No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Symbiotic Use of Digital Twin, Simulation and Design Thinking Approach for Resilient Enterprise
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Environmental uncertainties and hyperconnectivity force techno-socioeconomic systems to introspect and adapt to succeed and survive. Current practice is chiefly intuition-driven which is inconsistent with the need for precision and rigor. We propose that this can be addressed through the use of digital twins by combining results from Modelling & Simulation, Artificial Intelligence, and Control Theory to create a risk free 'in silico' experimentation aid to help: (i) understand why system is the way it is, (ii) be prepared for possible outlier conditions, and (iii) identify plausible solutions for mitigating the outlier conditions in an evidence-backed manner. We use reinforcement learning to systematically explore the digital twin solution space. Our proposal is significant because it advances the effective use of digital twins to new problem domains that have greater impact potential. Our novel approach contributes a meta model for simulatable digital twin of industry scale techno-socioeconomic systems, agent-based implementation of the digital twin, and an architecture that serves as a risk-free experimentation aid to support simulation-based evidence-backed decision-making. We also discuss validation of this approach, associated technology infrastructure, and architecture through a representative sample of industry-scale real-world use cases.
p>Hybrid Simulation (HS) is the application of two or more simulation techniques (e.g., ABS, DES, SD) in a single MS study. Distinct from HS, Hybrid Modelling (HM) is defined as the combined application of simulation approaches (including HS) with methods and techniques from the broader OR/MS literature and also across disciplines. In this paper, we expand on the unified conceptual representation and classification of hybrid MS, which includes both HS (Model Types A-C), hybrid OR/MS models (D, D.1) and cross-disciplinary hybrid models (Type E), and assess their innovation potential. We argue that model types associated with HM (D, D.1, E), with its focus on OR/MS and cross-disciplinary research, are particularly well-placed in driving innovation in the theory and practice of MS. Application of these innovative HM methodologies will lead to innovation in the application space as new approaches in stakeholder engagement, conceptual modelling, system representation, VV, experimentation, etc. are identified.</p
Recently, the concept of resilience has gained new momentum in organization studies. It is held to be a very promising concept to explain how organizations can survive and thrive amidst adversity or turbulence. However, findings from an earlier review about resilience in the organizational and business context show that, although empirical research on the concept has increased, there is still a need for more clarity in terms of its measurement. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of the organizational resilience construct that covers both conceptual and operational issues. We discuss why researchers criticize resilience for being fuzzy and move on to identify and analyse existing literature under the lens of construct development and taxonomies. With this study, we aim to point out conceptual problems for future researchers to address conceptual clarity and to develop a clearer, more parsimonious concept. We conclude with a suggestion about future measurement.
In highly volatile and uncertain times, organizations need to develop a resilience capacity which enables them to cope effectively with unexpected events, bounce back from crises, and even foster future success. Although academic interest in organizational resilience has steadily grown in recent years, there is little consensus about what resilience actually means and how it is composed. More knowledge is particularly needed about organizational capabilities that constitute resilience, as well as conditions for their development. This paper aims to make a contribution to this heterogeneous research field by deepening the understanding of the complex and embedded construct of organizational resilience. We conceptualize resilience as a meta-capability and decompose the construct into its individual parts. Inspired by process-based studies, we suggest three successive resilience stages (anticipation, coping, and adaptation) and give an overview of underlying capabilities that together form organizational resilience. Based on this outline, we discuss relationships and interactions of the different resilience stages as well as main antecedents and drivers. We formulate propositions that can act as a foundation for future empirical work.
Systems do not simply pop into existence. They progress through lifecycle phases of creation, production, operations, and disposal. The issues leading to undesirable and unpredicted emergent behavior are set in place during the phases of creation and production and realized during the operational phase, with many of those problematic issues due to human interaction. We propose that the idea of the Digital Twin, which links the physical system with its virtual equivalent can mitigate these problematic issues. We describe the Digital Twin concept and its development, show how it applies across the product lifecycle in defining and understanding system behavior, and define tests to evaluate how we are progressing. We discuss how the Digital Twin relates to Systems Engineering and how it can address the human interactions that lead to “normal accidents.” We address both Digital Twin obstacles and opportunities, such as system replication and front running. We finish with NASA’s current work with the Digital Twin.
