=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-144/paper-2
|storemode=property
|title=A Hybrid Approach to Integrate Context Modeling and Decision Support
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-144/02_norese.pdf
|volume=Vol-144
}}
==A Hybrid Approach to Integrate Context Modeling and Decision Support==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-144/02_norese.pdf
A Hybrid-Approach to Integrate Context Modelling and
Decision Support
Abstract
New product design is a crucial process for the firm and always induces innovative and
unstructured situations that must be deeply analysed. The firms need tools that allow
essential knowledge elements to be acquired and structured and new knowledge
representations to be created and proposed in communication contexts, to become
shared and operational models. Reasoning about context is essential for the choice and
correct use of a tool or the intelligent integration of different tools to support the
decision in the process.
The relationships between decisional and operative contexts have been analysed in
relation to real processes of new product design and three different situations of
decision support are proposed as possible forms of a hybrid approach, which integrates
context modelling and decision support.
Keywords: New product development, context analysis and technical approach
integration.
Introduction
Uncertainty and difficulty of analysis characterize strategic problems and make
orientation and decision making very difficult. A high technology innovation level and
complex productive systems are elements that imply difficulties. Elements of
complexity exist not only in internal organization processes but also in the relationship
with the external environment, the market and any other organizations that might be
co-operating on some specific activities.
Organizations must adopt a global reading of these difficulties and the consequent
problems, to activate learning “mechanisms” concerning the distinctive and critical
aspects, particularly in relation to the innovative processes, such as the design and
development of new products.
Over the last decade, the academic community has paid a great deal of attention to
product development in manufacturing firms. The diffusion of some concepts, which
are considered central for specific methodologies (e.g., Concurrent Engineering, stage-
gate product development, Quality Function Deployment, Design-for-X), is now also
evident in industry and not only in literature on the product development research area.
In relation to the design and development innovative processes, multiple communities
are involved and interact with highly specialized technologies and different knowledge
domains. If the organizations are collective (and sometimes virtual) structures that face
problematic situations, they need tools that help communication among the involved
groups, to create common organizational knowledge and also to improve an exchange
of knowledge concerning common problems.
The contexts of product and process innovation and development must be analysed in
depth to produce knowledge elements that should be used to reduce complexity and
uncertainty and to manage the innovative and unstructured situations. These
knowledge elements have to be acquired and structured and new knowledge
representations created and proposed in communication contexts, to become shared
and operational models and to facilitate decision.
The main elements of complexity that characterize the external and internal contexts in
which firms operate, in relation to product and process innovation and development,
are described in the first section of the paper, with the methodological environments
that analyse these contexts and propose new perspectives, concepts and tools.
The elements of complexity and uncertainty that are present in the design and
development innovative processes make a ‘rational’ approach not so comprehensive to
face a problem that involves people, technology and organization. The paper presents a
hybrid-approach, which integrates problem identification and structuring methods in
uncertainty management and decision aiding procedures.
This approach is discussed in the second section and put in relation to a framework that
distinguishes sequences of technical/procedural and communication activities, which
are strictly interrelated and have to be developed in the organization to support the
context analysis and modelling and to implement decision aiding procedures1.
The framework is illustrated in the third section in relation to some different typologies
of decision aiding in which the hybrid-approach always facilitates the technical
intervention, but in some cases is almost an essential condition to produce valid results.
The role of this approach, its results, the potentialities and its limits are analysed in
relation to different problem situations and above all in relation to a recent application
that is described through the proposed general framework.
1 New product development context
Each individual company develops its own processes to gain market shares with its
own products or services. These processes can change the nature of the organizations
and increase the global complexity.
The products can be complex, in technological terms, but also because they include
service components. This is the result of a progressive levelling of the products, in
terms of features and performances, that moves the competition focus towards services
that can be associated to the product, as an intangible part and determinant factor for
client satisfaction. The exclusive customer nature of a service imposes choices and
specialization, at a firm level, in terms of specific offers of services and focused
attention on the requirements of particular customer groups.
