روش‎شناسی پویایی‎ سیستم‎های نرم: یک رویکرد سیستمی ترکیبی در پژوهش‎های کارآفرینی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه کسب وکار، دانشکده کارآفرینی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه کسب وکار، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکترای گروه کسب وکار، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

کارآفرینی یک پدیده پیچیده و چندسطحی است و بر مبنای رئالیسم انتقادی، پدیده‎های پیچیده‎‎ای مانند کارآفرینی، در سیستم‎های باز رخ داده و در سطوح مختلفی از واقعیت عمل می‎کنند. برای مطالعه و بررسی دقیق چنین پدیده‎ای، استفاده از روش‎شناسی متناسب با آن ضروری است. محور کارآفرینی، ایجاد کسب‌وکار مخاطره‎آمیز جدید است که می‎تواند به‎عنوان فرایندی پویا، در قالب یک سیستم باز تعریف شود؛ این پدیده از تعامل عناصر فردی، سازمانی و محیطی شکل گرفته و عوامل مختلفی بر آن تأثیرگذارند.
هدف این تحقیق، معرفی و ارائه یک روش‎شناسی سیستمی ترکیبی برای پژوهش‎های کارآفرینی و به‎ویژه مطالعات مربوط به ایجاد کسب‌وکار مخاطره‎آمیز جدید است که با مطالعه مروری روایتی روش‎شناسی‎های سیستمی در زمینه کسب‌وکار، انجام شده است.
ازآنجایی‌که کارآفرینی، هم شامل جنبه‎های ذهنی است و هم جنبه‎های قابل مشاهده و اندازه‎گیری را دربرمی‎گیرد، ازاین‌‍رو برای انجام پژوهش درباره آن، نمی‎توان تنها از تفکر سیستمی نرم و روش‎شناسی سیستم‎های نرم استفاده کرد و یا اینکه فقط تفکر سیستمی سخت و پویایی‎شناسی سیستم را به کار گرفت. بنابراین، در پژوهش‎های کارآفرینی می‎توان برای مدل‎سازی فرایند کارآفرینی در قالب سیستمی پویا، از روش‎شناسی پویایی سیستم‎های نرم استفاده نمود که از ترکیب روش‎شناسی سیستم‎های نرم و پویایی‎شناسی سیستم در دهه‎های اخیر توسعه یافته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


1. Bhaskar, R., (2010), Contexts of interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinarity and climate change, In Interdisciplinarity and climate change (pp. 15-38), Routledge.
2. Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A., (2004, July), “From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools”, In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the system dynamics society, (Vol. 22), Oxford.
3. Boulding, K., E., (1956), “General systems theory—the skeleton of science”, Management science, 2(3), 197−208.
4. Checkland, P., B., (1980), “The systems movement and the “failure” of management science”, Cybernetics and Systems11(4), 317−324.
5. Checkland, P.,B., (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
6. Checkland, P., (1983), “OR and the systems movement: mappings and conflicts”, Journal of the Operational Research Society34(8), 661−675.‏
7. Checkland, P., (2000), “Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective”, Systems research and behavioral science, 17(S1), S11−S58.
8. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J., (2006), Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers and students, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
9. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J., (2010), “Soft Systems Methodology”, In Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191−242), Springer, London.‏
10. Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S., R., (2012), “Panel studies of new venture creation: a methods-focused review and suggestions for future research”, Small Business Economics39(4), 853−876.
11. Dean, B., V., Nagel, B., I., & Osland, A., (2005, July), “Entrepreneurial system: application to silicon-valley nanotechnology companies”, In A Unifying Discipline for Melting the Boundaries Technology Management, (pp. 433−443), IEEE.
12. Davidsson, P. (2005), “Method issues in the study of venture start-up processes”, Entrepreneurship research in Europe: Outcomes and perspectives, 35−54.
13. Fairtlough, G., H., (1991), “Habermas' concept of “Lifeworld”, Systems practice4(6), 547−563.‏
14. Forrester, J., W., (1968), “Industrial dynamics—after the first decade”, Management Science14(7), 398−415.
15. Forrester, J., W., (1994), “System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR”, System dynamics review10(2‐3), 245−256.
16. Forrester, J., W., (2010), “System dynamics: the foundation under systems thinking”, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Revised from a paper of June 8, 1999.
17. Gartner, W., B., (1985), “A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation”, Academy of management review, 10(4), 696−706.
18. Gartner, W., B., (1988), “Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question”, American journal of small business12(4), 11−32.
19. Gartner, W., B., (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”Journal of Business venturing, 5(1), 15−28.
20. Gartner, W., B., Bird, B., J., & Starr, J., A., (1992), “Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior”, Entrepreneurship theory and practice16(3), 13−32.
