Complexity and Adaptivity in Supply Networks: Building Supply Network Theory Using a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective*

By Pathak, Surya D,Day, Jamison M,Nair, Anand,Sawaya, William J,Kristal, M Murat Publication: Decision Sciences Date: Thursday, November 1 2007

INTRODUCTION Supply networks are composed of large numbers of firms from multiple interrelated industries. Such networks are subject to shifting strategies and objectives within a dynamic environment. In recent years, when faced with a dynamic environment, several disciplines have adopted the Complex Adaptive System (CAS) perspective to gain insights into important issues within their domains of study. Research investigations in the field of supply networks have also begun examining the merits of complexity theory and the CAS perspective. In this article, we bring the applicability of complexity theory and CAS into sharper focus, highlighting its potential for integrating existing supply chain management (SCM) research into a structured body of knowledge while also providing a framework for generating, validating, and refining new theories relevant to real-world supply networks. We suggest several potential research questions to emphasize how a CAS perspective can help in enriching the SCM discipline. We propose that the SCM research community adopt such a dynamic and systems-level orientation that brings to the fore the adaptivity of firms and the complexity of their interrelations that are often inherent in supply networks. Today, supply chain management (SCM) involves adapting to changes in a complicated global network of organizations. A typical supply network consists of interfirm relationships that may connect multiple industries. As a result, supply network decisions often require consideration of a large number of factors from multiple dimensions and perspectives. Two emergent themes that managers frequently encounter when making these decisions are (i) the structural intricacies of their interconnected supply chains (Choi & Hong, 2002) and (ii) the need to learn and adapt their organization in a constantly changing environment to ensure its long-term survival (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998).

Complex interconnections between multiple suppliers, manufacturers, assemblers, distributors, and retailers are the norm for industrial supply networks. When decision making in these networks is based on noncomplex assumptions (e.g., linearity, a buyersupplier dyad, sparse connectivity, static environment, fixed and nonadaptive individual firm behavior), problems are often hidden, leaving plenty of room for understanding and improving the underlying processes. Consider the recent implementation of complexityoriented decision making by American Air Liquide, a firm based in Houston, Texas. The following information was acquired through multiple employee interviews, associated document examinations, and observations of the Operations Control Center at American Air Liquide. The company produces industrial and medical gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen at about 100 manufacturing locations in the United States and delivers to nearly 6,000 customer sites using a mix of pipelines, railcars, and more than 400 trucks. In the past, its distribution routing was based on analytical optimization methods. However, this approach had a difficult time integrating environmental volatility, feedback from truck drivers, and dynamic sourcing opportunities. After working with NuTech Solutions (formerly Bios Group), they created a new complexitybased solution that leverages neural networks and agent-based modeling (with antforaging algorithms) to integrate decisions across their multinodal and multimodal supply network. Most important, the new solution method solves both sourcing and routing together in the optimization process. Charles Harper, director of National Supply & Pipeline and Supply Operations, summarizes the benefits of their complexity-based approach: After switching over, we drive less miles, we don't do stupid things, and we move people to different jobs that didn't exist before. All those things add up to savings. It's been mind-blowing to see how much opportunity there was. The knowledge we gained from implementing the complexity-based solution helped us realize what the real-time incremental cost of the liquid going into customers' tanks really was. Our supply network can now flexibly adapt to volatility in the environment due to differentials in power prices or even hurricanes. Complexity-based solutions are extremely applicable and people need to start using them or they're going to lose out. American Air Liquide is far from being the only firm that is using the structural complexity (interconnectedness of firms) and adaptivity (dynamic learning of individual firms) principles of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). Boeing has effectively used CAS principles to redesign their 787 Dreamliner supply network, reducing the risk of expensive cascading supply network delays (Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies, 2007). Similarly, using CAS principles, Citibank Credit Risk uncovered $200 million in hidden expenses, Proctor and Gamble reduced supply network inventory by 25% and saved 22% on distribution expenses, and Southwest Airlines saved $2 million annually in their freight delivery operations (Kelly & Allison, 1999; Waldrop, 2003; Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies, 2007). As seen in these examples, a CASoriented approach can help firms reap benefits such as increased efficiency, rapid flexibility, better preparedness for external uncertainties, increased awareness of markets and competition, and improved decision making (Abell, Serra, & Wood, 1999).

Along with managing the complexity inherent in the interconnectivity of their supply networks, organizations have also started to learn the benefits of being adaptive in their behavior. Sheffi and Rice (2005) present an illustration of adaptive firm behavior in a cellular telephone supply network. They highlight the different approaches that Nokia and Ericsson took when a fire disrupted the supply from Philips, the sole supplier for a particular chip common to both manufacturers. While Ericsson suffered an estimated $2.34 billion loss, Nokia engaged directly with Philips to restore supply using alternate supply options. They modified designs of the handsets where possible and secured worldwide manufacturing capacity from Philips to ensure a steady supply of the chips. Meanwhile, the direct interaction between top management of Nokia and Philips further enhanced the ability of Nokia to adapt in the future. Wollin and Perry (2004) provide another example of how Honda adapted to the changing automotive sector environment by leveraging the notions of learning and path dependency of adaptive systems. They used their Accord and Civic platforms as me basis of several of their most recent sport utility vehicles, and, as a result, they gained significant market share in that segment even though they were slow to enter the four-wheel-drive market The pioneering article by Choi, Dooley, and Rungtusanatham (2001) examined how properties of CAS are embodied by supply networks. Since this article, there have been only a handful of papers that use the CAS view of supply networks, signaling that the SCM discipline has yet to enthusiastically embrace the CAS perspective. The intent of mis position paper is to draw attention to recent developments in CAS theory from across multiple disciplines and articulate how this knowledge can be leveraged to enrich the operations management (OM) and SCM disciplines. We suggest leveraging the conceptualizations of Complex Adaptive Supply Networks (CASN), such as those found in Choi et al. (2001) and Surana, Kumara, Greaves, and Raghavan (2005), to lay a foundation for both integrating existing work and developing new theories within the SCM body of knowledge. Specifically, we discuss how CAS principles can be useful for identification and organization of complex and adaptive phenomena in supply networks, such as individual firm adaptation, self-organization and emergence, buyer-supplier relationships, supply network performance, environmental change, and feedback mechanisms. Finally, we examine the challenges associated with CASN theory development and provide suggestions for future research efforts and CASN theory development. A CAS VIEW OF SUPPLY NETWORKS Because organizations exhibit adaptivity and can exist in a complex environment with myriad relationships and interactions, it is a natural step to identify a supply network as a CAS. Choi et al. (2001) argue that supply networks should be recognized as CAS by providing a detailed mapping of each property of CAS to a supply network. In a similar way, subsequent research has recognized this same inherent complexity of supply networks (Surana et al., 2005). For brevity, we use Anderson (1999) and Choi et al. (2001) to offer an overview of CAS and its framing of SCM research.