Other characteristics, of the product and the industrial process, simultaneously tend to
reduce the internal ‘connection’ of the firms and lead to new forms of co-operation and
co-ordination among the organizations.
The adoption of new product architectures and the multi-disciplinary nature of some
industrial processes stimulate new organization design and decoupling of the
processes, which can become concurrent, autonomous and distributed.
At the same time, this way of working induces a progressive weakening of the
boundaries of firms and it is now common to observe firms living in a complex
network of horizontal and vertical relationships. These new organizational structures
can provide important strategic flexibility because a firm is able to link together the
capabilities of many organizations to form product development “resource chains”.
The new elements of complexity are due to the presence of different, and sometime
distant, participants, with different values and points of view, when multiple
communities and different knowledge domains are involved and interact in relation to
highly specialized technologies (Brown and Duguid, 2001). As a consequence, the
complexity of these contexts has to be analysed and reduced and both the interactions
1
The terminology ‘decision aiding procedures’ is used to indicate methods, methodologies and Decision
Support Systems of the European School of “Multicriteria aid for decision”.
within the single link and the important relationships between the organizations, which
are not always evident, have to be understood.
New product architectures and new organizational structures require new conceptual
and operational concepts to manage the product knowledge and its architecture
(Sanchez, 1996). The knowledge on the product can be explicit and structured (above
all documents on the technical characteristics of the product) or tacit. The distinction
between tacit and explicit knowledge has sometimes been expressed in terms of
knowing-how and knowing-that (Polanyi, 1966) or in terms of embodied knowledge
and theoretical knowledge (Brown and Duguid, 2001). Knowing-how (or embodied
knowledge) is often the result of an individual learning process and is characteristic of
the expert who acts, makes judgments, and so forth without explicitly reflecting on the
involved principles or rules. Knowing-that, by contrast, involves consciously
accessible knowledge that can be articulated and is characteristic of the person who
acquires a skill through explicit instruction or rules. Explicit and tacit knowledge
elements have to be brought out to build new technological knowledge and then a
strategic value for the firm (Kogut and Zander, 1992, 1996), but this process is difficult
to implement within a firm, and much more so in an inter-firm context.
All these problems require new attention to be paid to the design and development of
high technology products and call for new research on product development, to update
and adapt methods and tools to the new demand that arises from industry (Catalone et
al., 2003). The links between product architecture, design management and
development activities have been widely studied in literature from the single firm point
of view (see Sanchez, 1996), but seldom considered when several enterprises operate
together. Some problems concerning design co-ordination and knowledge management
and reuse for innovation, have been tackled in literature.
The coordination of product development activities is studied with the explicit
assumption that all the aspects that are relevant to product development are coherent or
are managed to obtain a state in which the aspects become coherent among themselves.
Such technical, managerial and organizational aspects may be individually modelled
and related to each other through a common framework (Duffy et al., 1999). Literature
on design coordination has also provided a basis to interpret the outcome of empirical
research (Cantamessa et al., 1999) and a theoretical contribution for the development
of IT systems to support product development activities (Whitfield et al., 2000).
The literature on knowledge management in design and development processes
examines how knowledge can be integrated in complex technology and product
development settings (Brown and Eisemhardt, 1997) to define possible new product
architectures. The literature on knowledge reuse studies how the development of
innovative solutions can be facilitated (Majchrzak et al., 2004; Brown and Eisemhardt,
1997). It examines how a firm’s current knowledge can make a more effective design
and development, but also a more effective strategic management of design and
development possible (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1985). It emphasizes the need for new
competences to flexibly coordinate firm networks in the continuous processes of new
product creating (Sanchez, 1996).
2 A hybrid-approach
A firm should adopt an integrated perspective that orients attention towards the
external evolving environment and also towards the internal context of work and its
complexity, both at the decisional and the operative level, to analyse each specific
situation in relation to different points of view and to find possible opportunities of
action. Tools, which must be perceived as not being external to the organizational
processes and which can facilitate communication and knowledge sharing, could
support this global reading and be accepted as a collective and structured ‘space’ to
face complexity and uncertainty.