21. Green, B., N., Johnson C., D., & Adams, A., (2006), “Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade”, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5 (3), 101−117.
22. Hassard, J., (1991), “Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study”, Organization Studies12(2), 275−299.
23. Ireland, R., D., & Webb, J., W., (2007), “A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research”, Journal of management33(6), 891−927.
24. Jackson, M., C., (1982), “The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff, and Checkland”, Journal of applied systems analysis9, 17−29.
25. Jackson, M., C., & Keys, P., (1984), “Towards a system of systems methodologies”, Journal of the operational research society35(6), 473−486.
26. Jackson, M., C., (1991), “Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention”, In Systems methodology for the management sciences, (pp. 271−276), Springer, Boston, MA.‏
27. Jackson, M., C., (2003), Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers: Wiley, Chichester.
28. Jackson, M., C., (2006), “Creative holism: a critical systems approach to complex problem situations”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research23(5), 647−657.
29. Landstrom, H., & Sexton, D., L., (Eds.)., (2000), The Blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship, Blackwell Business.
30. Lane, D., C., & Oliva, R., (1998), “The greater whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology”, European Journal of Operational Research107(1), 214−235.
31. Lin, C., H., Tung, C., M., & Huang, C., T., (2006), “Elucidating the industrial cluster effect from a system dynamics perspective”, Technovation26(4), 473−482.‏
32. Low, M., B., & MacMillan, I., C., (2007), Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. In Entrepreneurship (pp. 131−154), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
33. Mingers, J., (1997), “Multi-Paradigm Multimethodology”, In Mingers, John and Gill, Anthony, eds, Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1−20.
34. Mingers, J., (2006), Realising systems thinking: Knowledge and action in management science, Springer Science & Business Media.
35. Moroz, P., W., & Hindle, K., (2012), “Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice36(4), 781−818.
36. Paucar-Caceres, A., & Rodriguez-Ulloa, R., (2007), “An application of soft systems dynamics methodology (SSDM)”, Journal of the Operational Research Society58(6), 701−713.
37. Reynolds, M., & Holwell, S., (2010), “Introducing systems approaches”, In Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide, (pp. 1−23), Springer, London.‏
38. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R., A., (1999), “Soft system dynamics methodology—SSDM: a tool for social systems analysis and design”, In 43rd international meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, USA.
39. Rodriguez-Ulloa, R., & Paucar-Caceres, A., (2005), “Soft system dynamics methodology (SSDM): combining soft systems methodology (SSM) and system dynamics (SD)”, Systemic Practice and Action Research18(3), 303−334.
40. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R., A., Montbrun, A., & Martínez-Vicente, S., (2011), “Soft system dynamics methodology in action: A study of the problem of citizen insecurity in an Argentinean province”, Systemic Practice and Action Research24(4), 275−323.
41. Simon, H., A., (1967), “The business school a problem in organizational design”, Journal of management Studies4(1), 1−16.
42. Spilling, O., R., (1996), “The Entrepreneurial System: On Entrepreneurship in the Context of a Mega-Event”, Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 91−103.
43. Sterman, J., D., (2001), “System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world”, California management review43(4), 8−25.‏
44. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P., (2003), “Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review”, British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207−22.
45. Van de Ven, H., (1993), “The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business venturing, 8(3), 211−230.
46. Ulloa, R., & Caceres, P., (2004, July), “Soft System Dynamics Methodology: A Combination of Soft Systems Methodology and System Dynamics”, In Proceedings of 2004 Conference of System Dynamics Society Held in Keble College, Oxford, England, (pp. 25−29).
47. Williams, B., & Hummelbrunner, R., (2010), Systems concepts in action: a practitioner's toolkit, Stanford University Press.‏
48. Woods, C., R., (2006), “Asking the entrepreneur: An enquiry into entrepreneurial behaviour”, Personal Construct Theory and Practice3(1), 1−11.‏
49. Yearworth, M., (2010, July), “Inductive modelling of an entrepreneurial system”, In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Seoul, Korea, (pp, 25−29).‏
50. Zexian, Y., & Xuhui, Y., (2010), “A revolution in the field of systems thinking—a review of Checkland's system thinking, Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 27(2), 140−155.
51. Zolfagharian, M., Romme, G., & Walrave, B., (2016, January), “Combining system dynamics modeling with other methods: a systematic review”, In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the ISSS2015 Berlin, Germany, 1(1).
52. Zolfagharian, M., Romme, A., G., L., & Walrave, B., (2018), “Why, when, and how to combine system dynamics with other methods: Towards an evidence-based framework”, Journal of Simulation12(2), 98−114.