Ecosystem – Kuncoro Wastuwibowo

IEEE HTC 2025

The IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (HTC) 2025 was carried out at Chiba University of Commerce, Japan, from 28 September to 1 October, bringing together global visionaries under the theme “Beyond SDGs, A New Humanitarian Era with Intelligent Partners.” The conference highlighted the synergy between human intellect and emerging intelligent systems in advancing humanitarian impact through technology.

During the Opening Ceremony, Grayson Randall, President of the IEEE Humanitarian Technologies Board (HTB), delivered an address emphasising the special position of the engineering profession in improving and enhancing the quality of life. His message underscored that engineers are not merely problem-solvers but architects of hope, capable of bridging innovation with social responsibility. He further presented new opportunities within HT programmes to stimulate inclusive and impactful projects across the Asia-Pacific region. On the second day, IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall presented a visionary keynote speech outlining IEEE’s roadmap for advancing the engineering profession in alignment with global human development goals. She articulated how IEEE’s strategic directions, from digital ethics to sustainable innovation, converge towards one essential mission, the enhancement of human life quality through intelligent collaboration.

On Day 3 (1 October), I delivered my presentation in Special Program 15, titled “Synergy for Sustainable Impact.” The session, moderated by Allya Paramitha, brought together distinguished panellists Hidenobu Harasaki, Husain Mahdi, Agnes Irwanti, Bernard Lim, Chie Sato, Saurabh Soni, and your truly. The discussion explored collaborative mechanisms between technology, policy, and social innovation to accelerate humanitarian outcomes through sustainable synergy. I often begin my presentations on synergy, ecosystems, and industry collaboration by framing them within the principles of complexity theory, illustrating how synergies can generate emergent, non-linear value in complex socio-technical ecosystems. These emergences are the key to the transformations central to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in fostering inclusivity, resilience, and equity.

Drawing from Indonesia’s national vision, I illustrated how the MSME commerce ecosystem has become a model of humanitarian technology application in real-world contexts. Through programmes focusing on microfinance, digital platforms, and cooperative empowerment, the framework demonstrated how technology can elevate non-consumption markets into productive and sustainable systems. I also shared case studies in which IEEE Indonesia SIGHT in Sociopreneurship and Sustainability provides capability building for IEEE Indonesia Student Branches, each designing local solutions including solar-powered water systems, IoT monitoring, and sociopreneurship incubation, as currently being undertaken by Gadjah Mada University and Udayana University. These projects exemplify how engineering-led engagements can evolve into community-driven sociopreneurship, ensuring sustainability through ownership, replication, and measurable impact.

On Day 0 (28 September), I provided a briefing on these programmes to IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall and HTB President Grayson Randall. These exchanges laid the groundwork for advancing IEEE humanitarian initiatives in Indonesia and the Asia-Pacific region, focusing on digital ecosystems, sociopreneurship, and sustainable innovation models. I also discussed these programmes during Special Program 13 (30 September), “From Innovation to Impact: Advancing IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives”, where I joined the HTA Forum to discuss strategic alignment between IEEE humanitarian frameworks and regional ecosystem development.

The IEEE R10 HTC 2025 stood out not only as a conference of ideas but as a living demonstration of synergy, the fusion of intellect, empathy, and technology. The conference reaffirmed a timeless truth, engineering is not merely about machines or systems, but about humanity itself. The IEEE R10 HTC 2025 thus marked another milestone in the collective journey to build a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable world, powered by both human insight and intelligent innovation.

Synergy Value as Emergence

When considering mergers, acquisitions, alliances, or even intra-group synergies, it is useful to shift our perspective away from additive arithmetic and towards the philosophy of emergence. In complex systems, including business ecosystems as complex adaptive systems, value does not reside solely within the parts; rather, it arises through the patterned interactions between them. This emergent phenomenon is precisely what in corporate finance is labelled synergy value. In formal terms, we may describe the total incremental value of a collaboration as

where V(x; G) denotes the value of the whole system, generated by the vector of resources and activities x under a specific governance structure G, and ∑V represents the value of each entity in isolation. The very fact that ΔV may be greater than zero testifies to emergence: complementarities in action, dependencies properly orchestrated, and adaptive patterns unfolding across the system.