Reasoning about contexts (both at the decisional and the operative level) is essential
for the choice of a consistent approach, the identification and correct use of a ‘tool’
(general term to indicate several possibilities, i.e. a procedure, a method, a
computerized system, a representation model and so on) and the intelligent integration
of different tools to support the main actions in the process.
The relationships between decisional and operative contexts have been analysed in
relation to real processes of new product design and an approach, which integrates
different tools and supports decision and action in different situations, has been applied
and tested (Norese, 1996; Francardi and Norese, 1996; Norese et al., 2004; Amata et
al., 2005; Guarino and Montagna, 2005).
Several methodologies and decision support systems are proposed in literature but
none of them was created (or is normally used) to deal with a complex problem
situation from all the useful points of view: to recognize the complexity level and
identify the most critical elements, to structure the problem and the information context
and reduce complexity and uncertainty, to describe processes and their evolutions, to
identify and/or elaborate solution ideas and evaluate them for selection or choice, to
plan and control the implementation process. An integration of different compatible
tools facilitates a global action; the integrated use of tools from different origins allows
a hybrid-approach to be applied to situations that require a sequence and a synthesis of
different technical actions. This approach is the proposal of a new use of tools, which
sometimes are old and very simple but always adopt a visual and structured language.
It integrates these tools in explicit communication spaces and with other tools more
oriented to develop and evaluate strategies.
Some problem structuring methods (see, for instance, the most famous that have been
proposed in Rosenhead, 1989) support the activities of system analysis and problem
identification. They can be usefully used in new product and process development
(NPPD) contexts and easily connected to modelling procedures and methods that arise
from Operations Research (above all simulation, optimisation and multicriteria
decision aiding methods) or Performance and Strategic Management. Complex
decisions imply the use of dedicated tools, but the exchange of knowledge concerning
common problems among people is fundamental in organizations that face innovative
situations. Communication can help to create new organizational knowledge and
organizations therefore need tools that help communication among the involved people
(the actors of each NPPD context) and activate collective learning “mechanisms” in the
organizations.
This hybrid-approach intends to integrate tools that facilitate communication on
organization knowledge, interpretation of the different individual problem definitions
and collective problem structuring (tools of a context which is usually known as “soft
OR/MS – Operations Research/ Management Science”) with others that can
analytically study and simulate the process activities that characterize the work context
and support the decisions of each problematic situation.
3 General Framework
The general framework describes the sequence of activities of a hybrid-approach
application, in relation to specific complexity elements and to a prevailing and
imperative need for a decisional and/or operational context. Its structure has origin
from the scheme (as it is proposed in De Marco, 1999; in the QPR company web site2)
that graphically represents the process of a Balanced ScoreCard (BSC) application (see
figure 1).
Vision
Strategies/Targets
Strategic priority or imperative need
Internal
Innovation Business Customer Economic/
and Growth Processe Satisfaction Financial
Critical Success factors
Measures
Figure 1: BSC Scheme
BSC is a methodology that facilitates the conceptual passage from a performance
measurement system to a system that drives performance, that is a strategic
management system (Kaplan and Norton, 1992; 1996). BSC translates vision and
strategy into action through several connected activities: clarifying the vision and
gaining consensus, communicating and educating, setting goals, linking rewards to
performance measures, setting targets, aligning strategic initiatives, allocating
resources, establishing milestones, articulating the shared vision, supplying strategic
feedback and facilitating strategy review and learning. Multiple perspectives (i.e.
organizational learning and growth, internal business processes, customer perspectives,
financial measures) support the translation of vision and strategy in relation to a
strategic priority or an imperative need. Organizational learning and growth measures
are the drivers of the internal business process measures. The measures of these
processes are in turn the drivers of the customer perspective measures, while these are
the drivers of the financial measures (Norrekit, 1999). Kaplan and Norton assume that
if a cause and effect relationship between the measures in the four areas cannot be
established, the organization has not implemented a BSC.