A CAS is an interconnected network of multiple entities (or agents) that exhibit adaptive action in response to changes in both the environment and the system of entities itself (Choi et al., 2001). Collective system performance or behavior emerges as a nonlinear and dynamic function of the large number of activities made in parallel by interacting entities. For example, the individual decisions made by firms facing imperfect information and variable demand lead to a globally observed phenomenon (i.e., the bullwhip effect) (Lee, Padmanabhan, & Whang, 1997). Anderson (1999) outlined four common properties of such systems. First, a CAS consists of entities that interact with other entities and with the environment by following a set of simple decision rules (i.e., schema). These entities may evolve over time as entities learn from their interactions. In contrast to relational modeling, which tries to use one set of variables to explain variation in another set of variables, CAS examines how changes in an individual entity's schema lead to different aggregate outcomes. Second, a CAS is self-organizing. Self-organization is a consequence of interactions between entities. Self-organization is defined as a process in which new structures, patterns, and properties emerge without being externally imposed on the system. Because the behavior in complex systems comes from dynamic interactions among the agents and between the environment and the agents, the changes tend to be nonlinear with respect to the original changes in the system. Thus, there may be small changes that have a dramatic effect on the system, or, conversely, large changes that have relatively little effect. Choi et al. (2001, p. 357) state, "the behavior of a complex system cannot be written down in closed form; it is not amenable to prediction via the formulation of a parametric model, such as a statistical forecasting model." Even though it may not be possible to predict the future in an exact manner, the future may exhibit some underlying regularity. While the changes that are made to a system may be dramatic and unpredictable, there may be patterns of behavior that can be considered prototypical. Appropriate analyses may yield some knowledge of key patterns of behavior that are likely to develop in the system over time. Third, a CAS coevolves to the edge of chaos. Choi et al. (2001) explain coevolution, positing that a CAS reacts to and creates its environment so that as the environment changes it may cause the agents within it to change, which, in turn, cause other changes to the environment. These actions and reactions can be triggered by external events such as natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) or the actions of agents (e.g., a decision to implement an enterprise resource planning system). A CAS exhibits dynamism as changes occur in the environment; this dynamism affects the system. Environmental factors may cause changes to which the agents must adapt, influencing the way agents perceive their environment or the schema used by the agents themselves. Thus, the rules followed by the individual entities organize the system, because individual entities are not privy to the objective function of the system as a whole. The coevolution of the system happens in the rugged fitness landscapes in which the CAS exists. The concept of landscape was first introduced by biologist Sewell Wright (1932). It refers to the mapping from an organism's genetic structure to its fitness level. In management research, the idea

of landscape is analogous to the domain of social and economic phenomena (Levinthal & Warglien, 1999). Specifically, these landscapes may be thought of in terms of an analogy of a range of mountains that represents an objective function (i.e., performance function) that is filled with hills and valleys (Kauffman, 1995). The hills or peaks represent the desired optimal states, in which a rugged landscape has many peaks surrounded by deep valleys. For instance, in the Toyota supply network, the flow of goods between its Camry plant and the Johnson Controls seat-frame manufacturing plant controlled via a tightly coupled kanban system would react differently to an external event than the flow of goods between Johnson Controls' seat-frame manufacturing plants and their raw materials suppliers. Fourth, a CAS is recursive by nature, and it recombines and evolves over time. For example, going back to the bullwhip effect (Lee et al., 1997), the interfirm orders could be characterized as orders from one organizational function to another organizational function, orders from an individual employee of one firm to an employee of another, or any combination of the involved individuals, functions, or firms. Furthermore, from a macroeconomic viewpoint, it can be posited that industry supply networks are interrelated within a national or international context and interact together as a CAS in a larger context (Arthur, Durlauf, & Lane, 1997). Thus, a CAS is often composed of entities that can themselves be characterized as CASs composed of smaller constituents (a nested hierarchy of smaller-scale complex systems). Changes in these smaller systems and even in individual entities can cause the entire system to change over time. Building on these properties, Choi et al. (2001) outline three key foci for supply chain research: internal mechanisms, the environment, and coevolution. For internal mechanisms, the key elements are agents (entities) and schema, self-organization and emergence, network connectivity, and network dimensionality. In the context of supply networks, an entity may be an organization, a division, a team, or an individual, or even a function of an individual's job. The key feature is that agents have the ability to make decisions in response to the environment and to the action of other entities. In supply networks, schemas are the rules that the organizations, or the decision makers within organizations, use to make the decisions for, and guide the actions of, the organization. Self-organization and emergence occur as a result of decisions that are made by the individual agents that cause the system to change and the collective system behavior to emerge over time. Network connectivity is the connection among the agents that determines the complexity of the network. As the connectivity among the agents increases, the interrelationships among the agents increase, in turn causing increases in the complexity of the network. In the case of supply-network relationships these connections are real, physical connections between organizations such as telephone lines, fax numbers, electronic data interchange systems, and so on. Dimensionality is the degree to which agents can act in an autonomous fashion without influencing other agents. Therefore, as the degree of connectivity increases, the dimensionality decreases as the actions of a given agent has a greater impact on those with which it is connected. As an example, Choi et al. (2001) present the interconnectivity of an aircraft engine manufacturer (Honeywell) with a university hospital (Metro University Hospital).

Honeywell depends on mining companies for supplies of raw materials such as steel, copper, aluminum, and other composite materials. These mining companies source equipment that relies on the latest material extraction techniques developed by various firms and agencies. The material extraction techniques rely on pattern recognition technologies that aid in interpretations of X-ray scans of potential material vein and enable a firm to make appropriate decisions regarding extraction locations. It is conceivable that the required pattern recognition technology is developed in a completely unrelated sector, such as health care. For example, a university hospital might develop a new pattern recognition technique for the purposes of medical treatment that could have potential application in material extraction. Over time, the knowledge gets passed on to the material extraction company via research conferences. This example illustrates complex interconnectivities among firms and the impact of decisions made by one firm on others in the network. We present the decisions and information flows among firms in Figure 1. Since the initial article on supply chains as CAS by Choi et al. (2001), there have been numerous developments in the CAS and network-related literature across a wide range of disciplines, such as industrial engineering, computer science, physics, organizational science, new product development, and strategic management. In the next section, we highlight these advancements and discuss how knowledge gained from these research studies can be beneficial for supply network research. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN CAS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO SCM RESEARCH Research endeavors using the CAS perspective have been undertaken in diverse fields such as physics, biology, mathematics, computer science, engineering, psychology, political science, sociology, economics, and organizational behavior. To systematically approach this wide range of literature, we adopted the data triangulation approach. As a first step, we sought expert opinion regarding the state of recent research pertaining to CAS. This step provided an initial reference list and guided our subsequent search process. In the next step, we undertook an extensive search of selected peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal; Management Science; Organizational Science; Non-Linear Dynamics, Psychology & Life Sciences; Emergence; and Complexity) by using the ABI/TNFORMS and Business Source Premier databases. In the search process, we included keywords such as supply network, CAS, complexity theory, adaptation, adaptivity, chaos, SCM, and nonlinear time series analysis. From the results obtained, we selected more than 100 articles that were directly related to CAS and undertook an in-depth examination of these articles to identify significant theoretical, methodological, and technical developments related to all the major aspects of a CASbased supply chain as described in Choi et al. (2001). IMAGE CHART1 Figure 1: Example of decision making in supply networks as complex adaptive systems (Based on me example in Choi et al., 2001).