The Levers of Emergent Synergy

Four principal levers determine whether emergent value materialises or evaporates. The first is complementarity, or what economists term supermodularity. This describes the situation in which activities reinforce each other such that the marginal return of undertaking one activity is enhanced by the undertaking of another; formally, the cross-partial derivatives are positive (𝛿²V/𝛿xi 𝛿xj > 0). It is here that the popular slogan “one plus one equals more than two” has rigorous grounding.

The second lever is the interdependence structure. Every collaboration has a topology of dependencies, where some assets act as complements, others as substitutes, and some nodes become bottlenecks through which the value of the entire system is channelled. In business ecosystems, mapping this structure is indispensable, for it often dictates whether modularity and flexible linkages suffice, or whether full absorption is required.

The third lever is defined by the adaptive rules of the system. A collaboration is not static; it is a complex adaptive system in which local decisions, feedback loops, and routines create new global patterns. Where local experimentation is permitted, and where feedback loops are properly designed, valuable behaviours diffuse through the organisation or alliance. Where rigidity prevails, the system is condemned to stasis, and synergy remains a theoretical promise rather than an emergent reality.

Finally, there is the matter of orchestration capacity. This refers to the dynamic capabilities of leadership—sensing opportunities, seizing them through resource allocation, and reconfiguring the system as environments change. Ashby’s principle of requisite variety reminds us that the variety of governance and decision-making tools must match the variety and volatility of the environment. Without adequate orchestration, even strong complementarities and favourable topologies may collapse under the weight of integration costs.

Applications Across Collaboration Types

In mergers and acquisitions, the choice of integration model should mirror the degree of interdependence. The celebrated Haspeslagh–Jemison framework reminds us that absorption is not always optimal; linkage or preservation may unlock more emergent value when autonomy is vital. The risk of the so-called synergy mirage lies precisely in misjudging complementarities and ignoring the time it takes for emergent patterns to stabilise. Thus, every acquisition is less a completed transaction than a hypothesis about the future, whose proof lies in the integration process.

In alliances and joint ventures, synergy takes the form of options on emergence. Here, limited commitments allow parties to test complementarities without over-committing capital. The collaborative form is well-suited to contexts of uncertainty, where exploration of emergent patterns is required. Ecosystem logic also applies: co-opetition and the management of network externalities often define the extent of emergent value.

For intra-group business synergy, emergence must be cultivated across corporate units. Here, Herbert Simon’s notion of near-decomposability becomes instructive: groups should design modular interfaces so that subsidiaries adapt locally yet align globally. To maintain cooperation, emergent rents must be shared fairly; cooperative game theory suggests the Shapley value as one method of allocating incremental value in proportion to each unit’s marginal contribution. Without such fairness, group members are tempted to defect, undermining the collaborative potential of the system.

Measuring and Governing Emergence

Because synergy is emergent, it resists simple enumeration. Yet it is not beyond the reach of disciplined measurement. One may begin with a complementarity map, estimating where cross-partials are most positive, and therefore where joint action may yield the greatest return. Alongside, an ecosystem dependency graph may be drawn, in the spirit of Ron Adner’s ecosystem mapping, to reveal missing complements and bottlenecks whose removal could unlock value.

Where uncertainty is high, the logic of real options should prevail. Pilot projects, staged investments, or minority stakes serve as options to explore emergent potential without risking catastrophic downside. Parallel to this, a system of synergy accounting may be implemented, in which incremental value is decomposed using Shapley allocations, thereby aligning incentives with marginal contributions to the whole.

The Philosophical Bottom Line

Synergy lives not in assets but in interactions. Corporate actions—whether a merger, an alliance, or an intra-group initiative—are best understood as interventions in a complex system. When complementarities are strong, interdependencies are designed with care, adaptive rules permit experimentation, and orchestration capacity is sufficient, emergent synergy is more than a hopeful metaphor; it becomes an observable reality. Conversely, where these levers are mismanaged, the promised “1 + 1 > 2” dissolves into disappointment, integration costs, and value destruction.

Thus, the philosophy of emergence, long a staple of complexity science, is not an academic curiosity but a practical guide to business collaboration. It teaches us that the true measure of a deal or alliance lies not in the parts themselves, but in the patterns of interaction that the collaboration enables.

