IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v38y2021i4p459-472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From the black box to the fish farming development policy project: A diagnosis from the viable system model

Author

Listed:
  • Juliana Mariano Alves
  • Waldecy Rodrigues
  • Fernán Enrique Vergara
  • Fred Newton Souza
  • Leonardo Augusto Amaral Terra

Abstract

A review of the current literature on the global relevance of fish farming reveals the complexity and uncertainty arising from problem situations related to the management of fishery resources. Thus, the present paper is aimed to present an example of the application of the viable system model in the organizational context of the fisheries development policy. It describes the process that begins by clarifying the identity, purpose, and limits of the political organization in question, followed by the vertical and horizontal unfolding of its complexity. The results demonstrate that the recursive structures have much to contribute to the consistency of the political decision processes, besides reducing the social and organizational costs supported by many current policies. The model adopted can guide the leaders of public and private organizations to apply cybernetic concepts to improve the communication and actions of their strategic policies, establishing conditions for the development of fish farming.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliana Mariano Alves & Waldecy Rodrigues & Fernán Enrique Vergara & Fred Newton Souza & Leonardo Augusto Amaral Terra, 2021. "From the black box to the fish farming development policy project: A diagnosis from the viable system model," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 459-472, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:38:y:2021:i:4:p:459-472
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2675
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2675?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. Tavella, Elena & Papadopoulos, Thanos, 2017. "Applying OR to problem situations within community organisations: A case in a Danish non-profit, member-driven food cooperative," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 726-742.
    2. Hart, Diane & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2017. "A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 626-641.
    3. Preece, Gary & Shaw, Duncan & Hayashi, Haruo, 2015. "Application of the Viable System Model to analyse communications structures: A case study of disaster response in Japan," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(1), pages 312-322.
    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. Lowe, David & Espinosa, Angela & Yearworth, Mike, 2020. "Constitutive rules for guiding the use of the viable system model: Reflections on practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1014-1035.
    2. Maren Berge Vik & Hanne Finnestrand & Robert L. Flood, 2022. "Systemic Problem Structuring in a Complex Hospital Environment using Viable System Diagnosis – Keeping the Blood Flowing," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 203-226, April.
    3. Amin Vahidi & Alireza Aliahmad & Ebrahim Teimouri, 2019. "Evolution of Management Cybernetics and Viable System Model," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 297-314, June.
    4. Hart, Diane & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2017. "A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 626-641.
    5. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    6. Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua, 2020. "Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 485-499, October.
    7. Jacqueline Y. Sánchez-García & Ana Gabriela Ramírez-Gutiérrez & Juan E. Núñez-Ríos & Pedro Pablo Cardoso-Castro & Omar G. Rojas, 2019. "Systems Thinking Approach to Sustainable Performance in RAMSAR Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Rosario Michel-Villarreal & Martin Hingley & Maurizio Canavari & Ilenia Bregoli, 2019. "Sustainability in Alternative Food Networks: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Doan, Xuan Vinh & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "Resource allocation when planning for simultaneous disasters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 687-709.
    10. Fattoum, Ayham & Chari, Simos & Shaw, Duncan, 2024. "Configuring systems to be viable in a crisis: The role of intuitive decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(1), pages 205-218.
    11. D. E. Ufua & O. Y. Olonade & Muhammad Yaseen & J. A. Dada & Olusola J. Olujobi & Evans Osabuohien, 2022. "Intrinsic Conflict Among Nigerian Public Security Forces: A Systems Model for Compliant Security Service Delivery in Nigeria," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 809-827, December.
    12. Diane Hart, 2021. "Conceptualizing the systemic evaluation of dashboards in quality enhancement processes in higher education," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 817-832, November.
    13. Luis Arturo Pinzon‐Salcedo & María Alejandra Torres‐Cuello, 2022. "Systems thinking concepts within a collaborative programme evaluation methodology: The Hermes Programme evaluation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 708-722, July.
    14. Sahar Saeed Rezk & Shahinaz Gamal, 2020. "An Organizational Cybernetics Framework for Designing a Viable Higher Education System," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 703-724, December.
    15. Julio César Puche-Regaliza & Alfredo Jiménez & Pablo Arranz-Val, 2020. "Diagnosis of Software Projects Based on the Viable System Model," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 215-236, April.
    16. Emmanuel D. Adamides & Theodoros Katopodis & Antonios Mountouris & Athanasios Sfetsos, 2023. "Organising for Resilience to Climate Change in Critical Infrastructures: The Application of Viable System Model in an Oil Refinery," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 609-640, August.
    17. Zeinab Rezaee & Adel Azar & Abbas Moghbel Ba Erz & Mahmoud Dehghan Nayeri, 2019. "Application of Viable System Model in Diagnosis of Organizational Structure," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 273-295, June.
    18. Comrie, E.L. & Burns, C. & Coulson, A.B. & Quigley, J. & Quigley, K.F., 2019. "Rationalising the use of Twitter by official organisations during risk events: Operationalising the Social Amplification of Risk Framework through causal loop diagrams," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 792-801.
    19. Sydelko, Pamela & Espinosa, Angela & Midgley, Gerald, 2024. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: A viable system model board game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 746-764.
    20. Jorge Velez-Castiblanco & Diana Londono-Correa & Olandy Naranjo-Rivera, 2018. "The Structure of Problem Structuring Conversations: A Boundary Games Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 853-884, October.

    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:4:p:459-472. 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.