Modelling and simulating the dynamics of resource deployment system

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2025.000069

Abstract

Abstract:

Resource management must attach importance to effective resource deployment. Aiming at the research of resource deployment system, firstly, as an important factor of resource deployment system, corporate technological innovation social responsibility (CISR) is analyzed. Based on this, this paper constructs a system dynamics model to analyze the changes in resource deployment system affected by CISR. The simulation model is developed using Venism personal learning edition (PLE). The results show that CISR, acted as a new factor affecting the resource deployment system, has a positive effect on resource deployment system performance. Moreover, when CISR exceeds the threshold value, the resource deployment system performance increases significantly faster, reflecting that the resource deployment system becomes more efficient. The results show that the method proposed in this paper is feasible and efficient. This research provides theoretical and practical implications for resource deployment system research.

Key words: corporate technological innovation social responsibility, resource deployment system performance, strategic uniqueness, strategic flexibility, system dynamics

Weiwei WU, Jian SHI, Yexin LIU. Modelling and simulating the dynamics of resource deployment system[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2025, 36(3): 701-713.

Figures/Tables 15

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Table 1

Variable types and initial values"

Variable name	Variable type	Description and relationship	Initial value
CISR	Auxiliary variable	CISR involves the fulfillment of CSR as the main purpose of innovation [11].	0
Future orientation (FO)	Constant	Future orientation stands for a firm’s temporal viewpoint, which refers to future is more important than the immediate and concern for long-term benefits predominates focus on short-term gains [50].	0.1
Financial slack (FS)	Constant	Financial slack refers to the underutilized and unutilized financial resource of a firm [36].	0.1
Human resource slack (HR)	Constant	Human resource slack refers to human resource in excess of the realistic needs of a firm [36].	0.1
Resource acquisition (RA)	Auxiliary variable	Firms acquire resources from stakeholders by fulfilling CISR [11].	−
Resource flow (RF)	Auxiliary variable	Firms facilitate the flow of resources between stakeholders and themselves by fulfilling CISR [14,51].	−
Resource renewal (RR)	Auxiliary variable	Resource renewal is facilitated by resource depreciation [52].	−
Resource depreciation (RD)	Auxiliary variable	Resource value declines over time [53].	−
Resource search (RS)	Auxiliary variable	Resource search is guided by future orientation to search for valuable resources for the future [33].	−
Resource absorption (RAB)	Auxiliary variable	Resources acquired through the fulfillment of CISR are absorbed by operating systems and ultimately transformed into strategic flexibility [54].	−
Resource support (RSU)	Auxiliary variable	Resources supported by financial slack and human resource slack can promote future-oriented activities [33,36].	−
Resource exploitation (RE)	Auxiliary variable	Resource exploitation driven by strategic uniqueness and strategic flexibility can help firms exploit more resources related to stakeholders [29,55].	−
Resource integration (RI)	Auxiliary variable	Resource flow from CISR is integrated to create strategic uniqueness [29,21].	−
Resource transformation (RT)	Auxiliary variable	Strategic uniqueness and strategic flexibility are transformed into resource deployment system performance [1,29,56].	−
Resource inertia (RIN)	Auxiliary variable	As resource deployment system performance rises, the use of resources may become inefficient [57].	−
Weight ($ \mathrm{\beta } $)	Auxiliary variable	Following previous research [58,59], different weights could be considered when the model is extended or tested for an empirical case.	−
Resource deployment system performance (RP)	Auxiliary variable	Tobin’s Q	−
Strategic uniqueness (SU)	Stock	Strategic uniqueness refers to the degree to which a firm’s strategy differs from the strategies of other firms in the same industry [60].	−
Strategic flexibility (SF)	Stock	Strategic flexibility refers to the ability to precipitate intentional changes and adapt to environmental changes through continuous changes in current strategic actions, asset deployment, and investment strategies [56].	−
Strategic uniqueness increasing (SUI)	Flow	Unique resources create new strategic uniqueness.	−
Strategic uniqueness decreasing (SUD)	Flow	Resource depreciation reduces strategic uniqueness.	−
Strategic flexibility increasing (SFI)	Flow	Diversified resources create new strategic flexibility.	−
Strategic flexibility decreasing (SFD)	Flow	Resource depreciation reduces strategic flexibility.	−