MSME Financing

Now about the MSME ecosystem.

The Govt has repeatedly mentioned that we have 65 million MSMEs in Indonesia, and that the MSME are the very backbone of the national economy: they contribute ±61% of GDP and provide ±120 million jobs, nearly the entire labour force. Yet for all their importance, they are treated with something close to neglect by national financial system. While state banks happily court the large corporates and property developers, the millions of small firms that keep the country running receive less than 20% of their credit. And when the MSME secure a loan, they pay dearly for it, at interest rates of 12%–18% per year, even when BI’s rate rests at 5%. A curious kind of financial apartheid: the majority does the heavy lifting, the minority enjoys the cheap capital.

The Minister of Finance, to add insult to injury, has been swifter at taxing MSME than at financing them. Efforts to broaden the tax base focus on micro firms while the big players continue to enjoy exemptions, incentives, and creative loopholes. Programs intended to strengthen domestic small industry, remain piecemeal, minimally supported, and shifted instead to use the MSME data for taxing. The rhetoric is that MSMEs are the backbone of the economy; the practice is that they are milked like docile cows for easy revenue, without being fed the credit that might fatten them into global competitors.

There is surely the KUR program the Govt always mentions, which offers subsidised credit to small businesses. In H1/2025, around Rp 133T was disbursed to some 2.3 million borrowers. That number is impressive on its own, yet it reaches only 3% or 4% of the total MSME population. And the balance is skewed beyond recognition: nearly 1.9 million of those borrowers were micro firms, a modest 159 thousand were small firms, and a mere 16 thousand were so-called ultra-micro. Medium-sized enterprises are excluded entirely, with the optimistic expectation that they will graduate to commercial loans — a graduation ceremony that only rarely takes place.

KUR is not nothing, but neither is it enough. What Indonesia needs is a breakthrough: a national credit guarantee scheme that shares risks between the state and the banks and, in doing so, brings down lending rates while opening the doors of finance to millions who are currently shut out. The idea is simple. If a portion of loans in a defined portfolio go bad, the state-backed guarantor pays part of the loss. With that safety net in place, banks can lend at lower rates and to a wider circle of borrowers.

This is not some wild experiment. South Korea’s KODIT has long guaranteed up to 85% of SME loans; Japan’s municipal credit guarantee corporations have done the same for decades, usually at 80% coverage. The US Small Business Administration runs its own guarantees on 75% to 85% of small business loans. Europe operates portfolio schemes through InvestEU. The lesson is consistent: when governments shoulder part of the risk, banks lend more, charge less, and the fiscal costs remain entirely manageable.

What would this look like in Indonesia? Imagine a scheme supporting 1.5 million loans per year, with an average size of Rp 150 million, creating an annual portfolio of roughly Rp 225T. The guarantor would cover 40% of first losses, capped at 10% of the portfolio to prevent excess. Banks would pay a fee of 1.8% p.a., softened by a small state subsidy of 0.4%. In practice, this would mean loans to small businesses priced at about 3.5% lower than they are today. The expected fiscal cost to the state would be about Rp 2.3T per year, with a guarantor capital buffer of roughly Rp 8T. For the price of a single prestige infrastructure project, the government could transform access to finance for millions of enterprises.

The institutions are already there. Jamkrindo and Askrindo could act as front-line guarantors just like KUR. PII could serve as a backstop. Multilateral lenders such as the World Bank, ADB, or IsDB could add further insurance, while state and private banks would originate the loans. Oversight and enforcement would fall to the Ministry of Finance, Bank Indonesia, and the Financial Services Authority (OJK), with the Ministry of MSME ensuring that outreach truly extends beyond Java and into women-owned and first-time borrowers.

The expected results could be far from trivial. With 1.5 million new loans guaranteed each year, more small firms would cross into the formal economy. Average borrowing rates would fall from the current 12% to 15% into the single digits. Employment would grow by perhaps one million jobs a year, as enterprises invest and expand. GDP growth would tick upward by at least 0.5%. And because borrowers under the scheme must be formally registered, the tax base would widen, meaning the program could ultimately pay for itself.

