{"title":"Agile supply: rethinking systems thinking, systems practice","authors":"Colin Rigby, M. Day, P. Forrester, J. Burnett","doi":"10.1108/14654650010356086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been extended debate about how to conceptualise inter‐organizational restructuring in late twentieth century capitalism, giving rise to a number of models that attempt to represent productive change. A number of such conceptualisations of transformation under the banner of “agility” attempt to provide guidance about “managing” physical and social relationships within and between companies in response to growing market complexity. The theoretical argument in this paper is that inter‐firm agility cannot be objectively understood in all cases using simple unidirectional cause and effect as such theories do not take into account more subjective aspects of interaction. Specifically, we argue that to have a vision of agility in action there must be an evaluation of complexity in and between organisational boundaries with a theoretical approach that gives a more robust appreciation of inter‐firm ties. Conceptualising agility in this way captures the essence of tacit knowledge between firms along with the physical dynamics of network functioning.","PeriodicalId":38028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Agile Systems and Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"72","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Agile Systems and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/14654650010356086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 72
Abstract
There has been extended debate about how to conceptualise inter‐organizational restructuring in late twentieth century capitalism, giving rise to a number of models that attempt to represent productive change. A number of such conceptualisations of transformation under the banner of “agility” attempt to provide guidance about “managing” physical and social relationships within and between companies in response to growing market complexity. The theoretical argument in this paper is that inter‐firm agility cannot be objectively understood in all cases using simple unidirectional cause and effect as such theories do not take into account more subjective aspects of interaction. Specifically, we argue that to have a vision of agility in action there must be an evaluation of complexity in and between organisational boundaries with a theoretical approach that gives a more robust appreciation of inter‐firm ties. Conceptualising agility in this way captures the essence of tacit knowledge between firms along with the physical dynamics of network functioning.
期刊介绍:
The objective of IJASM is to establish an effective channel of communication between academia, industry and persons concerned with the design and development of systems. Change is eternal and perpetual, irrespective of type of system. Systems created in the course of the advance of human civilization need to be functionally and operationally sustainable amid changes in technological, political, socio-economical, financial, cultural and other environmental challenges. IJASM aims to promote and harmonize knowledge developments in the emerging fields of agile systems research, sustainability and vulnerability analysis, risk assessments methodologies, complex systems science, e-organisation and e-supply chain management, with emphasis on the international dimension, particularly breaking cultural barriers, and on national contexts, globalisation and new business practices. As such, we aim to publish papers presenting new research, innovative theoretical approaches, changes in agile management paradigms, and action (both examples of successes and failures as long as there are important lessons to be learned) from leading scholars and practitioners. Papers generally fall into two broad categories: those grounded in theory and/or papers using scientific research methods (e.g., reports of original empirical studies, models, critical reviews of existing empirical research, theory pieces that clearly extend current thinking); and those focusing on innovative agile approaches that are based on well reasoned extensions of existing research, experiential knowledge, or exemplary cases (e.g., thought pieces, case studies, etc).