Researchers across multiple disciplines have significantly advanced the theoretical boundaries of CAS-based systems (Zhang, 2002; Fonseca & Zeidan, 2004; Richardson, 2004, 2005, 2007), especially focusing on organizational adaptation (Dooley, Corman, McPhee, & Kuhn, 2003), individual entity learning (Downs, Durant, & Carr, 2003), and network connectivity models (Barabaasi, 2002; Newman, 2003). Methodological advancements such as sophisticated agent-based modeling (Chatfield, Kim, Harrison, & Hayya, 2004; Sawaya, 2006; Pathak, Dilts, & Biswas, 2007), cellular automata (Wolfram, 2002; Mizraji, 2004), dynamical systems theory (Surana et al., 2005), dynamic networks analysis (Carley, forthcoming), and empirical and case-study methods (Varga & Allen, 2006) have been applied to problems ranging from nursing and health care domains (Anderson, Issel, & McDaniel, 2003) to supply networks (Thadakamalla, Raghavan, Kumara, & Albert, 2004). Analysis techniques used within these articles include chaos theory (Strogatz, 1994), computational and statistical mechanics (Shalizi, 2001), and nonlinear time series methods (Williams, 1997). Table 1 summarizes some of these research developments and advancements over the last 6 years across multiple different areas. Table 1: Advancements in complex adaptive systems (CAS)-based research. On careful examination, we note an interesting trend. Almost all of the research contributions and advancements listed in Table 1 have occurred predominantly outside the OM and SCM discipline. This observation is further supported by the observation that the special issue of Management Science on Complexity Theory (Amaral & Uzzi, 2007) does not carry a single article that deals purely with supply chain issues. Thus, it is clear that, while other areas such as industrial engineering, computer science, physics, organizational science, research and development, and strategic management, to name a few, are strongly pursuing research based on CAS perspectives, OM and SCM research is not keeping pace. One of the greatest contributions of the CAS perspective may be its ability to incorporate increasing realism and empirical data into research models that can be understood in a practical business setting (Anderson, 1999). This has been demonstrated with CAS research both in diverse applications (ecology, social retirement models, and zoology) with high realism (Van Winkle, Rose, & Chambers, 1993; Grimm, 1999; Axtell, 2003) and in uses of empirical data from business organizations (Nilsson & Darley, 2006; Sawaya, 2006). Consider the parallels that exist between work by Albert, Jeong, and Barabasi (2000) on error and attack tolerance of complex networks and research by Hendricks and Singhal (2003) regarding supply network resilience under disruption. Findings indicate that the heterogeneous dyads in scale-free networks, such as those found in the Internet, biological-cell, and social-network connectivity, exhibit higher tolerance to random errors but lower tolerance to targeted attack than the more homogenous, exponential-style networks. These findings can be leveraged to hypothesize how different supply-network topologies give rise to different levels of supply-network resiliency under disruptions related to either random failure or targeted attack, potentially leading to important

implications for industry management decisions. In fact, Thadakamalla et al. (2004) have shown how knowledge can be generated about survivability and resiliency of supply networks using concepts shown in the work of Albert et al. (2000). The work of Braha and Bar-Yam (2007) utilizes statistical properties of a complex network to show how the structural information flows in distributed product development networks have similar properties to other social, biological, and technological networks. It would be interesting to follow Braha and Bar-Yam's suggestion regarding applying their findings about statistical properties of intraorganizational product development network to a supply network context, as this may result in new insights on how interfirm and intrafirm properties connect and evolve. Recent advancements made by Rivkin and Siggelkow (2007) toward extending CAS research of organizations (Levinthal, 1997; McKelvey, 1999) using the NK model of fitness from theoretical biology (Kauffman & Levin, 1987; Kauffman & Weinberger, 1989) to questions of adaptability in individual organizations could have important lessons for the study of supply chains. Rivkin and Siggelkow (2007) leverage empirical research demonstrating patterns of interactions within decision processes to show that the number of local optima is highly correlated with the decision-interaction patterns. Therefore, if there are many local optima, the relative value of exploration decreases. The implication is that the value of exploration of opportunities versus the exploitation of existing opportunities varies depending on how rugged and dynamic the landscape is. From a supply chain management perspective, the results and findings on adaptability and use of NK models have been demonstrated for supply base management (Choi & Krause, 2006). Also important are the number of suppliers (N) and the level of interrelationships among the suppliers (AT) and the degree of differentiation of these suppliers. In particular, the significance of interrelationships could have further implications for buyer-buyer or supplier-supplier coopetition (simultaneous competition and cooperation) in supply networks (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Choi, Zhaohui, Ellram, & Koka, 2002). For instance, supplier firms are typically under the control of me buying company through established work routines and contractual terms, yet they are able to make decisions on their own behalf. In this regard, me tension between control and emergence might be applicable to supplier-supplier relationships and thus may provide an interesting context for CASN studies. Another use of NK models can be found in the manufacturing-strategy literature. Levinthal and Warglien (1999) show how Japanese automotive manufacturers use robust design to achieve single-peaked landscapes (landscapes with very low interaction levels among agents as compared to the total number of agents). They state that "in the change operations, using pear-shaped clamps that can be smoothly brought to fit in only one way thereby driving even approximate movements into the right direction, reduces errors on the production line. The landscape in this case is designed by the physical shape of the task environment" (p. 346). This example illustrates how NK models can be conceptualized to reduce variability in a production network. If we apply this concept to SCM, one can argue that quality management practices can use similar concepts from NK models for managing buyer-supplier relationships in order to reduce variability of the

quality of me products that the suppliers send to their buyers, thus leading to a singlepeaked landscape as suggested by Levinthal and Warglien (1999). For instance, when Honda uses a consistent supplier-management approach not only with their first-tier suppliers but also with their second- and third-tier suppliers (Choi & Hong, 2002), one might view this as an attempt to create a single-peaked landscape in the supply network. Discussions and examples so far suggest that the CAS perspective holds promise for enriching and extending the current body of knowledge in the OM and SCM disciplines. We provide a detailed discussion of potential research directions later in the article, but we first discuss some underlying issues and challenges. CRITICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN CASN RESEARCH For more than 50 years, research studies have enriched our understanding of various OM and SCM issues (Beamon, 1998). The use of analytical models, simulation methods, and empirical approaches have greatly enhanced knowledge and improved decision-making processes. Analytical modeling-based studies have matured from their initial years into explicit considerations of various operational decisions, the stochastic nature of demand, and the combinatorial possibilities of available scenarios and options. Empirical research has grown to provide insights regarding strategic issues, managerial perceptions, and measurements of key operational issues. Undoubtedly, the scope of problems being investigated in extant literature is becoming richer and scholars are attacking complicated issues that were previously outside the scope of investigation for tractability reasons (Vonderembse, Uppal, Huang, & Dismukes, 2006). Addressing complicated issues, however, does not equate to addressing complexities. Complexity vs. Complicatedness The distinction between complicated research and complexity-oriented research is important for ensuring a broad-based research agenda. Cilliers (2000) suggests that something that is complicated can be intricate, but the relationship between me components is fixed and well defined. For instance, a jumbo jet is a complicated system that is amenable to taking individual components apart and putting them back together. In contrast, a complex system is characterized in terms of the nonlinear dynamic interactions of the individual parts. Furthermore, while a complicated system can be viewed as the sum of its parts, a complex system cannot be viewed that way; one cannot predict the behavior of a complex system by examining the behavior of its individual parts. These emergent properties of complex systems are due to the nonlinear dynamic relationship between the individual components. In a recent special issue on complex systems in Management Science, Amaral and Uzzi (2007) provide the following commentary that further illuminates me differences between complicatedness and complexity (p. 1033): In contrast to simple systems, such as the pendulum, which has a small number of w

