IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v23y2020i4p423-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological ecosystems in capability development: A case study in emerging technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Ksenia Ivanova
  • Sondoss Elsawah
  • Justin Fidock

Abstract

The concept of technological ecosystems has been increasingly applied across different domains but rarely in the area of capability development. This paper contributes to addressing this knowledge gap by demonstrating the potential value of applying the technological ecosystems perspective to support technology investment decisions. We present a practical step‐by‐step approach to show how this approach can be used in practice and illustrate it using two case studies in the military domain. Case A looks at emerging technologies in health support; and Case B is concerned with driverless vehicles in dangerous environments. In both instances, the concepts are developed via facilitated workshops and the technological ecosystem maps are derived by analyzing the enabling technological elements and the relationships between them. Subsequent analysis shows how the technological ecosystem framing assists in gaining a holistic picture of the potential impacts of technology adoption and how it can be used to reframe capability options in terms of technology groupings. Technological ecosystem analysis across the two cases is used to identify common capability enablers and multidomain capability enhancing elements. We discuss the types of components within the generated technological ecosystem maps and point to directions for future work enabled by technological ecosystem mapping in capability development.

Suggested Citation

  • Ksenia Ivanova & Sondoss Elsawah & Justin Fidock, 2020. "Technological ecosystems in capability development: A case study in emerging technologies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 423-435, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:23:y:2020:i:4:p:423-435
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21535
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21535?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. Mingers, John & Brocklesby, John, 1997. "Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 489-509, 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. Ksenia Ivanova & Sondoss Elsawah, 2022. "Iterative Refinement of Multi-Method OR Workshop Designs through Boundary Critique: An Analytical Framework and Case Studies in Technology Utilisation," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 345-374, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    3. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    4. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    5. Maria Franca Norese & Diana Rolando & Rocco Curto, 2023. "DIKEDOC: a multicriteria methodology to organise and communicate knowledge," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1049-1082, June.
    6. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    7. 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.
    8. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    9. Rajneesh Chowdhury, 2023. "Methodological Flexibility in Systems Thinking: Musings from the Standpoint of a Systems Consultant," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 59-86, February.
    10. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    11. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    12. G A Hindle & L A Franco, 2009. "Combining problem structuring methods to conduct applied research: a mixed methods approach to studying fitness-to-drive in the UK," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1637-1648, December.
    13. Richard Ormerod, 2006. "The OR approach to forecasting: comments on Mingers' paper," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(11), pages 1371-1373, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Keys, Paul, 2000. "Creativity, design and style in MS/OR," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 303-312, June.
    16. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    17. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    18. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    19. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    20. Alan T. Murray & Timothy C. Matisziw & Tony H. Grubesic, 2008. "A Methodological Overview of Network Vulnerability Analysis," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 573-592, December.

    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:wly:syseng:v:23:y:2020:i:4:p:423-435. 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: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.