Table 1

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

Fig 9

Fig 10

Fig 11

Fig 12

Fig 13

Fig 14

References 62

1	ROOS G Resource deployment system implications of migrating the firm into a digital value creation paradigm. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 2018, 16 (3): 281- 291. doi: 10.1080/14778238.2018.1489358
2	WANG H, HUANG J J, CHENG X J, et al Scenario simulation of water resources development and utilization based on a system dynamics model. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2022, 38 (3): 447- 463.
3	ARCANGELI J P, BOUJBEL R, LERICHE S Automatic deployment of distributed software systems: definitions and state of the art. Journal of Systems and Software, 2015, 103, 198- 218.
4	OLAOFE Z O Review of energy systems deployment and development of offshore wind energy resource map at the coastal regions of Africa. Energy, 2018, 161, 1096- 1114.
5	RAVICHANDRAN T, LERTWONGSATIEN C Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: a resource-based perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2005, 21 (4): 237- 276.
6	HUANG G D, CHEN J, KHOJASTEH Y A cyber-physical system deployment based on pull strategies for one-of-a-kind production with limited resources. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2021, 32, 579- 596.
7	WEN C L, DONG W D, ZHANG Q C, et al A system dynamics model to simulate the water-energy-food nexus of resource-based regions: a case study in Daqing City, China. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 806, 150497.
8	BARANOVA P Environmental capability development in a multi-stakeholder network setting: dynamic learning through multi-stakeholder interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022, 31 (7): 3406- 3420.
9	BHANDARI K R, RANTA M, SALO J The resource-based view, stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and sustainable competitive advantage: the firm’s embeddedness into ecology, society, and governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022, 31 (4): 1525- 1537. doi: 10.1002/bse.2967
10	SINGH S K, DEL GIUDICE M, CHIAPPETTA JABBOUR C J, et al Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium-sized enterprises: the role of green dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022, 31 (1): 500- 514.
11	HALME M, LAURILA J Philanthropy, integration or innovation? Exploring the financial and societal outcomes of different types of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 2009, 84, 325- 339.
12	ROSA F S, COMPAGNUCCI L, LUNKES R J, et al Green innovation ecosystem and water performance in the food service industry: the effects of environmental management controls and digitalization. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2023, 32 (8): 5459- 5476. doi: 10.1002/bse.3430
13	SURIYAPONGPRAPAI T, CHATJUTHAMARD P, LEEMAKDEJ A, et al Stakeholder engagement, military ties, and firm performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2022, 29 (2): 469- 479. doi: 10.1002/csr.2212
14	USMANSHEHZAD M, ZHANG J, LE P B, et al Stimulating frugal innovation via information technology resources, knowledge sources and market turbulence: a mediation-moderation approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2022, 24 (6): 1071- 1105.
15	CHAKRAVARTY S Resource constrained innovation in a technology intensive sector: frugal medical devices from manufacturing firms in South Africa. Technovation, 2022, 112, 102397.
16	GARCIA-PIQUERES G, GARCIA-RAMOS R. Complementarity between CSR dimensions and innovation: behaviour, objective or both? European Management Journal, 2022, 40(4): 475−489.
17	PRASAD A A, KUMAR R S Challenges and opportunities of brand corporate social responsibility classification: a review, new conceptualization and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2022, 46 (6): 2071- 2103. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12844
18	XU Q, LI X, GUO F Digital transformation and environmental performance: evidence from Chinese resource-based enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2023, 30 (4): 1816- 1840.
19	LI X, XU X A comparative analysis between different resource allocation and operating strategy implementation mechanisms using a system dynamics approach. International Journal of Production Research, 2020, 58 (2): 367- 391.
