China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Adaptation in Sociotechnical Systems
Published in Philip J. Smith, Robert R. Hoffman, Cognitive Systems Engineering, 2018
Shawn A. Weil, Jean MacMillan, Daniel Serfaty
In today’s networked world, the nature of work has significantly changed from the way it was before the explosion in connectivity. Individuals, teams, and even organizations do not work in isolation. They work in dynamic networks, organizational contexts, and cultures that impose rules, constraints, and structures—some of which are relatively constant (e.g., the need for communication) and some of which are functionally driven (e.g., hierarchy or heterarchy). Decisions are shaped by missions, tasks, and work processes that can evolve rapidly with time and circumstances. Technology capabilities mediate and amplify these behaviors. One of the fundamental tenets of cognitive systems engineering is the shift of the unit of analysis from the individual to layers or echelons within networked sociotechnical organizations in a “coupled aggregate.”
Cyber-Systemic Toolset
Published in Alex Gorod, Leonie Hallo, Vernon Ireland, Indra Gunawan, Evolving Toolbox for Complex Project Management, 2019
In Figure 21.5, we see the interconnections between the variables, thus forming a cybernetic network, the control circuits in which these variables are embedded. There is actually no hierarchy but a heterarchy. Just as the brain has no boss, networks in general have no bosses in the conventional meaning. Rather both may have many bosses, since every circuit can take command depending on the situation with which the system has to cope. Now we have no longer just variables but a closely knit dynamic system.
A deep reinforcement learning based hyper-heuristic for modular production control
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2023
Marcel Panzer, Benedict Bender, Norbert Gronau
With this regard, previous research emphasised the importance of decentralising decision-making among production agents, allowing them to make decisions based on their specific task and available resources to leverage their reasoning, perception, and action capabilities (Balaji and Srinivasan 2010; Parunak et al. 1986). Weiss (2001) particularly emphasises the flexible and re-configurable properties of multi-agent structures as conventional decentralised control approaches. In a more recent review, Herrera et al. (2020) further emphasises the relevance of multi-agent systems for existing and planned real-world applications. A specific differentiation of such multi-agent systems is established by sub-dividing them into organisational forms, depending on the allocation, grouping, and interaction of the agents. While a hierarchy is characterised by a multitude of fixed master-slave relationships, a heterarchy consists primarily of peer-level relationships with distributed privileges to fulfil global and local objectives (Baker 1998; Bongaerts et al. 2000). Hierarchical systems are rather static, whereas heterarchical organisations suffer from local optimisation tendencies and myopic behaviour due to the lack of master-slave relationships (Sallez et al. 2010).
Transforming construction: heterarchical megaproject ecologies and the management of innovation
Published in Construction Management and Economics, 2022
Maude Brunet, Patrick Cohendet
We consider one of the main consequences of the digital transformation to be a transition from hierarchical to heterarchical governance in the project ecology. Megaproject governance involves a set of formal and relational tools, and a wide array of stakeholders and actors: the client (often a public or governmental entity), contractors, suppliers, users and beneficiaries, residents and citizens impacted by project activities, financiers, etc. (Benítez-Ávila et al. 2019, Qiu et al. 2019). In contrast to the traditional hierarchical model, where a project manager delivers to a client, heterarchical governance underlines the importance of firms and communities of practice, calling for a reconsideration of the management of innovation. Heterarchical forms are more frequent in contexts where agility, transversality and decentralization are required (Grabher and Thiel 2014, Hedlund 2016), as they rely on interrelation and cooperation among members, which is difficult to achieve in centralized operations based on a top-down structure. A heterarchy is defined as a polycentric organization of self-regulating entities at the same or different levels, which leads to phenomena of emergence (Hedlund 2016, Gil and Pinto 2018). Heterarchical forms are already evident in information system departments, where projects are delivered through collaborative work, cross-functional management and collective decision-making among overlapping entities with multiple interactions and links (Gannon et al. 2014, Imam and Zaheer 2021). However, if uncontrolled, heterarchy can lead to the emergence of anarchic phenomena, such as instability, conflict and waste of resources (Fosbrook 2016). In line with Hall and Bonanomi (2021), we find a lack of theoretical conceptualization around project governance to guide this type of pluralistic and collaborative project delivery. Megaprojects are ideal settings for fostering innovation in the construction industry, yet the innovation process is still new and not fully understood (Worsnop et al. 2016, Davies et al. 2017).
Doctor unpredicted prescription handwriting prediction using triboelectric smart recognition
Published in Production Planning & Control, 2023
P. Manivannan, Nidhi Agarwal, Rahul Pradhan, Bala Anand Muthu, M. M. Kamruzzaman, Akila Victor, R. Mervin
The Heterarchy is the system where the elements in the organizations are possessed to be ranked in several different ways, or the organizations are considered unranked. The ways to rank the elements in a heterarchical system, which is a non-linear and non-hierarchical system of organization, can be analyzed and understood through various methods. These methods include degree centrality, betweenness centrality, eigenvector centrality, PageRank, and clustering coefficient. Although these methods differ in their approach, they can be used together to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between elements in a heterarchical system. The Heterarchy is the elements in the network where the complete details share the same position horizontally to verify that each component plays its roles equally. The relationship among the ingredients in the scale of one spatial line or a single dimension that might be hierarchical to the component is helpful in decision-making based on the seniority of the element. It is also considered a condition and a structure (Zhang et al. 2020). Hierarchy might be parallel to order; thus, the two types of structure were not mutually exclusive; therefore, each level in the hierarchy system is made of the heterarchical group with the constituent element. A heterarchical system is a type of organizational structure that is not hierarchical and is characterized by the distribution of decision-making power across multiple individuals or groups. This structure is flexible and constantly changing based on the strengths, skills, and knowledge of the individuals and groups within the system. A heterarchical system is often networked, self-organizing, and collaborative, with individuals and groups working together to achieve shared goals and objectives. The power of relationships is considered the system predicated values that are ranked and re-ranked based on the importance of individuals and groups as the condition changes. Then, by analyzing the method of the decision-making process, the values of the hierarchy are seen to be enshrined at the spatial and temporal scales of the element; then, as much as possible, it considers the opinion of other features in the group the decision gives the raw material based on the lateral changes in the condition of the group (Gowda et al. 2020).