A hybrid-approach application can include BSC as a powerful tool (Montagna and
Norese, 2005). BSC in fact includes attention to communication and learning, adopts a
multidimensional reading of the processes and can be easily integrated with modelling
and Operational research methods. The general framework represents a hybrid-
approach application through the indication of a specific problem situation and its main
complexities (as Vision in the BSC scheme), the imperative need that emerges from
the decisional and/or operational context (an arrow indicates that this critical and
strategic priority orients the action) and determines sequence of activities and their
expected results (the contexts of action). There are four main contexts of action
(Identification, Structuring, Development and Control) that can develop at a
Communicative Level (CL), Technical Level (TL) or Technical and Communicative
Level (T/C L) (see figure 2). These contexts of action have been proposed and
2
QPR company web site: , [04.05.2005].
discussed in literature (see for instance Mintzberg et al., 1976; Norese and Ostanello,
1989)
The feedback is naturally included in the general scheme. The sequence of the
activities is often not linear because several cycles can be necessary and a good
prevision of the required time for this approach is not so easy. A logical synthesis of
the activities that the tools make possible is closely related to the specific context of
action and decision. An accepted drawback of a hybrid-approach is that the tools have
to be logically and operationally compatible, but in general cannot be transformed in
an automatic and computerized system.
A hybrid-approach can be applied in relation to different problem situations that
require different supports. It always facilitates the technical intervention. Any
integrated application of tools that are oriented towards identifying complexity in the
problem situations and knowledge and information elements in the context is useful
because it can facilitate communication and modelling of a specific problem in its
context. A hybrid-approach reduces uncertainty, facilitates knowledge access and
transfer and controls the coherence of all the aspects of a model as it proposes the use
of simple tools, that are not perceived as external to the organization, and which can
produce validated knowledge and information for the development of Information
Systems and the use of Decision Support Systems.
In some cases, this approach is almost an essential condition to produce valid results
because the situation is very complicated, at the operative and/or at the decisional
level. Communication becomes the most important activity and a technical and
procedural action has to support communication. In these cases, several complexity
and uncertainty elements can be simultaneously present and the framework reproduces
a sequence that includes different activities and integrations of tools that are oriented
toward facing different complexities.
Some different typological situations are described in terms of modules of the general
framework. These were defined and tested in interventions in specific cases of new
product and process development.
Problem situation
and its complexity
Intervention context: CL
Expected result: complexity identification and problem situation preliminary structuring
Main perspectives
Decisional and/or operational context and its imperative need
Main perspectives
Intervention context:TL
Expected result: action and decision development and control
Figure 2: The general framework of a hybrid-approach application
Problem solving
A product can be complex in technological terms. The architecture of a new product
and the presence of service components can impose strategic choices in the product
and process development and integration between competencies concerning the old
and new aspects of the product and process. Different problems can require a hybrid-
approach that faces the requirements of both identifying the nature of the specific
problem and analytically developing a solution.
One of these problems can require the organization and integration of all the explicit
and tacit knowledge elements concerning the old and new aspects of the product and
process. If the complexity and multi-disciplinary nature of some design processes
instead stimulate decoupling of the processes, the most critical element is coordination
at the system-level of some disciplinary subsystems, which are the essential
components of the project. Communication and a positive relationship between
different knowledge domains allow the concurrent processes to produce a global and
consistent result.
The general framework defines these cases as “multidimensional problems” where
“problem solving” is the prevailing necessity in a context that is more operational than
decisional (see figure 2+x).
The problem dimensions, in the case of coordination at the system level, are the
subsystems, with their languages, objectives and local solutions. The synthesis of these
solutions is an essential activity of this problem situation, which can be divided into
several dimensions and levels.
The problem dimensions of the knowledge integration case can be:
• acquiring knowledge elements on the product (both tacit and explicit, on the
criticality of the old aspects and on the market requirements of new
characteristics),
• acquiring knowledge elements on the product development process
(potentialities and drawbacks of the old process, potentialities of other
organizational processes that can be introduced in this new process, involved
functions and competencies,…).
The articulation, in levels of analysis, can be different in the two problem dimensions
where communication is always a central activity. The integration of all these elements
in a structured synthesis becomes the most technical part of the hybrid-approach.