In contrast to simple systems, such as the pendulum, which has a small number of wellunderstood components, or complicated systems, such as Boeing jet, which have many components that interact through predefined coordination rules (Perrow, 1999), complex systems typically have many components that can autonomously interact through emergent rules. In management contexts, complex systems arise whenever there are populations of interacting agents that can act on their limited and local information. The agents and the larger system in which they are embedded operate by trading their resources without the aid of a central control mechanism or event a clear understanding of how actions of (possibly distant) agents can affect them. Amaral and Uzzi (2007) comment on me complexity in the supply chain arena and emphasize the increasingly decentralized decision making, networkwide dissemination of innovations, and the need to find approaches to make lean supply chains robust against random failures and targeted breakdowns. The authors propose a complexity-based perspective for future investigations of various business issues. Parallel to the investigation of complicated issues that continue to be examined, research initiatives are needed that examine complexity in OM and SCM. This endeavor can potentially illuminate several critical issues, such as interconnected supply networks and learning and adaptivity within supply networks that are currently rare in SCM literature. Challenges of Theory Development with a CAS Perspective In general, theory building requires careful application of structural methods to identify phenomena. Once identified, me phenomena must be validated by designing and conducting research studies (Meredith, 1998). Throughout this process, careful attention must be given to the level of rigor such that the research adheres to appropriate methodological guidelines. The results obtained, as well as any relevant insights, must have clear application to the phenomena within me boundary conditions and be generalizable for the theory to be integrated into a wider body of knowledge. Here, we examine some of the unique theory-development challenges that must be overcome if a coherent body of knowledge is to be developed around CAS principles. First, the complexity of supply networks will press limits on researchers' ability to understand the internal interactions between constructs and mechanisms of larger-scope phenomena. For example, operations research has successfully leveraged game theory to understand competitive and cooperative phenomena both within and between organizations (Cachon & Lariviere, 1999). Although these investigations provide insight into optimal monopolistic or duopolistic decisions, there are limits to modeling the nonlinear dynamics and adaptations inherent in the oligopoly or free-market structures that dominate our economy. As discussed previously, when several locally optimal policies interact in a complex supply network, the resulting nonlinear dynamics of global behavior can be unpredictable. Therefore, game-theoretic studies can be enriched by adopting the CAS perspective to help examine the applicability, impact, and robustness of their findings within the larger, more realistic supply network contexts in which game theory is intractable. One reason for the growing popularity of CAS across several

10

disciplines is its ability to incorporate more realism in building theories, providing opportunity for greater relevance, and supplying an understanding of me way phenomena act in otherwise intractable environments. CAS provides an approach to rigorously examine situations that closely map reality, yet simultaneously requires continuous extension and refinement to unravel unexpected behaviors that supply chains and networks are capable of producing. A second challenge is that OM and SCM as disciplines currently lack metrics for evolution and dynamism in supply networks. For example, many phenomena in supply networks occur over time, and it will be crucial to examine the evolution of the supply network over an extended time horizon. Such a behavior could be measured and depicted using attractors and the corresponding lags at which attractors are reconstructed (Williams, 1997). Furthermore, because phenomena in an evolving supply chain occur at different levels, they must be captured at the firm, topology, and systems levels. For example, investigation of supply chain disruptions would require simultaneous consideration of agent-level metrics such as capacity and fitness, topology-level metrics such as degree distribution and path length, and system-level metrics such as robustness and efficiency. Given that empirical data collection can be problematic whenever real organizations are involved, empirical studies aimed at examining dynamic and evolutionary behavior inherent in supply networks will require resourceful approaches to operationalize and integrate underlying constructs based on data collected from multiple system levels. Third, developing robust theories in the presence of adaptation presents a formidable task. In a system of entities with changing policies, careful analysis of the impact of interactions among these policies will be required. For example, Texas and California are preparing to restructure their power markets from zonal to nodal models next year (Alaywan, Wu, & Papalexopoulos, 2004; Ercot, 2007). Power generators and wholesalers are planning to adapt their policies (e.g., trade strategies, scheduling, risk management) to take advantage of almost continuous shifts in pricing and transmission congestion across 3,000-4,000 locations. Attempting to ascertain common overarching principles in such CASNs may require approaches uncommon to operations and supply chain research like longitudinal data collection and data analysis without resorting to linearity assumptions. Research design and validation techniques will require resourcefulness when exploring both new and previously identified phenomena in the presence of dynamically changing and interacting entity behaviors. It may be possible to glean supply network information from publicly available data or company archival data sources in order to understand factors affecting the dynamic behavior of the network. Such information, assuming it can be found, can be used to inform model development and validate models of supply networks. Because of the dynamic nature of CASN, rich longitudinal data of both quantitative and qualitative nature are important to accurately assess entity adaptation and its impact on system-level behavior. This likely requires close collaboration between academic researchers and practitioners who are dedicated to understanding the complexities that affect organizations in a supply network in order to make the commitment to this type of

11

research effort. For example, structure, schema, and performance of various constituent organizations of a supply network might be sampled at regular intervals over time in order to understand the dynamic and emergent behavior of the system. Finally, while borrowing concepts and ideas developed in other disciplines can be innovative and useful, one must remember to take great care when relating a phenomenon found in a few studies to a wider range of situations. As seen in physics, abstraction of phenomena to larger- or smaller-scale systems does not always hold true, and any attempt to do so must be done thoughtfully and with great care (Feynman & Weinberg, 1986). Likewise, the impact of complexity and adaptation observed in one system may not hold true when applied in other systems. Such CASN characteristics make research in this area difficult, but, fortunately, OM and SCM disciplines could learn from other disciplines, such as organizational science, economics, computer science, and evolutionary biology, to name but a few. These disciplines have been extremely careful in generalizing their results and have intelligently combined a diverse range of methods and tools (as summarized in Table 1) to effect a slow paradigm shift. FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF CASN RESEARCH One key way in which CASN ideas and theories might be leveraged is in bridging the research-reality gap. For instance, tapping existing CAS research and applying it to supply network contexts will move the field beyond a static, isolated dyadic buyersupplier framework. As indicated previously in this article, Braha and Bar-Yam (2007) studied the statistical properties of organizational networks that focus on product development. They show that structure of information-flow networks have properties that are similar to those displayed by other social, biological, and technological networks. They conclude their study by suggesting that the intraorganizational properties they studied might be applied to an interorganizational level at which business organizations form the networks (i.e., supply networks). Thus, by shifting the unit of analysis to the firm level, existing knowledge from an external discipline can be used for researching supply network problems. In this section, we attempt to highlight some of the issues that must be addressed in order to develop a useful CASN research framework. We start by suggesting a CASN definition. We then elaborate on how supply network theory may be developed, building on CAS phenomenon. We finish by discussing some unique CASN research design, measurement, and methodological issues for validation purposes and list some potential CASN research questions. Defining CASN A formal definition of CASN is one step toward furthering the use of CAS principles in examining supply networks. Formulating such a definition is not a trivial task and will require an iterative process with inputs, from a variety of experienced researchers. What we propose here should be taken as a starting point for a formal discussion from which an acceptable definition might emerge.

