IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v38y2021i6p721-737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The enterprise complexity model: An extension of the viable system model for emerging organizational forms

Author

Listed:
  • Raul Espejo

Abstract

An enterprise complexity model (ECM) is offered as a methodological tool for the actors of an enterprise to overcome complex environmental problems. The heuristic for this purpose is the viable system model, which guides an enterprise's self‐organization towards policies creating, regulating and producing sustainable development goals. Self‐organization is grounded in correcting imbalanced interactions between an enterprise's actors and their environmental agents, to increase their requisite variety to achieve sustainability, that is, to overcome environmental problems. The interactions between actors and agents are facilitated by current and emergent digital technologies, which support the structuring of collaborative networks. Reflexive interactions between the enterprise's actors and agents in the problematic environment help their branching into all kinds of innovative organizational forms. The Viplan methodology is used to achieve this branching, which accounts for the enterprise's complexity with the support of the Viplan method. Respect for the environment and quality of interactions are values driving this ecology of enterprises towards a deeper and wider appreciation of the issues besetting future generations.

Suggested Citation

  • Raul Espejo, 2021. "The enterprise complexity model: An extension of the viable system model for emerging organizational forms," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 721-737, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:38:y:2021:i:6:p:721-737
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2735
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2735?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J Teece, 2008. "Technological Know-How, Organizational Capabilities, and Strategic Management:Business Strategy and Enterprise Development in Competitive Environments," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 6147.
    2. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    3. Wolfgang Lassl, 2020. "The Viability of Organizations Vol. 3," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-25854-2, December.
    4. Sergio Barile & Marialuisa Saviano & Francesca Iandolo & Mario Calabrese, 2014. "The Viable Systems Approach and its Contribution to the Analysis of Sustainable Business Behaviors," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 683-695, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andrea C. Martinez‐Lozada & Angela Espinosa, 2022. "Corporate viability and sustainability: A case study in a Mexican corporation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 143-158, January.
    2. Reuter, Ute, 2011. "Der ressourcenbasierte Ansatz als theoretischer Bezugsrahmen: Grundlagen, Theoriebausteine und Prozessorientierung," Research Papers on Innovation, Services and Technology 3/2011, University of Stuttgart, Institute of Business Administration, Department I - Institute of Research & Development and Innovation Management.
    3. Emily McDowell & Matthew Pepper & Albert Munoz Aneiros, 2023. "Towards a theory of self‐organizing supply chain clusters," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 88-100, January.
    4. Jessica Birkholz & Jarina Kühn, 2021. "Entrepreneurship Perception during the first COVID-19 Shock: Mental Representations of Entrepreneurship and Preferences of Business Models during the Pandemic," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2105, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    5. Reypens, Lina & Bacq, Sophie & Milanov, Hana, 2021. "Beyond bricolage: Early-stage technology venture resource mobilization in resource-scarce contexts," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).
    6. Mariani, Marcello M. & Fosso Wamba, Samuel, 2020. "Exploring how consumer goods companies innovate in the digital age: The role of big data analytics companies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 338-352.
    7. Roberta De Angelis & Robert Morgan & Luigi M. De Luca, 2023. "Open strategy and dynamic capabilities: A framework for circular economy business models research," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4861-4873, November.
    8. Gregor Langus & Vilen Lipatov, 2021. "Does Envelopment through Data Advantage Call for New Regulation?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8932, CESifo.
    9. Mingfeng Tang & Grace Sheila Walsh & Cuiwen Li & Angathevar Baskaran, 2021. "Exploring technology business incubators and their business incubation models: case studies from China," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 90-116, February.
    10. Eleanor Doyle & Damien McGovern & Stephen McCarthy, 2013. "Compliance-Innovation: Supporting Regional Growth," ERSA conference papers ersa13p570, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Eduardo González-Fidalgo & Juan Ventura-Victoria, 2002. "How Much Do Strategic Groups Matter?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 21(1), pages 55-71, August.
    12. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    13. Youngok Kim & Sidney J. Gray, 2008. "The impact of entry mode choice on foreign affiliate performance: The case of foreign MNEs in South Korea," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 165-188, April.
    14. Tomasz Helbin & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Is Business Process Management (BPM) Ready for Ambidexterity? Conceptualization, Implementation Guidelines and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    15. Miguel Perez‐Valls & Jose Cespedes‐Lorente & Juan Moreno‐Garcia, 2016. "Green Practices and Organizational Design as Sources of Strategic Flexibility and Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8), pages 529-544, December.
    16. Inseong Song & Jonghoon Bae, 2016. "Politics, strong institution and competitive advantage: an examination of organizational aspiration for competition," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 412-443, December.
    17. Aron Lindberg & Nicholas Berente & James Gaskin & Kalle Lyytinen, 2016. "Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 751-772, December.
    18. Bram Klievink & Bart-Jan Romijn & Scott Cunningham & Hans Bruijn, 2017. "Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 267-283, April.
    19. Abdul Majid1 & Muhammad Yasir, 2013. "The Role Of Strategic Flexibility In Minimizing Response Uncertainty Of Perceived Risks Facing Manufacturing Smes In Pakistan," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 8(4.1), pages 207-224, december.
    20. Alpana Taneja & Vinay Goyal & Kunjana Malik, 2023. "Sustainability‐oriented innovations – Enhancing factors and consequences," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 2747-2765, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:srbeha:v:38:y:2021:i:6:p:721-737. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    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.