Problem solving
CL – Structuring (Dividing the problem into dimensions and analysis levels)
TL – Development of sub problem solutions at different levels
C/T L – Development and Control (Synthesis, Evaluation, choice and implementation activities)
Figure 3: Multidimensional problem
Decision problem structuring
The situation is different when a new product and process development changes the
organization design, as described in section 1. The problem becomes one of organizing
and integrating all the different technological and organizational aspects to define new
forms of co-operation and co-ordination in a firm or in an inter-firm system. Multiple
interrelated decisions characterize these situations, which involve several functions in
the firm and multiple communities in the wider system.
The general framework defines this situation as a problem of “multiple visions and
interconnect decisions”. The context of action is more decisional than operational and
the imperative need is “decision problem structuring”.
Uncertainties that make the decision difficult are always present in these situations3, at
least in relation to the operation environment of an NPPD. Uncertainties pertaining to
the working Environment (UE) can be dealt with by responses of a relatively technical
nature (such as surveys, investigations or cost estimations).
Uncertainties pertaining to guiding Values (UV) may be present when the NPPD
requires organizational structures as a result of strategic choices. UV calls for a more
political response (i.e. an exercise to clarify the objectives or a program of
consultations among those who are involved). The kind of uncertainty that pertains to
Related decision fields (UR) is present when, in the new inter-firm system, someone
who can make significant decisions is not involved in the decision process. UR calls
for a response “in the form of exploration of the structural relationships between the
decision currently in view and others which appear to be interconnected”. ‘Decision
problem structuring’ requires activities of uncertainty analysis and control,
development of compatible strategies and selection of the best ones (see figure 4).
Decision problem structuring
C/T L – Identification and Control (UE UR UV analysis and exploratory options to reduce uncertainty)
T/C L - Strategy development and compatibility verification
T/C L - Strategy evaluation and comparison
Figure 4: Multiple visions and interconnected decisions
Problem formulation
A different (and perhaps more critical) complexity element is identified when
organizational changes do not result from decisions but develop incrementally and in a
free and quite natural way. If they are the result of an NPPD, these changes are neither
explicitly recognized nor strategically analysed. A sign of this situation may be that the
organizational knowledge of the new processes is not available, at least in explicit and
structured form. The vision of the global situation is messy (incomplete, confused, not
sufficiently structured,...) and has to be formulated or re-formulated in clearer terms.
The general framework defines this situation as a “messy vision” problem and the
prevailing necessity is “problem formulation” in the decisional context (see figure 5).
3
Friend (1989) proposed various sources of uncertainty and ways to face them in his ‘Strategic Choice Approach
to planning under uncertainty’.
Problem structuring and restructuring
Problem imperative
formulation
C/T L – Identification and Control (UE UR UV analysis and exploratory options to reduce uncertainty)
CL – Structuring (Dividing the problem into dimensions and analysis levels)
TL – Development of sub problem solutions at different levels
C/TL – Development and Control (Synthesis, Evaluation, choice and implementation activities)
Figure 5: “Messy vision” problem
This module includes and combines action contexts (and specific activities) that are
already present in the two previous modules and introduces the more general use of the
framework, which represents an intervention process that deals with a complex
problem situation from all the useful points of view.
A hybrid-approach was recently implemented in a firm and the initial request (“a
formal control mechanism for its product development process”) was analyzed and
connected to a problem solving situation (“the client’s knowledge of the process results
to be not so clear and the available information system very poor, then these elements
of uncertainty have to be eliminated or at least reduced”).
The two main dimensions of the problem developed simultaneously. The actors
involved in the operational context were interviewed to obtain a global view of the
processes. The IDEF methodology and the IDEF-0 representation software assisted the
analysts in identifying what process activities were performed, what resources were
needed to perform each activity and what the current system did correctly or wrongly
(i.e. duplication of activities, unessential or useless activity cycles or wrong
information transfer). IDEF-0 enhanced the definition of a common language between
the management and the analysts, as well as among all the involved actors, through its
simplified graphical devices.