Indonesia cannot hope to reach sustained 6%–7% growth while its entrepreneurs are trapped in a high-cost credit desert. This lending guarantee program would provide them with the rain they need. Alongside, the state should push forward with digital credit scoring, drawing on tax, e-commerce, and utility data; it should open the way for SME bonds and securitisation; and it should modernise collateral laws so that machinery, vehicles, and inventory can be pledged as security, not only land and buildings.

Without accelarating these programs, Indonesia risks remaining a dual economy: one world of corporates enjoying cheap capital and tax incentives, and another of millions of MSMEs left to carry the country on their backs while paying through the nose for the privilege.

The US Trade Imbalance

The United States has long been concerned about its persistent trade imbalance, frequently attributing responsibility to its business-partner countries for the gap between imports and exports. However, it should be recognised that most of the imbalance originates internally, driven by American corporations’ strategic pursuit of short-term profits, often through aggressive offshore profit-shifting practices. American businesses with the highest capitalisation, such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft, significantly contribute to this imbalance by establishing subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland or Bermuda, legally diverting profits and depriving the US Treasury of critical tax revenues.

Apple has routinely utilised offshore structures, holding over $200 billion overseas at one point, strategically positioning intellectual property (IP) subsidiaries in countries with more favourable tax policies. Similarly, Google’s “Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich” facilitated the shifting of billions in global advertising revenue, resulting in minimal domestic taxation. These practices are typically legal yet ethically contentious, with annual corporate profit-shifting estimated between $300 and $350 billion, leading to approximately $100–$150 billion in lost US tax revenue each year, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and economist Gabriel Zucman.

In addition to technology firms, professional service companies such as McKinsey, other consultancy firms, and numerous US law firms frequently establish regional offices overseas, ensuring substantial earnings remain offshore. Although these practices are mostly legal, they highlight the significant internal roots of the trade imbalance, reflecting structural issues in corporate governance and tax policy rather than external economic aggression.

To meaningfully address these challenges, the US should initiate comprehensive internal reforms, beginning with corporate governance. A decisive shift from shareholder capitalism—prioritising quarterly profits—to stakeholder capitalism, where companies equally value long-term investments in employees, communities, and sustainability, is essential. The 2019 Business Roundtable statement was a symbolic step in this direction, but substantial action has been limited. True reform necessitates redefining executive compensation to incentivise sustainable, long-term growth rather than stock price manipulation through buybacks.

On the policy front, the US government should strengthen anti-profit-shifting measures by enhancing transparency through mandatory country-by-country financial reporting and enforcing stringent economic substance requirements. Implementing the OECD-backed global minimum tax (15%) could curb excessive offshore tax arbitrage by ensuring multinationals pay fair taxes irrespective of where they report profits. Additionally, penalising superficial offshore structures while incentivising genuine domestic investments could significantly mitigate revenue losses.

Ethically, American corporate culture should evolve to reject aggressive tax avoidance as standard practice. Promoting ethical standards and responsible business conduct, supported by public advocacy, investor pressure through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, and transparent financial disclosures, could substantially reshape corporate behaviour. Institutional investors, pension funds, and even individual consumers can wield considerable influence by rewarding ethical corporate actions and penalising short-termist, exploitative strategies.

Ultimately, resolving the US trade imbalance is not solely about external tariffs or punitive measures against other nations but requires confronting internal structural issues directly. By embracing rigorous regulatory reforms, incentivising ethical corporate governance, and committing to strategic long-term economic planning, America can effectively rebalance trade, recover significant lost revenues, and foster sustainable economic prosperity for future generations.

The Flawed Global Ecosystem Strategy

Last century, the US stood as the pinnacle of industrial power. With unmatched manufacturing capacity, cutting-edge innovation, and a dynamic domestic labour force, the US not only produced at scale, but also created a vast middle class through industrial employment. But since the early 21st century, this dominance had eroded. Despite the continued global success of Apple, Microsoft, etc, the US found its industrial core hollowed out. This paradox—where the strategy won, but the nation did not—is at the heart of this exploration.

The US led the global shift toward liberalisation and globalisation, embracing free trade, deregulation, and offshoring as strategies for economic growth and competitive advantage. These ideas crystallised during the Reagan-Thatcher era and were institutionalised in policies such as NAFTA and the support for China’s entry into the WTO. The logic was simple: relocate labor-intensive manufacturing to lower-cost countries, focus domestically on high-value services and innovation, and reap the benefits of global efficiency.