20	GONZALEZ-RAMOS M I, GUADAMILLAS F, DONATE M J The relationship between knowledge management strategies and corporate social responsibility: effects on innovation capabilities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2023, 188, 122287.
21	AMANKWAH-AMOAH J, ADOMAKO S The effects of knowledge integration and contextual ambidexterity on innovation in entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 127, 312- 321.
22	DOZ Y Fostering strategic agility: how individual executives and human resource practices contribute. Human Resource Management Review, 2020, 30 (1): 100693.
23	YU W, RAMANATHAN R, NATH P Environmental pressures and performance: an analysis of the roles of environmental innovation strategy and marketing capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, 117, 160- 169.
24	BHANDARI K R, RANA S, PAUL J, et al. Relative exploration and firm performance: why resource-theory alone is not sufficient? Journal of Business Research, 2020, 118: 363−377.
25	KIANTO A, SAENZ J, ARAMBURU N Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 2017, 81, 11- 20.
26	BOCCONCELLI R, CARLBORG P, HARRISON D, et al Resource interaction and resource integration: similarities, differences, reflections. Industrial Marketing Management, 2020, 91, 385- 396.
27	UHLENBRUCK K, MEYER K E, HITT M A Organizational transformation in transition economies: resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 2003, 40 (2): 257- 282.
28	BAKER T, NELSON R E Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005, 50 (3): 329- 366.
29	OEHMICHEN J, FIRK S, WOLFF M, et al Standing out from the crowd: dedicated institutional investors and strategy uniqueness. Strategic Management Journal, 2021, 42 (6): 1083- 1108.
30	YOO S, LEE S, KIM S, et al Training and development investment and financial performance: the bidirectional relationship and the moderating effect of financial slack. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2022, 33 (2): 115- 136.
31	SIREN C, PARIDA V, FRISHAMMAR J, et al Time and time-based organizing of innovation: influence of temporality on entrepreneurial firms’ performance. Journal of Business Research, 2020, 112, 23- 32.
32	XIU L, LIANG X, CHEN Z, et al Strategic flexibility, innovative HR practices, and firm performance: a moderated mediation model. Personnel Review, 2017, 46 (7): 1335- 1357.
33	JOHNSON J L, MARTIN K D, SAINI A The role of a firm’s strategic orientation dimensions in determining market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 2012, 41 (4): 715- 724.
34	LIN W L, HO J A, SAMBASIVAN M, et al Influence of green innovation strategy on brand value: the role of marketing capability and R&D intensity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021, 171, 120946.
35	VOSS Z G, VOSS G B, MOORMAN C An empirical examination of the complex relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder support. European Journal of Marketing, 2005, 39 (9/10): 1132- 1150.
36	VANACKER T, COLLEWAERT V, ZAHRA S A Slack resources, firm performance and the institutional context: evidence from privately held European firms. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 38 (6): 1305- 1326.
37	MA H Q, LIU Y X, LI Z, et al Influencing factors and multi-scenario prediction of China’s ecological footprint based on the STIRPAT model. Ecological Informatics, 2022, 69, 101664.
38	CHEN X, XU Q, CAI J Research on the urban water resources carrying capacity by using system dynamics simulation. Hydrology Research, 2023, 54 (3): 418- 434.
39	NYAM Y S, KOTIR J H, JORDAAN A J, et al Developing a conceptual model for sustainable water resource management and agricultural development: the case of the Breede River Catchment Area, South Africa. Environmental Management, 2021, 67, 632- 647.
40	ZHANG H, ZHOU M F, RAO H G, et al Dynamic simulation research on the effect of resource heterogeneity on knowledge transfer in R&D alliances. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 2021, 19 (3): 370- 386.
41	WU C G, WANG X Y, JIN J L, et al Structure simulation and equilibrium evaluation analysis of regional water resources, society, economy and ecological environment complex system. Entropy, 2023, 25 (2): 181.
42	WANG D L, ZHU W D, ZHANG C, et al Stakeholder symbiosis in the context of corporate social responsibility. Symmetry, 2020, 12 (11): 1897.