Both academics and practitioners have recently discovered resilience as a core topic of interest. Resilience is widely viewed as a potential solution to the challenges posed by crises and disasters. The promise of resilience is an organization or society that absorbs shocks and ‘bounces back’ after a disturbance. While the idea of resilience is increasingly popular, empirical research on resilient organizations is actually quite rare. This article explores whether a relation exists between organizational characteristics, processes and resilience. Building on the insights of high reliability theory and crisis research, it probes this relation in two organizations that experienced deep crises: the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA).
Current trends in service design research include case studies and similar approaches that aspire to reveal what the practice of service design looks like. The understanding of how service design is performed can serve as a base for future research into more specific research endeavours. One area where knowledge is said to be lacking is service prototyping, part of which knowledge this paper attempts to contribute. The main data source for the paper is findings from in-depth interviews with six practicing service designers from some of the more well-known design agencies. The informants consider service prototyping to be a very important part of their work that allows them to learn and communicate about design ideas. The practitioners' account of how they work with prototypes indicates that service prototyping has different meanings and that the practice of prototyping is very diverse. The interviews also uncover a number of areas that, according to the designers, might prove extra challenging for service prototyping to be successful. This research shows that there is much potential in the not yet fully formed practice of service prototyping.
In this paper we discuss verification and validation of simulation models. Four different approaches to deciding model validity are described; two different paradigms that relate verification and validation to the model development process are presented; various validation techniques are defined; conceptual model validity, model verification, operational validity, and data validity are discussed; a way to document results is given; a recommended procedure for model validation is presented; and model accreditation is briefly discussed.
The new paradigm, known as “resilience engineering”, emphasizes the importance of measuring resilience and suggests the development of methodologies to analyze and prepare to improve the resilience of enterprises. In this paper we review existing resilience measurement methodologies, and propose new modes of measurement. We define enterprise resilience as the capacity to decrease vulnerability, the ability to change and adapt, and the ability to recover quickly from disruption. Using this definition, we identify metrics which evaluate, more specifically: (1) an enterprise's capability to decrease its level of vulnerability to expected and unexpected events, (2) its ability to change itself and adapt to changing environment; (3) its ability to recover in the least possible time in case of a disruptive event. Based on the discussed enterprise resilience metrics, we use several examples and evaluate a set of illustrative responses to common disruptions.
As our infrastructure and organisations become ever more networked and interdependent there is a growing need to focus on managing overall system risk. In particular, there is a need to focus not only on the vulnerability of our systems to failure, but also on our ability to manage and minimise the impact of any failures. This raises some interesting concepts in terms of how we might design systems to be more resilient to change. For example, the traditional engineering approach had been to design systems that are less vulnerable to damage from hazard events. However system resilience can also be enhanced by increasing the adaptive capacity of the system, either through ensuring the system design includes enough redundancy to provide continuity of function, or through increasing the ability and speed of the system to evolve and adapt to new situations as they arise. This paper discusses the particular challenges for evaluating the resilience of organisations to major hazard events.
In this article, we provide in-depth insight into the process of adopting service design (SD) by a large service organization. We use an inductive interpretive approach and draw on rich longitudinal data collected in one of the world’s major telecommunication companies that undertook a series of SD initiatives to improve its innovation capability. We find that instead of merely bringing new services, SD has far-reaching consequences for organizations, prompting significant changes in the organizational mindset and routines. Building on the institutional logics perspective and acknowledging the role of individuals’ institutional work, we identify the macro-level and micro-level mechanisms of the organizational logic transformation that SD induces. Interestingly, the effects are bidirectional, as the organizational context has a considerable impact on SD as an innovation practice. As this study shows, managers and other practitioners can effectively overcome organizational hindrances to the adoption of SD by creating an SD-based corporate language, realigning key performance indicators, and facilitating learning and experimentation.
Specification and analysis of complex systems can be approached top-down or bottom-up [11]. A top-down approach conceptualises a system using a global state and the behaviour represented using an aggregated macro-behaviour of the system elements. For example, the System Dynamics (SD) model [8] uses the concepts of stocks, flows, feedback loops and time delays. A top-down approach considers a reductionist view [10] to understand system using the mathematical rigour from operational research, optimization theory, and sophisticated AI algorithms. A bottom-up approach, in contrast, considers the micro-behaviour of individual elements and their interactions. Conceptually, the bottom-up approach relies on emergentism [9] as advocated in actor model of computation [1], and agent-based systems [6].