For US corps, this approach worked magnificently. Apple built one of the most valuable ecosystems in the world, with tightly integrated design, software, services, and hardware. But much of this hardware was manufactured and assembled overseas, particularly in China. Microsoft dominated software and enterprise services, but its global cloud and platform ecosystem increasingly depended on international data centers, developer networks, and supply chains that were vulnerable to political shifts.

What became apparent over time was that these ecosystem-based strategies—while brilliant in achieving scale, market control, and profitability—were fundamentally fragile. They were built on assumptions of a stable global environment, unrestricted cross-border flows of labour, capital, and data, and a geopolitical consensus that no longer exists. The COVID-19 pandemic, the US-China business war, and the rise of protectionist and nationalist policies globally exposed just how brittle these supply chains and platform dependencies were.

The heart of the flaw is in the over-optimisation for efficiency at the expense of resilience. By offshoring critical manufacturing, the US lost not only jobs but also industrial knowledge, logistics infrastructure, and the ability to rapidly pivot production domestically in times of crisis. This strategic vulnerability became clear when shortages of semiconductors, PPE, and other essentials during the pandemic brought entire industries to a standstill.

Moreover, the US model of capitalism encouraged short-termism. Public companies were driven to maximise quarterly earnings and shareholder returns, often by cutting labor costs or outsourcing rather than reinvesting in domestic capacity. Labor unions weakened significantly, and with them, the political and social infrastructure that once supported a strong working class. The cultural shift toward a “knowledge economy” reinforced the idea that physical production was less valuable than digital platforms, intellectual property, and financial engineering.

This ideology extended into the UK as well, which closely mirrored US strategies in economic liberalization. Under Thatcher in the 1980s, the UK privatized major industries, deregulated finance, crushed unions, and repositioned itself as a global hub for services—especially financial services. The “Big Bang” of 1986 opened up London’s financial markets, turning the City into a magnet for global capital. Much like the US, the U.K. allowed its manufacturing base to atrophy in favour of high-value services concentrated in the Southeast, particularly London.

However, the UK, unlike the US, lacked the scale, resource diversity, and global technological dominance to buffer the negative effects of this transition. The result was stark regional inequality, declining productivity, and chronic underinvestment in infrastructure and education in much of the country. Brexit, in many ways, was the political expression of this economic alienation—a rebellion against globalisation, centralisation, and the perception of being “left behind.”

In both countries, we see a core contradiction: while companies triumphed globally, the broader national economies suffered from fragility, inequality, and a loss of sovereignty in key strategic sectors. The ecosystem-based strategies of firms like Apple and Microsoft continue to generate massive returns, but they do so by depending on fragile geopolitical arrangements, low-cost labor overseas, and complex, just-in-time logistics networks that are increasingly prone to disruption.

The irony is that ecosystems, as conceptualised in nature, thrive on diversity, redundancy, and mutual support. Business ecosystems, as built by the tech giants, often lack these qualities. They tend toward centralisation, dominance, and efficiency, making them look more like monocultures than true ecosystems. When stress hits—in the form of sanctions, pandemics, or trade wars—these systems do not bend; they break.

So is the ecosystem model flawed? Not entirely. It remains one of the most powerful frameworks for value creation in a networked economy. But it needs to evolve. Firms must build ecosystems that are not just efficient, but resilient and adaptable. This means diversifying supply chains, investing in local capabilities, supporting the long-term health of partners, and accounting for political and environmental risks.

Nations, too, must rethink their approach. A return to protectionism is not the answer, but neither is blind faith in market liberalism. Strategic sectors must be rebuilt or supported domestically not only for economic competitiveness but for national resilience. Policies must incentivise long-term investment, regional regeneration, and industrial policy aligned with innovation.

Ultimately, the story of the past few decades is not that globalization and liberalization were inherently wrong. Rather, they were applied too narrowly, with too little foresight, and with insufficient regard for the long-term health of national economies. The US and the UK offer lessons—both cautionary and hopeful—for any country navigating the next era of global business, where resilience, sovereignty, and inclusive prosperity will be just as important as efficiency and innovation.

