholar
  47. 383.
    Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 28. This framework fits also well with generic consulting methodologies; e.g. a phase model of reengineering projects described by Perlitz: (1) initializing, incl. project initialization and project understanding, (2) problem analysis and redesign, (3) implementation, and (4) anchoring and continuous development, see Perlitz, Manfred, Jürgen Bufka, Andreas Offinger, Michael Reinhardt, und Klaus Schug: “Reengineering-Projekte erfolgreich umsetzen — Ergebnisse einer Erfolgsfaktorenstudie”, in Perlitz, Manfred, Andreas Offinger, Michael Reinhardt and Klaus Schug (eds.): Reengineering zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Wiesbaden, 1996, p. 186.Google Scholar
  48. 384.
    For further discussion on the unfreezing-movement-freezing process, see chapter A.II as well as Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Herning, 1990, pp. 254–255.Google Scholar
  49. 385.
    See Kotter, John P: Leading Change, Boston, 1996, pp. 35–49; de Geus, Arie P.: “Planning as Learning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, March-April 1988, pp. 70–74; and Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
  50. 386.
    Chin, Robert and Kenneth D. Benne: “General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems”, in Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin: The Planning of Change, 4th edition, New York, 1985, p. 22.Google Scholar
  51. 387.
    Doppler, Klaus and Christoph Lauterburg: Change Management — Den Unternehmenswandel gestalten, 10th edition, New York, 2002, p. 324.Google Scholar
  52. 389.
    Own translation and modification from Doppler, Klaus and Christoph Lauterburg: Change Management — Den Unternehmenswandel gestalten, 10th edition, New York, 2002, p. 326.Google Scholar
  53. 390.
    See Kotter, John P. and Dan S. Cohen: The Heart of Change, Boston, 2002, p. 1. As the book is practical rather than research oriented, there is no discussion of the “see-feel-change” in terms of cognitive, affective and conative elements.Google Scholar
  54. 391.
    Roberto, Michael and Lynne Levesque: “The Art of Making Change Stick”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4, Summer 2005, p. 56.Google Scholar
  55. 392.
    See Kotter and Cohen: The Heart of Change, 2002, p. 181; Roberto, Michael and Lynne Levesque: “The Art of Making Change Stick”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4, Summer 2005, pp. 56–57. Feelings facilitating change include faith, trust, optimism, urgency, reality based pride, passion, excitement, hope, and enthusiasm, whereas feelings like anger, false pride, pessimism, arrogance, cynicism, panic, exhaustion, insecurity, and anxiety undermine change, see Kotter and Cohen: The Heart of Change, 2002, p. 180.Google Scholar
  56. 393.
    Brown, John Seely: Research That Reinvents the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, August 2002, p. 108.Google Scholar
  57. 394.
    Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 158.Google Scholar
  58. 396.
    The figure is taken from Michael and Lynne Levesque: “The Art of Making Change Stick”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4, Summer 2005, p. 56 and p. 60. The four processes are stated to be critical to successful change; although the need for clear objectives, sound project management, accountability and control systems are also stressed (p. 55).Google Scholar
  59. 398.
    The importance of leaders presenting ideas in a way that activate feelings and make the message memorable is also discussed in McKee, Robert: “Storytelling That Moves People”, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, p. 52.Google Scholar
  60. 399.
    Kieser, Alfred and Ulrich Koch: Organizational Learning through Rule Adaptation: From the Behavioral Theory to Transactive Organizational Learning, Mannheim, 2000, p. 12 and pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  61. 400.
    Kieser and Koch: Organizational Learning through Rule Adaptation, 2000, pp. 18–27.Google Scholar
  62. 401.
    See Forrester, Jay W.: “Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, pp. 42–63. See also Kieser and Koch: Organizational Learning through Rule Adaptation, Mannheim, 2000, p. 19, discussing the transactive memory concept in terms of meta-knowledge or directory knowledge: knowledge about where to find knowledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 402.
    Repenning, Nelson P. and John D. Sterman.: Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement”, California Management Review, Vol.43, No.4, Summer 2001, p. 74.Google Scholar
  64. 403.
    Jacobsen, Chanoch and Yitzhak Samuel: “Planned Organizational Change: Theory, Model, Data and Simulation”, in Milling, Peter M. and Erich O.K. Zahn (eds.): Computer-Based Management of Complex Systems, Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Heidelberg, 1989, pp. 104–118.Google Scholar
  65. 404.
    Own translation from Doppler, Klaus and Christoph Lauterburg: Change Management — Den Unternehmenswandelgestalten, 10th edition, New York, 2002, pp. 326–327.Google Scholar
  66. 405.
    Gladwell, Malcolm: The Tipping Point, paperback edition, New York, Back Bay Books, 2002, pp. 74–87.Google Scholar
  67. 406.
    Kanter, Rosabeth Moss: “Leadership and the Psychology of Turnarounds”, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, p. 61.Google Scholar
  68. 407.