12

A CASN is a system of interconnected autonomous entities that make choices to survive and, as a collective, the system evolves and self-organizes over time. CASN consists of four key elements: (i) organizational entities exhibiting adaptivity, (ii) a topology with interconnectivity between multiple supply chains, (iii) self-organizing and emergent system performance, and (iv) an external environment that coevolves with the system. Each of these fundamental elements within a CASN can maintain several properties, such as capacity and service level (entity); path length, redundancy, and clustering (topology); efficiency and flexibility (system); and demand, dynamism, and risk (environment). The properties of these elements can be used to describe the state of a CASN at a moment in time or over a finite span of time. It is the interactions across these entities over time and the evolution of their properties that the SCM discipline seeks to understand more fully. Some of these properties may already have well-accepted measurements or metrics, such as a firm's inventory holding costs, while others, such as supply chain agility, may require additional refinement. Building SCM Theory by Identifying CAS Phenomena A theory states how interrelated constructs are impacted by mechanisms creating a phenomenon (Schmenner & Swink, 1998). Future development of CASN theory-building efforts likewise should begin by viewing the properties associated with entities, topology, system, and environment as interrelated constructs. Mechanisms that alter these constructs are initiated by entities residing both inside and outside the CASN. For example, participating entity decisions such as supplier selection, shifting priorities (allocation of resources), or procedural modifications may impact not only internal constructs such as capacity, service level, or inventory but also system constructs like supply network efficiency, flexibility, and redundancy. Similarly, entities that exist in the external environment of the CASN can initiate mechanisms such as modification of infrastructure or changes in regulatory policy that may impact CASN constructs. The constructs associated with each of the fundamental CASN elements are clearly interrelated. Changes in any one entity construct may lead to alteration of topology that impacts overall system properties, which, in turn, may lead to changes in me surrounding environment. Ultimately, the states of the entity, topology, system, and environmental constructs impact decision making within each participating entity. Individual-entity decision making may spawn changes that cycle through the CASN and eventually lead to an altered system and environment that impacts future decisions. Therefore, theory development about how various CASN elements interact can improve understanding of the impact of decisions made within each entity as well as their impact on other elements in the supply network. For example, the vertical integration decision taken by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) determines the components or subcomponents that it would outsource. Furthermore, a firm could decide to sole-source or engage several suppliers. These decisions would directly affect the network topology. The sourcing strategy and the associated network topology impact the OEM's flexibility to cater to potential demand fluctuations. In the event that the OEM is unable to satisfy a portion of demand due to supply shortages (e.g., due to capacity constraints at the sole supplier), the service level of the OEM gets adversely affected. This illustrates how entity decisions,

13

network topology, system characteristics, and environmental characteristics are closely intertwined with each other. Unique CASN Research Design Issues While physical and temporal scales are often quite naturally defined and addressed in fixed and well-delineated relationships in complicated research, the nonlinear dynamic relationships in a CAS often span multiple scales. Defining the appropriate system scale is essential if the CASN behavior under study is to be observed consistently. Also, any constructs external to both the entities and the topological relationships constituting the system that impact the behavior must be integrated into the theoretical model, while superfluous variables must be eliminated. In addition to the system scale, defining the environmental scope of the system is also paramount. Properly specifying these various types of scales enhances the value of the research and also helps to focus the emphasis of study on key factors. System scale and unit of analysis Because of the recursive nature of systems both within and outside the CASN, it is important to select the appropriate physical scale or unit of analysis within which the theory is valid. Just as physics has discovered (Feynman & Weinberg, 1986) where, at the nano-scale level, normal laws of Newtonian physics break down, attempting to analyze a CASN phenomenon in too small or too large a context may yield comparatively perplexing results. Descriptions of the physical scale must specify the range of entities that constitute the system as well as the types of relationships that are considered to form the interrelations within the topology. In addition to defining the physical scale of the system, the proper scaling of time is important as well. Different types of phenomena may occur over longer or shorter periods of time; therefore, certain research designs may require either a lengthier period of study or more frequent measurements than others. For example, examining how changes in fuel-efficiency regulations impact supplier selection policies in the automobile industry might require a longer time period of study than investigating interfirm behavior in online reverse auctions. Clearly, there must be multiple scales and potential units of analysis for systems as complicated as supply networks. An illustration of this is the problem with multiple levels of validation that are common to interorganizational and agent-based models in general (Carley, 2003). Even here, one key feature is the systems-level behavior that emerges over time. Therefore, while there may be many factors that are important at an entity level, systems-level behavior must include observation of the system's behavior that is creatively derived from the state and behavior of the constituent entities. Environmental scope As discussed previously, the system and its surrounding environment coevolve over time (Lewin, Long, & Carroll, 1999). Changes in either of these elements impact how

14

decisions are made by CASN entities. Therefore, it is important to consider both the properties of the system and the environmental constructs that are related to the phenomenon of interest in any theory set forth. For example, using agent-based simulation, Siggelkow and Rivkin (2005) studied how environmental turbulence and complexity affect the formal design of the organizations. From an empirical perspective, Anderson and Tushman (2001) studied the effect of environmental constructs such as uncertainty, munificence, and structural complexity on firm survival. They found that uncertainty was the main reason that firms go out of business. These are examples of how inclusion of environmental constructs is important for research in CASN. ust as it is important to determine the proper physical and temporal scales, finding the appropriate number and type of environmental constructs to include in a theory is important when balancing the needs for validity and tractability. Examples of potentially important constructs are demand, dynamism, uncertainty (both aleatory and epistemic), risk, munificence, and ecological factors. As in any research, however, caution must be exercised when selecting environmental constructs, as inclusion of too many may lead to models that are unwieldy while inclusion of too few may yield insufficient explanatory power of the phenomena. Leveraging models, measurements, and methodologies for validation A model of CASN behavior should precisely state how to measure the relevant constructs, how the constructs are related, and how certain mechanisms affect those constructs. Only when these issues are clearly stated can the theory be validated and examined for consistency with the phenomena under study across a wide range of situations. However, in addition to precise and internally consistent theoretical statement, a model should also allow for integration of other constructs and mechanisms so that further theory refinement can make a significant improvement. Different validation methodologies have various strengths and weaknesses and some are more easily accepted within a discipline than others. In a field such as SCM, in which so many constructs are interrelated, this observation holds particularly true. For example, in the 1980s just-intime inventory movement highlighted the inefficiencies of classic inventory models that were developed using mathematical optimization techniques. The interrelationship of inventory levels with other important operational aspects such as push/pull strategy, setup times, capital costs, multi skilled employees, and strong supplier relationships were not explicitly considered in the classic inventory models, partly due to the constraints placed by the methodological orientation. Yet, in hindsight it is clear that an explicit consideration of these interrelationships in research investigations pertaining to inventory models would have been a worthy undertaking much earlier. While theories with a small number of constructs may lend themselves well to analytical validation, integrating components across multiple theories or exploring single theories with a large number of constructs may require empirical investigation. Regardless of how a new or reformulated theory is created, it is important to ensure the possibility of validation and refinement of the resultant theory. Indeed, when building CASN theories, such validation can be accomplished via many different methodologies

15

such as analytical, simulation-based, empirical, or archival. For example, analytical models of inter organizational industrial systems have existed for many years and have been the focus of many researchers' efforts. Within small physical-scale models, closedform mathematical equations have been leveraged to expose detailed relationships between multiple variables within and across organizational boundaries. Mathematical programming optimization models have also been leveraged to provide insight for improved decision making. However, analytical tractability for the most realistic situations (e.g., in a CASN) is often limited in its ability to obtain solutions for problems of reasonable size. Thus, analytical efforts of a CASN may require a different orientation from the optimization approach that is currently commonplace in studies investigating supply chain issues. The impact of uncertainties within a many-entity environment may overwhelm the limited robustness of small-scale globally optimal solutions. Furthermore, the adaptive nature of CASN entities must allow for reactive decision making within, and in response to, their changing surroundings. New investigations of analytical models that seek to mitigate risk and improve decisions through maintaining multiple alternative policies that can be implemented contingent upon specific changes in larger-scale theoretical models should lead to improved supply chain performance. Methodologically, computer-based simulations have been leveraged for interorganizational supply network research as well (Lin & Shaw, 1998; Swaminathan, Smith, & Sadeh, 1998; Tan, 1999; Chatfield, 2001; Chatfield et al., 2004; Sawaya, 2006; Pathak et al., 2007). Some of the earliest work in the area was performed by Forrester (1961), who used simulation to examine system dynamics within a supply chain. Simulations of CASNs can allow for entities to adjust their decisions in response to their environments as well as the actions of other entities. Such a methodology is powerful in that it can generate results about larger-scale systemic behavior in ways that are analytically intractable. Simulations also provide a method for examining the dynamic behavior of systems in addition to potential steady-state behavior. Unfortunately, when compared to the specific results often obtained from analytical models via proofs or bounds, the ability of simulations may be limited when definitively extrapolating the inner workings of large-scale systems to the overall system behavior. Consider the example of the beer game (Sterman, 1989) in which local firms are making reordering decisions (small-scale decision change) that lead to the bullwhip effect due to excessive ordering at each tier in the supply network (large-scale performance change). Such an effect has been investigated using agent-based computer simulation. One of the interesting effects that has been observed in these simulations has been an overall unstable behavior (in the form of wild order fluctuations) under certain simulation conditions in which the local agents have unlimited memory about the order fulfillment history of their suppliers and the order history of their customers (Sawaya, 2006). This is due to the agents' overreaction to late orders, whereby the agents keep placing larger and larger orders as they adjust their reorder point to compensate, leading to fluctuations and system instability.