Signals and Boundaries

John Holland’s “Signals and Boundaries” has become a touchstone in the study of complex adaptive systems (CAS), offering an intuitive way to understand how local interactions give rise to emergent behavior. At its core, Holland’s framework posits that signals (=the carriers of information) and boundaries (=the limits that define and protect modules) play a pivotal role in the organisation, adaptation, and evolution of complex systems. His insights have helped shape our understanding of how simple, localised exchanges can lead to intricate global patterns.

The framework’s influence is widespread, resonating strongly within academic circles including the SFI. Scholars have incorporated Holland’s ideas into broader discussions on network theory and modularity, using them as a bridge between traditional adaptation models and more modern computational approaches. By emphasising the dual roles of communication through signals and compartmentalisation via boundaries, Holland provided researchers with a practical toolkit for analysing the dynamics of ecosystems, technological platforms, and social networks.

Holland’s Signals and Boundaries, read at the Soekarno Hatta International Airport

A significant strength of Holland’s theory lies in its capacity to illustrate how local interactions can generate emergent complexity. When agents within a system interact, they exchange signals that serve as feedback loops—adjusting behavior and influencing neighboring agents. Meanwhile, boundaries help maintain structure by isolating specific interactions from external noise, allowing subsystems to develop independently yet remain interconnected. This delicate balance between isolation and connectivity is what drives the self-organisation and adaptation observed in complex systems.

However, the notion that complexity is solely the product of local interactions has its critics. Some argue that focusing exclusively on bottom-up processes might neglect the role of global influences and top-down causation. In many systems, overarching constraints, environmental factors, and collective dynamics impose patterns and behaviors that local interactions alone cannot fully explain. This perspective contends that emergent phenomena may also be shaped by these global forces, suggesting a need for models that integrate both micro-level interactions and macro-level structures.

One contrasting perspective within the complexity paradigms is the idea of strong emergence. Proponents of strong emergence assert that certain higher-level properties of a system are fundamentally irreducible to the interactions of its constituent parts. In this view, while local interactions are essential, they cannot entirely account for phenomena that manifest at the macro scale. The emergent behaviors observed in complex systems may require explanations that go beyond the sum of local interactions, implying that there are holistic properties at play that necessitate a different conceptual approach.

There is also a growing consensus among some researchers that a dual approach—one that synthesises both local and global perspectives—is necessary for a complete understanding of complexity. Network theorists and systems dynamicists, for example, have highlighted the importance of long-range correlations and global feedback loops that complement local interactions. This integrated approach recognises that while signals and boundaries are crucial, the interplay with broader systemic forces can drive self-organisation and adaptation in ways that are not captured by local dynamics alone.

Holland’s signals and boundaries framework remains a seminal contribution to complexity science, celebrated for its clarity and applicability across diverse domains. It has provided a powerful lens for examining how decentralised, local interactions can lead to emergent behavior—a notion that has profoundly influenced our understanding of ecosystems, technological platforms, and social networks. Yet, as our grasp of complex systems deepens, it is equally important to acknowledge and incorporate contrasting views, such as the roles of strong emergence and global influences, to capture the full richness of complexity. This ongoing dialogue not only enriches the theoretical landscape but also drives innovation in how we model and manage complex systems in practice.

Cities Development as CAS

The research titled “Inter-City Firm Connections and the Scaling of Urban Economic Indicators” by Yang, Jackson, and Kempes, published in PNAS Nexus (Nov 2024), presents a fresh perspective on how cities generate economic output. While traditional urban scaling theories focus on how local, intra-city interactions drive economic productivity, this study argues that inter-city connections — especially through multinational firms — play an equally, if not more, significant role. By analysing GDP data from cities in the US, EU, and PRC, alongside the Global Network Connectivity (GNC) of multinational firms, the study reveals that cities with higher inter-city connectivity exhibit higher-than-expected GDP, even after accounting for population size. This finding challenges the conventional idea that urban scaling is driven solely by local social interactions, offering a new lens for understanding complexity in urban systems.