43	TSALIS A T, NIKOLAOU E I, GRIGOROUDIS E, et al A dynamic sustainability balanced scorecard methodology as a navigator for exploring the dynamics and complexity of corporate sustainability strategy. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 2015, 32 (4): 281- 300.
44	ABDI-DEHKORDI M, BOZORG-HADDAD O, SALAVITABAR A, et al Developing a sustainability assessment framework for integrated management of water resources systems using distributed zoning and system dynamics approaches. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2021, 23, 16246- 16282.
45	MA Q, WU W W, LIU Y X, et al Impact of the synergy between technology management and technological capability on new product development: a system dynamics approach. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33 (1): 105- 119.
46	LU J, DIMOV D A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2023, 38 (3): 106285.
47	CHIRICO F, NORDQVIST M, COLOMBO G, et al. Simulating dynamic capabilities and value creation in family firms: is paternalism an ‘asset’ or a ‘liability’? Family Business Review, 2012, 25(3): 318−338.
48	DOLMANS S A M, VAN BURG E, REYMEN I M M J, et al Dynamics of resource slack and constraints: resource positions in action. Organization Studies, 2014, 35 (4): 511- 549.
49	NIEMINEN M, HYYTINEN K Future-oriented impact assessment: supporting strategic decision-making in complex socio-technical environments. Evaluation, 2015, 21 (4): 448- 461.
50	VENKATRAMAN N Strategic orientation of business enterprises: the construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 1989, 35 (8): 942- 962.
51	SHENG L, GU J, WU J How does entrepreneurial orientation influence firm performance? The roles of corporate social responsibility and institutional environments. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2023, 30 (4): 2021- 2036.
52	PETTIT K L, CROSSAN M M Strategic renewal: beyond the functional resource role of occupational members. Strategic Management Journal, 2020, 41 (6): 1112- 1138.
53	LUDWIG G, PEMBERTON J A managerial perspective of dynamic capabilities in emerging markets: the case of the Russian steel industry. Journal of East European Management Studies, 2011, 16 (3): 215- 236.
54	MIROSHNYCHENKO I, STROBL A, MATZLER K, et al Absorptive capacity, strategic flexibility, and business model innovation: empirical evidence from Italian SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 130, 670- 682.
55	CHEBO A K, WUBATIE Y F Commercialisation of technology through technology entrepreneurship: the role of strategic flexibility and strategic alliance. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 2021, 33 (4): 414- 425.
56	NADKARNI S, NARAYANAN V K Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28 (3): 243- 270.
57	AMBERG J J, MCGAUGHEY S L Strategic human resource management and inertia in the corporate entrepreneurship of a multinational enterprise. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2019, 30 (5): 759- 793.
58	SKRABA A, KLJAJIC M, BORSTNAR M K The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying system dynamics models. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2007, 16, 77- 95.
59	KHAN A, QURESHI M A, DAVIDSEN P I A system dynamics model of capital structure policy for firm value maximization. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2021, 38 (4): 503- 516. doi: 10.1002/sres.2693
60	KANG Y, ZHU D H, ZHANG Y A Being extraordinary: how CEOS’ uncommon names explain strategic distinctiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 2021, 42 (2): 462- 488.
61	ZHOU H P, YANG Y X Research on the mechanism of knowledge coupling affecting firms’ innovation results driven by digitization—based on system dynamics methodology. Kybernetes, 2022, 52 (10): 4322- 4339.
62	ZHAO B B, TANG T, NING B System dynamics approach for modelling the variation of organizational factors for risk control in automatic metro. Safety Science, 2017, 94, 128- 142. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.01.002

[1]	Xinfeng WANG, Tao WANG, Xin ZHOU, Yanfeng WANG. Research on strategic risk identification method of equipment system development based on system dynamics [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2023, 34(5): 1225-1234.
[2]	Qian MA, Weiwei WU, Yexin LIU, Zhou LIANG, Lingzhi KOU. Impact of the synergy between technology management and technological capability on new product development: a system dynamics approach [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(1): 105-119.