    Henttonen, Kaisa and Kirsimarja Blomqvist: “Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication”, Strategic Change, Vol. 14, March–April 2005, p. 108. Here, trust is discussed in respect to ‘normal’ teams in ‘normal’ projects, but Henttonen and Kirsimarja later also discus evolution of trust in virtual teams (which was actually one of the issues discussed among project participant the case study outlining how to implement the location strategy).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 408.
    Poor decision-making as result of groupthink is described in Janis, Irving L.: “Groupthink: The Problems of Conformity” (original printed in Psychology Today, Nov. 1971, pp. 271–279), in Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, California, 1989, pp. 225–227.Google Scholar
  70. 409.
    Janis: “Groupthink: The Problems of Conformity”, in Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, California, 1989, p. 227.Google Scholar
  71. 410.
    O’Connor, Joseph and Ian McDermott: The Art of System Thinking — Essential skills for creativity and problem solving, London, 1997, p. 141.Google Scholar
  72. 411.
    O’Connor and McDermott: The Art of System Thinking — Essential skills for creativity and problem solving, London, 1997, p. 141.Google Scholar
  73. 412.
    Leonard, Dorothy: Wellsprings of Knowledge — Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Boston, 1998, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
  74. 414.
    Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002, p. 264.Google Scholar
  75. 415.
    This has some similarities with how astrologers use horoscopes as a virtual reality, where humans re-arrange their perception of their own life, see Munk, Kirstine: “In the Airy Spaces of Our Minds...: Cosmology and ritual design in modern, Western astrology”, in York, Michael (ed.): Nature, Religion, and Culture, London, in print, 2006, p. 27. Munk refers to the Danish astrologer and psychotherapist Pia Balk-Møller, who suggests that the use of a chart (a horoscope) makes a discussion’ safer’, as the secrets are already on the table, and Munk furthermore stresses the importance of imaginative involvement in discussions of charts, where insight “not only has to be understood intellectually, but also has to be imagined and felt” (pp. 29—30).Google Scholar
  76. 416.
    Distefano, Joseph J. and Martha L. Maznevski: “Creating Value with Diverse Teams in Global Management”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 46.Google Scholar
  77. 417.
    Quoted in Farson, Richard and Ralph Keyes: “The Failure-Tolerant Leader”, Harvard Business Review, August 2002, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar
  78. 419.
    Christensen, Søren and Jan Molin: Organisationskulturer, Copenhagen, 1987, p. 27, discuss myths as inward, empty explanations used to legitimize certain behavior. See also Ackoff’s morale: “There is nothing so deceptive as an apparent truth”: Ackoff, Russel L.: The Art of Problem Solving — Accompanied by Ackoff’s Fables, New York, 1978, p. 84.Google Scholar
  79. 420.
    Briggs, Robert, Gert-Jan de Vreede, and Jay F. Nunamaker Jr.: “Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Systems”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, Spring 2003, p. 32.Google Scholar
  80. 421.
    Briggs, de Vreede, and Nunamaker Jr.: “Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Systems”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, Spring 2003, p. 45.Google Scholar
  81. 422.
    Briggs, de Vreede, and Nunamaker Jr.: “Collaboration Engineering with ThinkLets to Pursue Sustained Success with Group Systems”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 4, Spring 2003, p. 46.Google Scholar
  82. 424.
    Salge, Markus and Peter Milling: “Who is to blame, the operator or the designer? Two stages of human failure in the Chernobyl accident”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 22, in print, 2006, the figures 8 and 9.Google Scholar
  83. 426.
    Leavitt, Harold J.: Top Down — Why Hierarchies Are Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More Effectively, Boston, 2005, p. 98.Google Scholar
  84. 427.
    The discussion in chapter A.I on the two cycles of problem-solving, Diagnostics and Decision-Making (cycle I) and Change Management (cycle II), is based on the problem solving process described in Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation, Boston, 2000, part I, p. 61.Google Scholar
  85. 428.
    Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.: “Strategy as Strategic Decision Making”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1999, pp. 66–67. Eisenhardt calls the mental model alignment “building collective intuition.”Google Scholar
  86. 430.
    Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Chicago, 1988, p. 133. See also discussion in chapter B.II.1.Google Scholar
  87. 434.
    Snabe Birgitte: Brugtvognskoncept for Skandinavisk Motor Co., Thesis, Det erhvervsøkonomiske diplomstudium, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, 1994, p. 9 and p. 89, discusses scenario evaluation and selection among alternative scenarios in terms of strategic fit, profitability, risk, competitor reactions and reversibility.Google Scholar
  88. 435.
    A discussion of the importance and the challenges of cross-organizational alignment of robust policies can be found in Lyneis, James M.: Corporate Planning and Policy Design: A System Dynamics Approach, Massachusetts, 1980, pp. 6–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Personalised recommendations