16

The example highlights the possibility of generating extraneous system effects due to a particular implementation of the simulation model with specific behaviors. In this beergame context, when the memory of the agents is limited, the system instability is reduced. It is challenging to use simulation to prove anything, but it allows researchers to understand something important about the likelihood of different outcomes. Naturally, simulation is subject to many of the same limitations as analytical and other models, for example, lack of robust empirical data to drive or motivate the simulation, the inherent assumptions, or artifacts introduced because of the way the simulation has been implemented. Therefore, caution must be exercised and simulation studies probably need to be augmented with rigorous additional research efforts via empirical and analytical methodologies that thoroughly examine the connections between small-scale decisions and large-scale performance in a CASN. Empirical methodologies are likely to be an important contributor to CASN theorydevelopment efforts as they establish a link to industry reality, providing validation and ensuring the practicability of model prescriptions. Because one of the advantages of the CASN view of supply networks is its ability to incorporate increasing realism into models and theories of supply networks, empirical data are essential for the development of CASN theory. Empirical methods will always carry significant motivational weight in the OM and SCM disciplines. However, researchers often face challenges with data collection and with the complexities that empirical data introduce into supply-network conceptualizations and models. One example of empirical research comes from Choi and Hong (2002), in which they use an inductive case-study approach to build propositions about supply networks. In any case, as researchers become more familiar with the power of CASN, they will perhaps be less hesitant to incorporate complicated real-world data into theory and models of supply networks. It is also possible that, as various organizations recognize the benefits of more complex supply-network representations, they will be more willing to allocate the necessary resources for detailed empirical data collection and analysis. Finally, archival data methodologies can aid in the collection of data to investigate the evolution of supply networks. For example, Utterback (1994) determined the dynamics of industrial growth by using census data and Christensen (1997) used archival data on disk drives and their makers over time to develop the theory of disruptive technology. Such data can be mined to examine how a particular industry evolved and to investigate what other evolutionary paths might have been followed. Within a CASN context, Pathak (2005) used archival demand data from the U.S. automobile industry to investigate factors affecting the evolution and growth in a supply network. The complexity and multidimensionality of a CASN paradigm, as well as the diversity of research questions, rule out the use of a single approach. A combination of approaches is necessary to adequately explore difficult issues such as multidirectional causalities, simultaneous and time-lagged effects among variables, nonlinearities, cyclical feedback mechanisms, and path dependencies. Furthermore, the normal means of applying methodologies may require modification for application within the CASN context. Creatively combining the strengths of analytical, simulation, empirical, and archival

17

methodologies will be essential when generating, establishing, and refining theories within an integrated body of knowledge. As an example, consider leveraging multiple methodologies in developing new strategies for bullwhip mitigation within a CASN context (Murray, 2007). Analytical methodologies are capable of determining how order variance can be reduced by strategically leveraging negatively correlated demand streams or demand information from multiple downstream supply network participants. Simulation can provide verification of analytical results while extending them to examine the indirect cost reductions that result at firms further upstream. Empirical studies could be used to investigate the applicability of these mitigation strategies in real-world supply networks or perhaps even identify where they are already in use. Further, archival data can be used to demonstrate the prevalence of the problem in an industry. Based on the discussions thus far, it is clear that future CASN research offers an exciting perspective to extend known problems and also a new set of problems to address. In Table 2, we summarize sample research questions that could be addressed by embracing the complexity and adaptivity perspective. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS SCM research examines the systems that span organizational boundaries. To date, the field has amassed a large and insightful collection of research that focuses on dyadic relations and phenomena that arise in tightly coupled, integrated systems (Beamon, 1998; Vonderembse et al., 2006). Largely absent from this body of work has been research that examines the broader, network-level effects that exist in real-life supply networks. In such networks, cause and effect are not simple, behavior is dynamic, and the actions of any firm in the network can potentially affect any other firms in the network. Complexity science provides a conceptual and methodological framework that enables consideration of these network-level issues. In this position paper we present a CASN perspective as a means to supplement and augment existing SCM theories and practices. For example, while the issue of visibility is central to research that examines collaborative planning and inventory management among members of a supply chain, a CASN perspective would require researchers to extend the concept of visibility to an entire network of firms that may only be indirectly connected to the buying firm. Thus, as the practices of supply chain managers change over the future from a dyadic-only perspective to more of a network perspective, new research concerning supplier selection and supplier relations should be conducted in order to identify new best practices emerging from such new types of decision making. Table 2: Potential research issues and questions for building complex adaptive supply network (CASN) theory. To perform CASN research, we believe that supply chain researchers will need to draw from a rich variety of research methodologies. Whereas most existing supply chain research has focused on variance studies using surveys, discrete-event simulation, case studies of dyads, or analytical models, CASN research requires agent-based and

18

computational models, process models that are dynamic and generative, and case studies of larger ensembles of firms. Both computational and qualitative methods provide means to capture complex cause and effect, nonlinearity, ambiguity, and dynamism; however, these are difficult methodologies to implement in a rigorous way, and so CASN researchers will possibly have to define and uphold extremely high methodological standards in order for their work to be valid and have impact. A CASN perspective has the potential to be particularly important to decision making activities in a supply network. For a supply network manager, a CASN perspective offers a new language and a new mental model from which to view the business world, draw interesting insights, and make decisions. A CASN perspective may aid a supply network manager in making decisions while keeping the adaptivity of other firms, the complexity of the overall system, and the surrounding environment in mind. Furthermore, a CASN perspective will help enable researchers to study the effects of decision making at the network level, as a supply network is ultimately a complex web of decision making. Supply networks today are being forced to take a growing amount of information into account as more data continue to become available both from the surrounding environmental context and from increased numbers of evolving supply network partners. Organizations that are unable to interpret and leverage vast amounts of information from changing and interconnected sources may face legal liabilities and will likely fail to maintain adequate performance in the competitive environment. Thus, information and decision-science researchers are likely to play an important role in helping to determine the future of decision making within these CASN contexts. A paradigm shift toward embracing and integrating principles from complexity science has already occurred in many other disciplines. Recent SCM research that draws analogy between supply networks and CAS suggests this discipline may be embarking on a similar change (Swaminathan et al., 1998; Choi et al., 2001; Surana et al., 2005). We urge the SCM research community to leverage the CAS perspective for integrating existing knowledge and further investigating the complexity and adaptivity that inherently exist within supply networks. These efforts would benefit from a generally accepted foundation within which theories can be combined and on which future efforts can build. Creation of such a foundation is well beyond the scope of any single article such as this. What is required is both authoritative identification of, and agreement on, the conceptually appropriate and empirically valid constructs that can be applied to supply network systems framed as CAS. With such a foundation, the SCM field will be poised for both integrating existing knowledge into a structured body of knowledge, thus extending its relevance and applicability to real-world industry. FOOTNOTE * We sincerely thank Professors Thomas Choi (Arizona State University), David Dilts (Vanderbilt University), and Kevin Dooley (Arizona State University) for their help, guidance, and support.