Explains multi-level models of enterprise systems and covers modeling methodology This book addresses the essential phenomena underlying the overall behaviors of complex systems and enterprises. Understanding these phenomena can enable improving these systems. These phenomena range from physical, behavioral, and organizational, to economic and social, all of which involve significant human components. Specific phenomena of interest and how they are represented depend on the questions of interest and the relevant domains or contexts. Modeling and Visualization of Complex Systems and Enterprises examines visualization of phenomena and how understanding the relationships among phenomena can provide the basis for understanding where deeper exploration is warranted. The author also reviews mathematical and computational models, defined very broadly across disciplines, which can enable deeper understanding. Presents a 10 step methodology for addressing questions associated with the design or operation of complex systems and enterprises Examines six archetypal enterprise problems including two from healthcare, two from urban systems, and one each from financial systems and defense systems Provides an introduction to the nature of complex systems, historical perspectives on complexity and complex adaptive systems, and the evolution of systems practice Modeling and Visualization of Complex Systems and Enterprises is written for graduate students studying systems science and engineering and professionals involved in systems science and engineering, those involved in complex systems such as healthcare delivery, urban systems, sustainable energy, financial systems, and national security.
Design Thinking (DT) is advocated as a user-centred approach to innovation, based on the way designers think and work. Despite being increasingly promoted as an approach to innovation, there is still little evidence of successful impact. Rather, indications suggest that firms find implementation challenging. The purpose of this paper is to analyse challenges of using DT in light of literature on innovation barriers, in order to discuss whether there is something unique about DT as a concept that makes it particularly challenging to use. The paper is based on an interview study of five large firms that all have at least five years of experience of using DT. The analysis shows that several of the perceived challenges can be linked to known barriers to innovation. However, other challenges have not previously been described in the innovation literature, and the paper suggests that there are some unique aspects of DT that makes it particularly challenging for firms to integrate it in innovation work. These are related to its core themes: user focus, problem framing, experimentation, visualization and diversity. Additionally, the paper contributes with an empirically based categorization of challenges that managers will find useful if they want to implement design thinking in their organizations.
The notion of resilience is rapidly gaining influence in public administration practice and research, but a more comprehensive resilience research agenda in public administration is yet to emerge. This article aims to clarify how experiences and potential contributions from social-ecological resilience research can inform resilience studies in public administration. By contrasting key components of the resilience paradigm and its policy prescriptions with established findings from public administration research, a set of key shortcomings of social-ecological resilience thinking are identified: (1) deterministic systems models; (2) simplified accounts of politics and policy; and (3) a lack of systematic and generalizable empirical studies. To avoid these shortcomings, it is suggested that public administration resilience studies should explore multiple and competing models for how resilience can be generated; analyse trade-offs between resilience and other values of public administration; avoid systems theoretical resilience models; and apply the notion of resilience in areas beyond crisis management.
Enterprise resilience is a complex concept that involves different properties and research areas. Based on the literature review, three main properties related to enterprise resilience have been identified: vulnerability, adaptative capacity and recovery ability. On the other hand, an analysis of the current literature approaches to measure and assess enterprise resilience has been described. However, approaches that assess and measure simultaneously the three main properties of enterprise resilience have not been found. To bridge this gap, the paper presents the definition of a conceptual framework to support strategic decisions related to enterprise resilience by defining the main research areas of the identified enterprise resilience properties to provide the basis for further research.
Resilient organizations thrive despite experiencing conditions that are surprising, uncertain, often adverse, and usually unstable. We propose that an organization's capacity for resilience is developed through strategically managing human resources to create competencies among core employees, that when aggregated at the organizational level, make it possible for organizations to achieve the ability to respond in a resilient manner when they experience severe shocks. We begin by reviewing three elements central to developing an organization's capacity for resilience (specific cognitive abilities, behavioral characteristics, and contextual conditions). Next we identify the individual level employee contributions needed to achieve each of these elements. We then explain how HR policies and practices within a strategic human resource management system can influence individual attitudes and behaviors so that when these individual contributions are aggregated at the organizational level through the processes of double interact and attraction–selection–attrition, the organization is more likely to possess a capacity for resilience.