At the end of this first step, the uncertainties pertaining to the working environment
were eliminated and the development of indicator systems became the new imperative
need (problem solving). The two dimensions (search in literature and collective
reading of the structured organizational processes to produce the explicit declaration of
objectives) were explored but did not produce useful results. A new problem-solving
situation (“progressive reduction of the uncertainty pertaining to the organization
values”) was dealt with using a balanced scorecard. Creating a homogeneous and
coherent structure of objectives and targets, and of links between each of them and the
possible system states, was seen as essential to the aim of a careful definition of the
indicators.
The BSC methodology was used as a communication space to reduce uncertainty.
When this second kind of uncertainty was sufficiently reduced, a BSC application
developed a structure (which included objectives, all the processes and the indicators
that are now monitored) that was clearly understood, accepted and shared.
This application of a hybrid-approach is synthesized in figure 6 where the original
request is connected to a ‘messy vision’ situation and to a problem formulation (and
reformulation) prevailing necessity. The activities of Identification and Control of the
emergent uncertainties became a sequence of two problem-solving modules.
Need of a formal control mechanism for
the product development process
CL – Interaction with the client and his problem situation, identification and structuring of a preliminary vision
Problem structuring and restructuring
Problem imperative
formulation
CL – Uncertainty in the problem formulation; UE identification and analysis
Exploratory action to reduce uncertainty
Problem solving
CL – Dividing the uncertainty control problem into two dimensions and synthesize the results
Actors’ vision Structured documentation
C/T L – Interviews and IDEF application to elaborate a global shared and structured vision
Problem structuring and restructuring
Problem imperative
re-formulation
CL – Uncertainty in the problem formulation; UV identification and analysis
Exploratory action to reduce uncertainty
Problem solving
CL – Dividing the uncertainty control problem into two dimensions and synthesize the results
Search in literature A communication space to reduce uncertainty
C/T L – BSC as a communication space to analyze and select the proposals
from literature and facilitate the setting of the guiding values
Now the original problem can be dealt with
C/T L – The BSC methodology to structure objectives and processes
Innovation and grow Efficiency and quality Customer satisfaction Financial effects
C/T L – BSC application to develop a set of indicators and to control their organization
understanding and acceptability and their use in relation to a control mechanism.
Figure 6: A hybrid-approach application
4 Conclusions
Product and process innovation is now an actual and hard challenge in each
organization. Several elements of complexity and uncertainty make a ‘rational’
approach not so comprehensive to face a problem that involves people, technology and
organization. The integration of different tools, techniques and technologies is
especially useful when innovation implies a good knowledge of the whole system and
of its decision and operative contexts.
A hybrid-approach is the proposal of a new use of tools, which sometimes are old and
very simple but always adopt a visual and structured language. This approach
integrates these tools in explicit communication spaces and with other tools that are
more oriented to modelling the whole problem situation and all the involved contexts
of knowledge concerning the problem and the possible solutions. Reasoning about
context is essential for the choice and correct use of a tool or the intelligent integration
of different tools to support the decision in the process.
A hybrid-approach reduces uncertainty, facilitates knowledge access and transfer and
controls the coherence of all the aspects of a model because is a proposal of simple
tools, which are not perceived as external to the organization, and that can produce
validated knowledge and information for the development of Information Systems and
Decision Support Systems.
A hybrid-approach application can result as a sequence of activity cycles that reduce
the problem complexity by the decomposition of the main aspects and the related
analyses or by reformulating the problem until a clear and complete modelling.
References
1. Amata G.B., Fasano G., Montagna F., Norese M.F., Riva S., ‘A multicriteria
approach to support the design of complex systems’, submitted to the 18th International
Conference on Production Research - ICPR-18, Salerno, July 31 - August 4, 2005.
2. Brown J.S. and Duguid P., Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice
Perspective, Organization Science, vol.12, n.2, pp.198-213, 2001.
3. Brown SL., Eisemhardt K.M., , The Art of Continuous Change: linking
complexity theory and Time-spaced evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations,
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 20, n.4, pp.8-23, 1997.
4. Cantamessa M., Duffy A., Hein L., Rimmer D., ‘Design Co-ordination in New
Product Development’, Proceedings of the XI ICED Conference, Munich, vol.1, pp.