19

REFERENCES Abell, B., Serra, R., & Wood, R. (1999). Strategic thinking and the new science (Book review). Emergence, 1(2), 71-79. Alaywan, Z., Wu, T., & Papalexopoulos, A. D. (2004). Transitioning the California market from a zonal to a nodal framework: An operational perspective. Presentation made at IEEE Power Engineering Society, Power Systems Conference and Exposition, New York. Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabasi, A. L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378-382. Aldunate, R. G., Pena-Mora, F., & Robinson, G. E. (2005). Collaborative distributed decision making for large scale disaster relief o Aldunate, R. G., Pena-Mora, F., & Robinson, G. E. (2005). Collaborative distributed decision making for large scale disaster relief operations: Drawing analogies from robust natural systems. Complexity, 11(2), 28-38. Allen, P. M., & Strathern, M. (2003). Evolution, emergence, and learning in complex systems. Emergence, 5(4), 8-33. Amaral, L. A. N., & Uzzi, B. (2007). Complex systems-A new paradigm for the integrative study of management, physical, and technological systems. Management Science, 53, 1033-1035. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10, 216-232. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Organizational environments and industry exit: The effects of uncertainty, munificence and complexity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 675-711. Anderson, P. E., Jensen, H. J., Oliveira, L. P., & Sibani, P. (2004). Evolution in complex systems. Complexity, 10(1), 49-56. Anderson, R., Issel, L., & McDaniel, R., Jr. (2003). Nursing homes as complex adaptive systems: Relationship between management practice and resident outcomes. Nursing Research Policy, 52(1), 12-21. Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, N. B., & Lane, D. (1997). Economy as an evolving complex system II process and emergence in the economy. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute.

20

Axtell, R. A. (2003). Toward behavioral realism in retirement models: From micro simulation to agent-based modeling. Presentation made at the Conference on Improving Social Insurance Programs, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Barabasi, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Beamon, B. M. (1998). Supply chain design and analysis: Models and methods. International Journal of Production Economics, 55, 281-294. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). "Coopetition" in business networks-to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411-426. Bhan, A., & Mjolsness, E. (2006). Static and dynamic models of biological networks. Complexity, 11(6), 57-63. Braha, D., & Yaneer, B.-Y. (2007). The statistical mechanics of complex product development: Empirical and analytical results. Management Science, 53, 1127-1145. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Burke, M. A., Founder, G. M., & Prasad, K. (2006). The emergence of local norms in networks. Complexity, 11(5), 65-83. Cachon, G., & Lariviere, M. (1999). Capacity choice and allocation: Strategic behavior and supply chain performance. Management Science, 45, 1091-1108. Carley, K. (2003). Validating computational models. CASOS working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Carley, K. M. (forthcoming). "Dynamic network analysis" in the summary of the NRC workshop on social network modeling and analysis. In R. Breiger & K. M. Carley (Eds.), National Research Council. Carlisle, Y, & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive systems perspective. E:CO, 8(1), 2-9. Chatfield, D. C. (2001). SISCO and SCML-Software tools for supply chain simulation modeling and information sharing. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. Chatfield, D. C., Kim, J. G., Harrison, T. P., & Hayya, J. C. (2004). The bullwhip effectimpact of stochastic lead time, information quality, and information sharing: A simulation study. Production and Operations Management, 13, 340-353.

21

Chiles, T., Meyer, A., & Hench, T. (2004). Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of Branson, Missouri's musical theaters. Organization Science, 15, 499520. Choi, T. Y, Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19, 351-366. Choi, T. Y., & Hong, Y. (2002). Unveiling the structure of supply networks: case studies in Honda, Acura, and Daimler Chrysler. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 469493. Choi, T. Y., & Krause, D. R. (2006). The supply base and its complexity: Implications for transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 637-652. Choi, T. Y, Zhaohui, W, Ellram, L., & Koka, B. R. (2002). Supplier-supplier relationships and their implications for buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49, 119-130. Christensen, C. M. (1997). Innovator's dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Cilliers, P. (2000). Rules and complex systems. Emergence, 2(3), 40-50. Dagnino, G. B. (2004). Complex systems as key drivers for the emergence of a resourceand capability-based interorganizational network. E.CO Special Double Issue, 6(1-2), 6169. Dooley, K., Corman, S., McPhee, R., & Kuhn, T. (2003). Modeling high-resolution broadband discourse in complex adaptive systems. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, & Life Sciences, 7(1), 61-85. Downs, A., Durant, R., & Carr, A. N. (2003). Emergent strategy development for organizations. Emergence, 5(2), 5-28. Ercot. (2007). Ercot nodal transition plan, accessed September 12, 2007, available at http://nodal.ercot.com/docs/po/index.html. Feynman, R., & Weinberg, S. (1986). Elementary particles and the laws of physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fonseca, M. G. D., & Zeidan, R. M. (2004). Epistemological considerations on agentbased models in evolutionary consumer choice theory. E:CO, 6(3), 4-8. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

22

Goldberg, D. E., Sastry, K, & Llora, X. (2007). Toward routine billion-variable optimization using genetic algorithms. Complexity, 12(3), 27-29. Global Logistics and Supply Chain Strategies. (2007). Supply chain complexity masters: Boeing. For Boeing, a new aircraft means a revamped supply chain. 11(3), 38-41, accessed September 12, 2007, available at http://glscs.texterity.com/glscs/200703/7pg = 38. Grimm, V. (1999). Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: What have we learned and what could we learn in the future. Ecological Modelling, 115, 129-148. Haslett, T., & Osborne, C. (2003). Local rules: Emergence on organizational landscapes. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 7(1), 87-98. Hendricks, K., & Singhal, V. (2003). The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 501-522. Hordijk, W., & Kauffman, S. A. (2005). Correlation analysis of coupled fitness landscapes. Complexity, 10(6), 41-49. Iwanaga, S., & Namatame, A. (2002). The complexity of collective decision. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 6(2), 137-158. Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of selforganization and complexity. New York:Oxford University Press. Kauffman, S. A., & Levin, S. (1987). Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 128(1), 1-45. Kauffman, S. A., & Weinberger, E. D. (1989). The NK model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 141, 211-245. Kelly, S., & Allison, M. A. (1999). The complexity advantage: How the science of complexity can help your business achieve peak performance, 1st ed. New York:McGraw-Hill. Kumara, S. R. T., Ranjan, P., Surana, A., & Narayanan, V. (2003). Decision making in logistics: A chaos theory based approach. CIRP Annals, 52(1), 381-384. Lee, H., Padmanabhan, V, & Whang, S. (1997). Information distortion in supply chains: The bullwhip effect. Management Science, 43, 546-558. Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43, 934-951.