This study is an example of how complexity science can be applied to real-world systems like cities. Cities, as complex adaptive systems (CAS), exhibit emergent behaviours, such as superlinear scaling of GDP, where larger cities tend to be disproportionately more productive. Traditionally, this emergent property was attributed to denser local social interactions. However, the authors introduce a new dimension of complexity by demonstrating how inter-city firm connections serve as an additional mechanism for economic emergence. Using the concept of networked systems, cities are modelled as nodes connected by firms, and the GNC score quantifies the strength of these connections. The research shows that GDP is influenced not just by a city’s local population but also by its position within this global network. This insight extends the complexity science framework by highlighting the role of cross-city organisational linkages in shaping global economic output.

The study also provides methodological advances that enrich the complexity science toolkit. It uses Scale-Adjusted Metropolitan Indicators (SAMI) to compare how cities “overperform” or “underperform” in GDP relative to expectations. This allows for a nuanced view of which cities benefit most from inter-city connections. Furthermore, the use of multilevel regression models that incorporate both local (population) and global (GNC) factors reveals the nonlinear dynamics at play. Such nonlinear scaling, where population alone cannot explain GDP growth, suggests the presence of feedback loops where better-connected cities become more prosperous, and prosperous cities become better connected. These insights underscore how complexity science can offer more accurate, multi-layered models of urban growth, moving beyond simplistic population-based approaches.

The implications of this research go beyond academic curiosity. For policymakers, it suggests that urban economic development strategies should prioritise enhancing global connectivity. Cities can benefit from strengthening ties with multinational firms, facilitating cross-city collaborations, and becoming key nodes in the global urban network. This is a shift from the classic focus on improving only local conditions, such as infrastructure or intra-city mobility. For complexity science, this study exemplifies how theories of self-organisation, emergence, and adaptive networks can be operationalised in practical, high-impact research. The work highlights the potential for developing a more comprehensive urban scaling model that integrates both local and global processes. By bridging concepts from complexity science with urban development, the study opens new possibilities for future research into how global interconnections influence local outcomes, from economic growth to social inequality.

Source: Vicky Chuqiao Yang, Jacob J Jackson, Christopher P Kempes, 2024, Inter-city firm connections and the scaling of urban economic indicators, PNAS Nexus 3:11, DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae503

TEMSCON ASPAC 2024

IEEE TEMS (Technology and Engineering Management Society) adalah society dari IEEE yang berfokus pada bidang manajemen teknologi dan engineering. TEMS melayani para profesional yang lingkup kerjanya meliputi bidang teknologi dan menajemen, termasuk aspek inovasi, kepemimpinan, dan strategi dalam bisnis berbasis teknologi.

Pertama kali dalam sejarah, IEEE TEMS mengadakan flagship conference di Indonesia. IEEE TEMS Conference Asia-Pacific (TEMSCON ASPAC) diselenggarakan di Bali dari tanggal 25 hingga 26 September, bertempat di Prama Sanur Beach Hotel. Tema konferensi ini, “Achieving Competitiveness in the Age of AI,” mengupas peran transformasional AI dalam bisnis modern dan manajemen rekayasa. Para pemimpin IEEE TEMS, bersama akademisi, pemimpin industri, dan peneliti dari berbagai belahan dunia (bukan hanya kawasan Asia-Pasifik saja), berhimpun mengkaji inovasi terbaru terkait daya saing, manajemen rantai pasok yang berkelanjutan, kebijakan keamanan siber, inovasi kesehatan digital, dan kewirausahaan dalam ekosistem digital.

Konferensi dibuka dengan sambutan dari Conference Chair, Prof. Andy Chen (Former Presiden IEEE TEMS dan President-Elect IEEE Systems Council). Sesi pembukaan ini juga diisi dengan kata pengantar dari Prof. Andrea Balz (Presiden IEEE TEMS saat ini) dan Prof. Imam Baihaqi (Wakil Rektor ITS Surabaya).

Bersama Prof Benny Tjahjono dan Tim dari Coventry University di Upacara Pembukaan TEMSCON

Keynote speech dibawakan oleh para akademisi: Prof. Richard Dashwood (Vice-Provost for Research and Enterprise dan Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research di Coventry University), Prof. Alexander Brem (Professor dan Vice Rector di University of Stuttgart), serta Prof. Anna Tyshetskaya (Vice Rector di Sankt Petersburg University, Rusia). Setelah pembukaan, konferensi dilanjutkan dengan sesi pemaparan paper-paper hasil riset.