95-100, 1999.
5. Catalone R., Garcia R., Dröge C., The Effects of Environmental Turbulence on
New Product Development Strategy Planning, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 20, pp. 90-103, 2003.
6. De Marco M., Balanced Scorecard. Dalla Teoria alla Pratica: Metodi e
Strumenti per Orientare le Iniziative Aziendali al Raggiungimento dei Risultati
Strategici, Angeli, Milano, 1999.
7. Duffy A.H.B., Andreasen M., Donnell F.J.O., ‘Design Co-ordination’,
Proceedings of the international conference ICED’99, Munich, pp.113-118, 1999.
8. Francardi E., Norese M.F., 'Change process implementation: a collective analysis
and management procedure’, in P.Humphreys et alii, (eds.), Implementing Systems for
Supporting Management Decisions, Chapman and Hall, London, pp.182-194, 1996.
9. Friend, J., 'The strategic choice approach', in Rosenhead, J., (ed.), Rational
analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity,
uncertainty and conflict, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 121-157, 1989.
10. Guarino G., Montagna F., ‘Enterprise modeling to evaluate Design and
Development Process’, submitted to the 18th International Conference on Production
Research - ICPR-18, Salerno, July 31 - August 4, 2005.
11. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P., The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive
Performance, Harvard Business Review, gen-feb, pp.75-85, 1992.
12. Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P., Using Balanced Scorecard as Strategic Management
System, Harvard Business Review, gen-feb, pp.71-79, 1996.
13. Kogut B., Zander U., Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the
Replication of Technology, Organization Science, vol.3, n.3, pp. 383-396, 1992.
14. Kogut B., Zander U., What Firms do? Coordination, Identify, and Learning,
Organization Science, vol.7, n.5, pp. 502-512, 1996.
15. Majchrzak A., Cooper L.P., Neece O.E., Knowledge Reuse for Innovation,
Management Science, vol.50, n.2, pp. 174-188, 2004.
16. Minztberg, H., et al., The Structure of “Unstructured” Design Processes,
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.21, June, pp. 246-275, 1976.
17. Montagna F., Norese M.F., A Hybrid-Approach to Model Design and
Development Processes and Evaluate Innovation Opportunities, submitted to
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 2005.
18. Nonaka I. K., Takeuchi H., Managing the new product development process:
How Japanese companies learn and unlearn, in K.B. Clark et al. (Eds.), The uneasy
alliance, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, pp.337-375, 1985.
19. Norese M.F., A process perspective and multicriteria approach in Decision-Aiding
contexts, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, pp. 133-144, 1996.
20. Norese M.F., Ostanello A., ‘Identification and development of alternatives:
introduction to the recognition of process typologies’, in A.G. Lockett and G.
Islei, (eds.), Improving Decision Making in Organisations, Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg, pp.112-123, 1989.
21. Norese M.F., Montagna F., Vinardi F.M., ‘Multicriteria modelling and rational
use of waste’, DSS2004 Conference proceedings (The 2004 IFIP International
Conference on Decision Support Systems – Decision Support in an Uncertain World –
Prato, Tuscany, 1-3 July 2004), IFIP WG 8.3, pp.598-606, 2004.
22. Norreklit H., The Balance on the Balanced Scorecard: A Critical Analysis of
Some of its Assumptions, Management Accounting Research, vol.11, n.1, pp.61-67,
2000.
23. Polanyi K., Dahomey and the Slave Trade: An Analysis of an Archaic Economy,
University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1966.
24. Rosenhead, J., (ed.), Rational analysis for a problematic world: Problem
Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Wiley, Chichester,
1989.
25. Sanchez R., Strategic Product Creation: Managing New Interactions of
Technology, Markets, and Organizations, European Management Journal, vol.14, n.2,
pp. 121-138, 1996.
26. Whitfield, R. I., Coates, G., Duffy, A. H. B., Hills B., Coordination Approaches
and Systems--Part I: A strategic perspective, Research in Engineering Design, n.12,
pp. 48-60, 2000.