THIS REVIEW EXPLORES BOTH ECOLOGICAL THEORY AND THE BEHAVIOR OF NATURAL SYSTEMS TO SEE IF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THEIR BEHAVIOR CAN YIELD DIFFERENT INSIGHTS THAT ARE USEFUL FOR BOTH THEORY AND PRACTICE. THE RESILIENCE AND STABILITY VIEWPOINTS OF THE BEHAVIOR OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS CAN YIELD VERY DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES. THE STABILITY VIEW EMPHASIZES THE EQUILIBRIUM, THE MAINTENANCE OF A PREDICTABLE WORLD, AND THE HARVESTING OF NATURE'S EXCESS PRODUCTION WITH AS LITTLE FLUCTUATION AS POSSIBLE. THE RESILIENCE VIEW EMPHASIZES DOMAINS OF ATTRACTION AND THE NEED FOR PERSISTENCE. BUT EXTINCTION IS NOT PURELY A RANDOM EVENT: IT RESULTS FROM THE INTERACTION OF RANDOM EVENTS WITH THOSE DETERMINISTIC FORCES THAT DEFINE THE SHAPE, SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DOMAIN OF ATTRACTION. THE VERY APPROACH, THEREFORE, THAT ASSURES A STABLE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD OF A RENEWABLE RESOURCE, MIGHT SO CHANGE THESE CONDITIONS THAT THE RESILIENCE IS LOST OR IS REDUCED SO THAT A CHANCE AND RARE EVENT THAT PREVIOUSLY COULD BE ABSORBED CAN TRIGGER A SUDDEN DRAMATIC CHANGE AND LOSS OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM. A MANAGEMENT APPROACH BASED ON RESILIENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO KEEP OPTIONS OPEN, THE NEED TO VIEW EVENTS IN A REGIONAL RATHER THAN A LOCAL CONTEXT, AND THE NEED TO EMPHASIZE HETEROGENEITY. THE RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK DOES NOT REQUIRE A PRECISE CAPACITY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE BUT ONLY A QUALITATIVE CAPACITY TO DEVISE SYSTEMS THAT CAN ABSORB AND ACCOMMODATE FUTURE EVENTS IN WHATEVER UNEXPECTED FORM THEY MAY TAKE.
There are questions as to whether a causal relationship exists between crisis planning and effective adaptive behaviors in crisis. Traditional planning has viewed the crisis plan as an outcome of a process to be utilized in a step-by-step fashion during a crisis. This article challenges this orthodox view and suggests a new paradigm, one that focuses on creating organizational structures and processes that build organizational resilience potential. The objective is to develop a scale to measure latent resilience in organizations. This exploratory research begins to build a critical foundation of knowledge with which to consider whether a move towards a new paradigm in disaster planning – one based on building organizational resilience potential – should be the focus of future research.
This article uses a systemic perspective to identify and analyze the conceptual relations among vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity within socio-ecological systems (SES). Since different intellectual traditions use the terms in different, sometimes incompatible, ways, they emerge as strongly related but unclear in the precise nature of their relationships. A set of diagnostic questions is proposed regarding the specification of the terms to develop a shared conceptual framework for the natural and social dimensions of global change. Also, development of a general theory of change in SESs is suggested as an important agenda item for research on global change.
With the global focus on service-led growth has come increased need for practical techniques for service innovation. Services are fluid, dynamic, experiential, and frequently -produced in real time by customers, employees, and technology, often with few static physical properties. However, most product innovation approaches focus on the design of relatively static products with physical properties. Thus, many of the invention and prototype design techniques used for physical goods and technologies do not work well for human and interactive services. This article describes one technique—service blueprinting—that has proven useful for service innovation. Service blueprinting is securely grounded in the customer's experience and it allows the clear visualization of dynamic service processes. The technique is described in detail including real case examples that illustrate the value and breadth of its applications.
How to Overcome Return-to-Office Resistance
- Bailey
This Is Service Design Doing: Applying Service Design Thinking in the Real World
- M Stickdorn
- M E Hormess
- A Lawrence
- J Schneider
Mapping The Customer Journey
- Temkin