Bersama Prof Richard Dashwood, Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research dari Coventry University

Hari kedua konferensi diadakan berupa Industry Forum, yang menghadirkan para ahli untuk membahas tantangan dan peluang AI bagi daya saing global. Keynote speakers dalam forum ini, selain Dr. Ravikiran Annaswamy (Past President of IEEE TEMS) dan Dr. Sudeendra Koushik (President-Elect of IEEE TEMS), juga aku sendiri. Kehormatan tersendiri. Judul presentasiku adalah “Towards Complexity-Based Strategic Management.”

Setelah jeda siang, forum dilanjutkan dengan sesi panel bertajuk “Accelerating Innovation for a Sustainable Future.” Prof. Marc Schlichtner (Principal Key Expert of Siemens) menjadi pembicara utama, dengan Prof. Robert Bierwolf (anggota TEMS Board of Governors) sebagai moderator. Panel ini juga dihadiri para pemimpin ternama di bidang manajemen teknologi dan rekayasa: Prof. Alexander Brem (Professor dan Vice Rector di University of Stuttgart), Prof. Anna Tyshetskaya (Vice Rector di Sankt Petersburg University, Rusia), serta saya sendiri. Suatu kehormatan lagi buatku untuk bisa satu panggung dengan tokoh-tokoh terkemuka ini.

Konferensi ini ditutup dengan gala dinner yang diisi dengan sesi networking yang hangat dan penuh keakraban bagi seluruh peserta, termasuk anggota TEMS Executive Committee, Board of Governors, dan para pemimpin universitas. Acara ini memperkuat koneksi dan kebersamaan di antara komunitas akademik dan profesional yang hadir.

Quantum Methods in Researches

After attending a meeting with Pelindo yesterday, I attended a seminar hosted by FEB UI as part of a series themed “Conducting Impactful Business Research on an International Scale: Recent Trends, Methods, and Challenges.” Today’s session featured Agung Trisetyarso and Fithra Faisal Hariadi discussing “Research Methods: Quantum Approach to Coopetition Analysis and Disruptive Innovation.” This emerging approach leverages quantum states and mathematical formalisms like Dirac notation to model complex systems in social and economic research. By addressing uncertainty, interdependence, and multidimensional data, it opens pathways to innovative analyses of decision-making, preference patterns, and network dynamics.

Quantum methods uniquely represent probabilities through superposition (coexistence of multiple states) and entanglement (interdependencies between variables). In economics, they can model ambiguous preferences and market uncertainties, while in social sciences, they tackle paradoxical decision-making scenarios where traditional logic falls short. Additionally, entanglement provides insights into deep interdependencies, such as the impact of social ties or market ecosystems. The high-dimensional nature of quantum states allows for representing multifaceted variables, such as consumer preferences, and modeling dynamic changes over time—useful for exploring cultural shifts, policy impacts, or market evolution.

I found the discussion particularly compelling regarding its application to handling volatilities and uncertainties in economic systems and complexity-based strategies. The ability to accommodate multiple states and interdependent variables makes this approach well-suited to ecosystem-based strategies, addressing ambiguous preferences and paradoxical decision-making. I plan to delve deeper into these methods to explore their potential in advancing strategic insights.

Agree–Scala Pre-JV Agreement

Agricultural transformation is a great technological and business opportunities with huge challenges and risks, requiring strategic-level collaboration or alliance in aggregating the capabilities, resources, while sharing the business risks that may occur.

Scala, a Japanese digital enterprise aiming to enhance the prosperity of mankind through digital technology development, has requested since last year to be the strategic partner of Telkom Indonesia in developing digital platform-based agricultural business transformation. We have spent months — days and nights — to discuss the aspects of technology development, business arrangement, ecosystem empowerment, etc for this strategic alliance preparation. Today, 1 April 2024, the representative of Scala BOD has signed the Agreement with EVP of Telkom’s Digital Business & Technology.

After the signing, we will follow up the agreement with some piloting (also in Leadership Transformation called the quick-wins) as a foundation for the collaborative transformation framework. We’ll see in the next months.