Business Strategy, Case Study Design, Operational Closure, Social Systems, Strategic Change, and System Dynamics.


Business organisations can be seen as social systems encompassing multiple scales. The more functionally differentiated a system landscape becomes the higher the need to coordinate different processes between these systems is. This helps to develop sound business strategies supporting the identification of synergy potentials. Induced by turbulent markets, especially multinational enterprises have to continuously adapt their strategies and introduce new junctures between parts of their organisations. The current article contributes to the effective management of those junctures whilst adopting a systems theory perspective. Novel insights on the coordination of strategic change processeAs, which are most relevant to businesses in order to implement new strategies, are derived from a system dynamics model. They are subsequently applied to a single case study in the medical device industry for the purpose of discussing implications for international enterprises. It is shown how the concepts of operational closure and reflection impact on the junctures between complex social systems. Therefore, it is argued that the analysis of the systemic communication patterns should be considered an integral part of any strategic change process within multinational enterprises. Moreover, the findings are generic enough to be transferred to the regional level as well. The presented approach on the coordination of complex social systems provides valuable impulses, even if the involved systems come from the political or scientific sector. Hence, the investigation of mixed systems coordination is suggested to be part of a future research agenda.

Full Text : PDF

  • Bullinger, Hans-Jörg, Dieter Spath, Hans-Jürgen Warnecke, and Engelbert Westkämper. 2009. Handbuch Unternehmensorganisation: Strategien, Planung, Umsetzung [Handbook of Company Organisation: Strategies, Planning, Implementation]. 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer.
  • Coyle, R.G. 1978. “Tanker chartering.” European Journal of Operational Research 2 (2): 86–96.
  • Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark, 2010.Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  • Dyer, W.Gibb, and Alan L. Wilkins.1991.“Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt.”Academy of Management Review 16 (3): 613–619.
  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.”Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.
  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Melissa E. Graebner. 2007. “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges.”Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32.
  • Fortmann-Roe, Scott. 2014. “Insight Maker: A general-purpose tool for web-based modeling& simulation.”Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 47: 28-45.
  • Ge, Y., J.-B. Yang, N. Proudlove, and M. Spring. 2004. “System dynamics modelling for supply-chain management: A case study on a supermarket chain in the UK. ”International Transactions in Operational Research 11 (5): 495–509.
  • Kegelmann, Jürgen. 2007. New Public Management: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Neuen Steuerungsmodells [New Public Management: Opportunities and Limits]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Krämer, Sybille. 1998. „Form als Vollzug oder: Was gewinnen wir mit Niklas Luhmanns Unterscheidung von Medium und Form?“ [Form as execution or: What do we win with Luhmann’s distinction between medium and form?] Rechtshistorisches Journal (Max Planck Institute for European Legal History) 17: 558–573.
  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1980. “Talcott Parsons: Zur Zukunft eines Theorieprogramms.” [Talcott Parsons: On the Future of a Theory Programme.] Zeitschrift für Soziologie 9 (1): 5–17.
  • Luhmann, Niklas .1991. Soziale Systeme [Social Systems]. 4th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft [Theory of Society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  • Luhmann, Niklas. 2005a. Soziologische Aufklärung 2: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft [Sociological Enlightenment 2: Essays on the Theory of Society]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Luhmann, Niklas. 2005b. Soziologische Aufklärung 5: Konstruktivistische Perspektiven. [Sociological Enlightenment 5: Constructivist Perspectives]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Lyneis, James M., Kenneth G. Cooper, and Sharon A. Els. 2001. “Strategic management of complex projects: A case study using system dynamics. ”System Dynamics Review 17 (3): 237–260.
  • Madachy, Ray, and Danton Tarbet. 2000. “Case studies in software process modeling with system dynamics.” Software Process: Improvement and Practice 5 (2-3): 133–146.
  • Maturana, Humberto R. 1982. Erkennen: die Organisation und Verkörperung von Wirklichkeit [Cognition: the Organisation and embodiment of reality]. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
  • Papachristos, George. 2012. “Case study and system dynamics research: Complementarities, pluralismand evolutionary theory development. ”Proceedings of the 30th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society 30: 1–29.
  • Roberts, Edward Baer. 1999. “System Dynamics: An Introduction.” In Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, edited by Edward Baer Roberts, 336. Waltham: Pegasus Communications.
  • Schenk, Michael, Siegfried Wirth, andEgon Müller. 2014. Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb: Methoden für die wandlungsfähige, vernetzte und ressourceneffizienteFabrik [Factory Planning and Operation: Methods for the Changeable, Interconnected and Resource Efficient Factory]. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer Vieweg.
  • Schneider, Armin. 2014. ”Triangulation und Integration von qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung in der Sozialen Arbeit. ”[Triangulation and integration of qualitative and quantitative research in social work]. In Perspektiven sozialpädagogischer Forschung [Perspectives of socio-pedagogical research] edited by E. Mührel, and B. Birgmeier, 15-30. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
  • Schoeneborn, Dennis. 2011.“Organization as Communication. A Luhmannian Perspective.” Management Communication Quarterly 25 (4): 663–689.
  • Schwaninger, Markus, and Stefan N. Groesser. 2012. “Operational Closure and Self-Reference: On the Logic of Organizational Change.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 29 (4): 342–367.
  • Senge, Peter M. 1990.The fifth discipline: Mastering the five practices of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
  • Snabe, Birgitte, and Andreas Größler. 2006. “System dynamics modelling for strategy implementation-case study and issues. ”Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23 (4): 467–481.
  • Van de Ven, Andrew H., and George P. Huber. 1990. “Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change. ”Organization Science 1 (3): 213–219.
  • Van de Ven, Andrew H., and Marshall Scott Poole. 1990.“Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program.” Organization Science 1 (3): 313–335.
  • Varela, F.G., H. R. Maturana, and R. Uribe. 1974. “Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model.” Biosystems 5 (4): 187–196.
  • Westkämper, Engelbert, and Erich Zahn. 2009.Wandlungsfähige Produktionsunternehmen: Das Stuttgarter Unternehmensmodell [Changeable Manufacturing Firms: The Stuttgart Enterprise Model]. Berlin: Springer.
  • Wiendahl, Hans-Peter, Jürgen Reichardt, and Peter Nyhuis. 2015.Handbook Factory Planning and Design. Berlin: Springer.
  • Williams, Dedembe. 2002. “Integrating System Dynamics Modeling and Case Study Research Method: A theoretical framework for process improvement.”Proceedings of the 20th System Dynamics Conference 20: 1–27.
  • Willke, Helmut. 1994. Systemtheorie: Interventions theories [Systems Theory: Theory of Intervention]. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.
  • Willke, Helmut. 2001. Systemtheorie: Steuerungstheorie [Systems Theory: Theory of Controlling]. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
  • Yin, Robert K. 1997.“ Case study evaluations: A decade of progress? ”New Directions for Evaluation 76: 69–78.