Emergence: Complexity and Organization

  • Log in
  • Home
    • About EP
  • Issues
    • Forthcoming
    • Classic Papers
    • Volume 20 – 2018
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 1
    • Volume 19 – 2017
      • Issue 3-4
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 1
    • Volume 18 – 2016
      • Issue 3-4
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 1
    • Volume 17 – 2015
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 1
    • Volume 16 – 2014
      • Volume 16 Issue 4
    • Volume 15 – 2013
    • Volume 14 – 2012
    • Volume 13 – 2011
    • Volume 12 – 2010
    • Volume 11 – 2009
      • Volume 11 Issue 4
      • Volume 11 Issue 3 – Complexity and Environment
      • Volume 11 Issue 2
      • Volume 11 Issue 1
    • Volume 10 – 2008
      • Volume 10 Issue 4 – Complexity and Conflict
      • Volume 10 Issue 3 – Complexity and Social Entrepreneurship
      • Volume 10 Issue 2
      • Volume 10 Issue 1
    • Volume 9 – 2007
      • Volume 9 Issue 4
      • Volume 9 Issue 3
      • Volume 9 Issue 1-2 – Complexity Science and Systems Theory
    • Volume 8 – 2006
      • Volume 8 Issue 4 – Complexity & Leadership
      • Volume 8 Issue 3
      • Volume 8 Issue 2
      • Volume 8 Issue 1 – Complexity and Innovation
    • Volume 7 – 2005
      • Volume 7 Issue 3-4 – Complexity and Storytelling
      • Volume 7 Issue 2
      • Volume 7 Issue 1 – Complexity and Policy Analysis
    • Volume 6 – 2004
      • Volume 6 Issue 4
      • Volume 6 Issue 3
      • Volume 6 Issue 1-2 – Relaunch Double Issue
    • Volume 5 – 2003
      • Volume 5 Issue 4
      • Volume 5 Issue 3
      • Volume 5 Issue 2
      • Volume 5 Issue 1
    • Volume 4 – 2002
      • Volume 4 Issue 4
      • Volume 4 Issue 3
      • Volume 4 Issue 1-2 – Complexity: Stepping Back to Reconsider
    • Volume 3 – 2001
      • Volume 3 Issue 4
      • Volume 3 Issue 3
      • Volume 3 Issue 2
      • Volume 3 Issue 1 – What is Complexity Science?
    • Volume 2 – 2000
      • Volume 2 Issue 4 – Complexity and Knowledge Management
      • Volume 2 Issue 3
      • Volume 2 Issue 2
      • Volume 2 Issue 1
    • Volume 1 – 1999
      • Volume 1 Issue 4
      • Volume 1 Issue 3
      • Volume 1 Issue 2
      • Volume 1 Issue 1
  • Aims and Scope
  • Review Board
    • Reviewer Guide
  • Authors
    • Support Videos
    • Author Guide
    • Figure Creation
    • Table Creation
    • Equation Creation
    • Reference Creation
    • Book Authors
  • Resources
    • Guidelines for Comments
    • Conference Organizers
  • Books
    • McCulloch Archives
      • Volume 1
      • Volume 2
      • Volume 3
      • Volume 4
      • Appendices

Utility-service provision as an example of a complex system

June 30, 2015 · Applied

Utility–service provision is a process in which products are transformed by appropriate devices into services satisfying human needs and wants. Utility products required for these transformations are usually delivered to households via separate infrastructures, i.e., real-world networks such as, e.g., electricity grids and water distribution systems. However, provision of utility products in appropriate quantities does not itself guarantee that the required services will be delivered because the needs satisfaction task requires not only utility products but also fully functional devices. Utility infrastructures form complex networks and have been analysed as such using complex network theory. However, little research has been conducted to date on integration of utilities and associated services within one complex network. This paper attempts to fill this gap in knowledge by modelling utility–service provision within a household with a hypergraph in which products and services are represented with nodes whilst devices are hyperedges spanning between them. Since devices usually connect more than two nodes, a standard graph would not suffice to describe utility–service provision problem and therefore a hypergraph was chosen as a more appropriate representation of the system. This paper first aims to investigate the properties of hypergraphs, such as cardinality of nodes, betweenness, degree distribution, etc. Additionally, it shows how these properties can be used while solving and optimizing utility–service provision problem, i.e., constructing a so-called transformation graph. The transformation graph is a standard graph in which nodes represent the devices, storages for products, and services, while edges represent the product or service carriers. Construction of different transformation graphs to a defined utility–service provision problem is presented in the paper to show how the methodology is applied to generate possible solutions to provision of services to households under given local conditions, requirements and constraints.

Categories

  • No categories
  • About Annotum