IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/syspar/v32y2019i6d10.1007_s11213-019-9480-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

System Dynamics and Learning Scenarios for Process Improvement and Regional Resilience: A Study in The Footwear Industry of Southern Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Claralucia Prates Machado

    (Unisinos)

  • Maria Isabel Wolf Morandi

    (Unisinos)

  • Miguel Sellitto

    (Unisinos)

Abstract

By means of integrated and systemic resilience strategies, it is possible to reduce vulnerability and risk, and at the same time increase the capacity to adapt to sustainable regional development scenarios. On the other hand, industries that can develop learning skills may address critical situations by adopting systemic thinking that is focused on problem-solving. In this study, our objective is to analyze the dynamics of the footwear industry in the south of Brazil. The secondary objectives are the development of a dynamic model that would a) explain the main processes of the industry, b) chart the projection of learning scenarios that simulate the capacity of improvement in these processes, and c) increase the regional resilience for a time horizon of 10. Action research was used as research method, due to the cooperative and participative involvement that occurs between the researchers and the participants in order to understand the situation and to construct the systems dynamic model of the impact of the footwear-industry activity of a city in the south of Brazil over the city resilience. The studied industry underwent a major economic change; it shifted from the production of commodities to the production of differentiated specialties. From the systemic analysis, five main learning scenarios were identified: (i) the AS IS, (ii) the uniform distribution of investment, (iii) the labor training investment, (iv) the value-added marketing investment, and (v) the solid waste treatment investment. Moreover, four scenarios of comparison were identified as well, namely (i) the large exchange variation and low-level crisis, (ii) the large exchange variation and high-level crisis, (iii) the small exchange variation and high-level crisis, and (iv) the small exchange variation and low-level crisis. The systems dynamic model relied on input data, the opinion of industry experts, performance equations, and graphical functions. The model provided a learning environment that allowed a better understanding systemic filling the gap left by the indexes that purport to measure the resiliency allowing a better understanding of the factors and elements that interact and influence the regional resilience and of the improvements in productive processes in the footwear industry. Thus, simultaneous business investment in determinants of resilience factors contribute to increase resilience in the region where these companies operate? A synergistic effect was observed; that is, resilience could be more easily achieved if the scenarios of labor qualification, value-added marketing, and solid waste treatment were applied simultaneously. These findings were compared to the principles of the BRICS index and were fully aligned. In future studies, it is important to establish a performance index in order to generate models that would be capable of controlling evolutionary paths toward process improvement and of increasing the regional resilience of the industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Claralucia Prates Machado & Maria Isabel Wolf Morandi & Miguel Sellitto, 2019. "System Dynamics and Learning Scenarios for Process Improvement and Regional Resilience: A Study in The Footwear Industry of Southern Brazil," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 663-686, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:32:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s11213-019-9480-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11213-019-9480-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11213-019-9480-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11213-019-9480-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcos Leandro Hoffmann Souza & Luis Henrique Rodrigues & Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi, 2018. "Design of a System Dynamics Model to Analyze the Styrene Demand in the Brazilian Market," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 87-104, February.
    2. David C Lane, 2016. "What we talk about when we talk about ‘systems thinking’," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(3), pages 527-528, March.
    3. Jay W. Forrester, 1968. "Industrial Dynamics--A Response to Ansoff and Slevin," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(9), pages 601-618, May.
    4. Andrew Thomas & Duc Truong Pham & Mark Francis & Ron Fisher, 2015. "Creating resilient and sustainable manufacturing businesses – a conceptual fitness model," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(13), pages 3934-3946, July.
    5. Susan Christopherson & Jonathan Michie & Peter Tyler, 2010. "Regional resilience: theoretical and empirical perspectives," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-10.
    6. James S. Hodges, 1991. "Six (Or So) Things You Can Do with a Bad Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 355-365, June.
    7. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    8. Steve Bankes, 1993. "Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 435-449, June.
    9. Kathleen Sherrieb & Fran Norris & Sandro Galea, 2010. "Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 227-247, November.
    10. Rosiane Serrano & Luis Henrique Rodrigues & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda & Priscila Bonalume Paraboni, 2018. "Systems Thinking and Scenario Planning: Application in the Clothing Sector," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 509-537, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vitor Klein Schmidt & Aurora Carneiro Zen & Bernardo Fernandes Soares & Bruno Anicet Bittencourt, 2023. "Trajectory and cluster resilience elements: The case of the Brazilian wine cluster of the Serra Gaúcha," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 596-624, June.
    2. Jacqueline Y. Sánchez-García & Juan E. Núñez-Ríos & Carlos López-Hernández & Alejandro Rodríguez-Magaña, 2023. "Modeling Organizational Resilience in SMEs: A System Dynamics Approach," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(1), pages 29-50, March.
    3. Esteban Lopez-Arboleda & Alfonso T. Sarmiento & Laura M. Cardenas, 2021. "Systemic approach for integration of sustainability in evaluation of public policies for adoption of electric vehicles," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 399-417, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Warren E. Walker & Marjolijn Haasnoot & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2013. "Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Molly Scott Cato, 2014. "From resilient regions to bioregions: An exploration of green post-Keynesianism," Working Papers PKWP1407, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    3. Marchau, Vincent & Walker, Warren & van Duin, Ron, 2008. "An adaptive approach to implementing innovative urban transport solutions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 405-412, November.
    4. Marjolijn Haasnoot & Hans Middelkoop & Astrid Offermans & Eelco Beek & Willem Deursen, 2012. "Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 795-819, December.
    5. Kleijnen, Jack P. C., 1995. "Verification and validation of simulation models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 145-162, April.
    6. Moallemi, Enayat A. & Elsawah, Sondoss & Ryan, Michael J., 2020. "Strengthening ‘good’ modelling practices in robust decision support: A reporting guideline for combining multiple model-based methods," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 3-24.
    7. Walker, Warren E., 2009. "Does the best practice of rational-style model-based policy analysis already include ethical considerations?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1051-1062, December.
    8. Nataša Urbančíková & Kristína Zgodavová, 2019. "Sustainability, Resilience and Population Ageing along Schengen’s Eastern Border," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Jan Kwakkel & Willem Auping, 2021. "Reaction: A commentary on Lustick and Tetlock (2021)," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
    10. Leslie Gillespie‐Marthaler & Katherine Nelson & Hiba Baroud & Mark Abkowitz, 2019. "Selecting Indicators for Assessing Community Sustainable Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2479-2498, November.
    11. Dinh, Huong & Pearson, Leonie, 2015. "Specifying community economic resilience - a framework for measurement," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202523, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Moallemi, Enayat A. & Elsawah, Sondoss & Ryan, Michael J., 2020. "Robust decision making and Epoch–Era analysis: A comparison of two robustness frameworks for decision-making under uncertainty," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. S Robinson, 2008. "Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: definition and requirements," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 278-290, March.
    14. Jan Kwakkel & Gönenç Yücel, 2014. "An Exploratory Analysis of the Dutch Electricity System in Transition," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(4), pages 670-685, December.
    15. Marina Capparucci & Emanuela Ghignoni & Alina Verashchagina & Natalia Vorozhbit, 2015. "The Drivers of Innovation in the Italian Manufacturing Sector," Economia & lavoro, Carocci editore, issue 3, pages 111-128.
    16. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    17. Denise Ravet, 2011. "Lean production: the link between supply chain and sustainable development in an international environment," Post-Print hal-00691666, HAL.
    18. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    19. Michael Howes & Liana Wortley & Ruth Potts & Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Julie Davidson & Timothy Smith & Patrick Nunn, 2017. "Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:32:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1007_s11213-019-9480-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.