23

Levinthal, D. A., & Warglien, M. (1999). Landscape design: Designing for local action in complex worlds. Organization Science, 10, 342-357. Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10, 535-550. Lichtenstein, B., Carter, N., Dooley, K., & Gartner, W. (2007). Dynamics of organizational emergence: Pace, punctuation, and timing in nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 236-261. Lichtenstein, B., Dooley, K., & Lumpkin, T. (2006). An emergence event in new venture creation: Measuring the dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 153-175. Lin, F. R., & Shaw, M. J. (1998). Reengineering the order fulfillment process in supply chain networks. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 10, 197-229. Lissack, M. R., & Letiche, H. (2002). Complexity, emergence, resilience, and coherence: Gaining perspective on organizations and their study. Emergence, 4(3), 72-94. McCarthy, I., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P., & Rose-Anderssen, C. (2006). New product development as a complex adaptive system of decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 437-456. McKelvey, B. (1999). Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science, 10, 294-323. Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 441-454. Mizraji, E. (2004). The emergence of dynamical complexity: An exploration using elementary cellular automata. Complexity, 9(6), 33-42. Murray, M. (2007). Mitigating the bullwhip effect through demand portfolio management. Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, TX. Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167-256. Nilsson, F., & Darley, V. (2006). On complex adaptive systems and agent-based modeling for improved decision-making in manufacturing and logistics settings. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26, 1351-1373. Pathak, S. D. (2005). An investigative framework for studying the growth and evolution dynamics of supply networks. Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

24

Pathak, S. D., Dilts, D. M., & Biswas, G. (2007). On the evolutionary dynamics of supply network topologies. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 54(4), 1-11. Peltoniemi, M. (2006). Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. E.CO, 8(1), 10-19. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Richardson, K. A. (2004). Systems theory and complexity: Part 1. E.CO, 6(3), 75-79. Richardson, K. A. (2005). Systems theory and complexity: Part 3. E.CO, 7(2), 102-114. Richardson, K. A. (2007). Systems theory and complexity: Part 4. The evolution of systems thinking. E.CO, 9(1), 166. Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2002). Organizational sticking points on NK landscapes. Complexity, 7(5), 31-43. Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2007). Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Science, 53, 1068-1085. Sawaya, W. J. (2006). The performance impact of the extent of inter-organizational information sharing: An investigation using a complex adaptive system paradigm and agent-based simulation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Inter-firm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53, 11131126. Schmenner, R. W., & Swink, M. L. (1998). Conceptual note on theory in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 97-113. Shalizi, C. R. (2001). Causal architecture, complexity and self-organization in time series and cellular automata. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 41-48. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16, 101-122. Skvoretz, J. (2003). Complexity theory and models for social networks. Complexity, 8(1), 47-55.

25

Sterman, J. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35, 321-339. Stiller, J. C. (2003). Adaptive online learning of generative stochastic models. Complexity, 8(4), 95-101. Stoica-KlVer, C, & KlVer, J. R. (2007). Interacting neural networks and the emergence of social structure. Complexity, 12(3), 41-52. Strogatz, S. H. (1994). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Surana, A., Kumara, S., Greaves, M., & Raghavan, U. N. (2005). Supply chain network: A complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 43, 4235-4265. Swaminathan, J., Smith, S. F., & Sadeh, N. M. (1998). Modeling supply chain dynamics: A multiagent approach. Decision Sciences, 29, 607-632. Tan, G. W. (1999). The impact of demand information sharing on supply chain network. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Thadakamalla, H. P., Raghavan, U. N., Kumara, S. R. T., & Albert, R. (2004). Survivability of multi-agent based supply networks: A topological perspective. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(5), 24-31. Twomey, D. F. (2006). Designed emergence as a path to enterprise sustainability. E.CO, 8(3), 12-23. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Boston:Harvard Business School Press. Varga, L., & Allen, P. M. (2006). A case-study of the three largest aerospace manufacturing organizations: An exploration of organizational strategy, innovation and evolution. E.CO, 8(2), 48-64. Vonderembse, M. A., Uppal, M., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2006). Designing supply chains: Towards theory development. International Journal of Production Economics, 100, 223-238. Van Winkle, W., Rose, K. A., & Chambers, R. C. (1993). Individual-based approach to fish population dynamics: An overview. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 122, 397-403. Waldrop, M. M. (2003). Chaos Inc. Red Herring, accessed July 15th 2007, available at http://www.redherring.com.

26

Williams, G. P. (1997). Chaos theory tamed. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media. Wollin, D., & Perry, C. (2004). Marketing management in a complex adaptive system. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 556-572. Wright, S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, cross-breeding and selection in evolution. Proceedings of XI International Congress of Genetics, 1, 356-366. Zhang, W.-B. (2002). Theory of complex systems and economic dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 6(2), 83-101. AUTHOR_AFFILIATION Surya D. Pathak[dagger] Engineering Management Program, School of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, VU Station B 351831, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235, e-mail: surya.pathak@vanderbilt.edu Jamison M. Day Department of Decision and Information Sciences, Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Melcher Hall 290D, Houston, TX 77204, e-mail: jmday@uh.edu Anand Nair Department of Management Science, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, e-mail: nair@moore.sc.edu William J. Sawaya Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 220 Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, e-mail: wjs32@cornell.edu M. Murat Kristal Operations Management and Information Systems Department, Schulich School of Business, York University, 4700 Keele Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3, e-mail: MKristal@schulich.yorku.ca Surya Pathak is a research associate and a lecturer in the engineering management program at Vanderbilt University, School of Engineering, Nashville, TN. He received his PhD in interdisciplinary management of technology from Vanderbilt in 2005. He is currently conducting research in the area of complex adaptive supply networks, decision

27

making under risk and uncertainty, supply network design, supply relationship management, and policy design for large-scale systems. His methodological orientations include agent-based simulations and cellular automaton models on grid computing infrastructure along with mathematical modeling, robust and reliability-based design optimization, archival data analysis, and game theoretic modeling techniques for investigating policy implications in diverse domains, such as manufacturing and health care supply networks, transportation networks, and super networks. Dr. Pathak's work has been published or is under consideration in the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of Operations Management, International Journal of Production Research, and Transportation Research Records. Jamison M. Day is an assistant professor of supply chain management in the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. Prior to obtaining his PhD in operations management and decision science at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, he served as the chief technology officer of Advanteq, LLC, a technology and business development firm. He has more than 12 years of experience in information system and decision support technology, and his clients include Microsoft, Pain Enterprises, Smith Research Center, the Journal of American History, and Xylor Medical Systems. He has published articles appearing in publications including European Journal of Operational Research, OMEGA, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, and World Energy Monthly Review, and he has presented findings at several regional and national conferences. His research interests include complexitybased supply chain management strategies, improving disaster relief coordination, coordination of distributed solution methodologies, and intuition refinement. Anand Nair is an assistant professor in the Department of Management Science at the University of South Carolina. He earned his PhD in business administration from the Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University. Professor Nair's current research interests are in me areas of supply chain relationship management, supply chain risk management, network analysis, quality management, and technology management. His methodological orientation for research includes qualitative and quantitative empirical methods, computational experiments using complexity theory and complex adaptive systems approach, discrete-event simulations, data envelopment analysis, and mathematical modeling using optimal control theory and game theory. Professor Nair's research articles have been published in Journal of Operations Management, European Journal of Operational Research, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, International Journal of Production Research, and other journals. Professor Nair is an Area Editor for Operations Management Research and also serves on the Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Operations Management. William J. Sawaya III is a postdoctoral associate in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. He earned his PhD in business administration in the Department of Operations and Management Science in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. His research interest spans many arenas of operations management with a focus on supply chain management, supply chain risk management, and new product development. His current research

28

focuses on the impact of interorganizational information sharing within supply network contexts, and the economic impact of catastrophic supply disruptions. Methodologically, he emphasizes the use of empirical data in models of operations systems, including agentbased simulation and other analytic models, and the application of a complex adaptive system paradigm in modeling organizations. Dr. M. Murat Kristal is an assistant professor of operations management at Schulich School of Business at York University, Toronto, Canada. He teaches in the areas of operations management/strategy, supply chain management, and statistical models. Dr. Kristal graduated from the Operations Management Department in the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests focus on the areas of supply chain, operations management, and strategy. His current research spans from how supply chains adapt to their competitive environments in order to survive in hyper competition to which factors enable manufacturers to achieve mass customization capabilities and to various strategy problems that manufacturers face in their operations.

29