1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic stressed in an unprecedented way the need for flexibility and resilience in municipal solid waste management systems (MSWMS, or simply MWMS, as sewage is usually transported and treated in a different system). During the pandemic, the changes in the volume and composition of municipal waste reflected the particular sanitary and public health conditions, but also modified consumption and distribution of goods patterns [1,2]. These changes introduced severe challenges in the operation of the entirety of MWMS, from collection to materials recovery and the disposal of residues, and emphasised the need for proactive measures and built-in resilience [3,4].
Beyond the perturbations caused by the pandemic and other unforeseen events, MWMS face a number of challenges imposed by the dynamics of the current socio-technical environments of urban spaces within which they operate. Social mobility, urbanization, and immigration intervene in established consumption and disposal patterns, imposing the need for the continuous adaptation of municipal waste management systems [5,6,7]. In addition, novel packaging materials, some developed solely with the objective of recycling or reuse, as well as other developments in product technologies, also dictate the need for the continuous adaptation of waste management systems to take advantage of their properties [8]. In the same regard, the effects of the climate crisis (for instance, rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns make it more difficult to transport waste by conventional means) make the transition of the operation of MWMS towards forms of circular economy more urgent. These challenges are equally important for both developed and developing countries [5,9,10,11,12].
At the same time, the organization and operation of MWMS are influenced by the availability of novel waste treatment, recycling, and material recovery technologies [4,13,14,15,16,17], which are implemented within the framework of integrated waste management systems (IWMS), which ultimately aim at optimal process management [18]. Such systems encompass diverse stakeholders and a plurality of technologies and processes that are implemented in multi-stream waste management systems, and which extend from collection to disposal and materials’ recovery, all accomplished in a sustainable way under the imperative of circular economy [18,19,20,21].
Clearly, rigid organisations that are optimised to specific operational conditions cannot respond adequately to the above challenges. When municipal waste management systems are designed only in rational and technical terms, human and organisational issues with respect to a changing environment are usually neglected. Adaptive and resilient municipal waste management (MWM) that will be able to provide uninterrupted and effective services to citizens and businesses under varying environmental conditions are required. Also, the flexibility and adaptation characteristics of waste management organisations contribute to the objective of circular economy, as they facilitate the long-term implementation of strategies of environmental consistency [22], i.e., the waste-free embedment of processes of production and consumption in the natural environment. This implies that MWM organizations (or ensembles of organizations) must be designed to have the inherent ability to adapt their structure and operations to respond to/survive changes in external environmental conditions that are caused by any combination of the factors mentioned above. The autonomy of organizational elements is a characteristic of such organisations, because it allows each individual unit to respond to its own challenges in an independent, but coordinated, way. The Viable System Model (VSM) [23] is a model organisational structure which has been proven to adhere to the objectives of flexibility and adaptation through the decentralisation/autonomy of its operational units. The VSM establishes the necessary and sufficient conditions for an organisation to exhibit these characteristics, i.e., to be viable [23,24,25,26] Compliance with these conditions is possible only if the organisation has a specific structure of five essential functions, or (sub)systems, as depicted in the following sections of the paper. In this way, the VSM provides a sort of (loose) standard for guiding organisational design with the objective of viability, in a similar fashion that the ISO 9001 standard [27] do for the objective of total quality management (TQM), and ISO 26000 [28] and ISO 14001 [29] do for Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Systems, respectively [30].
This paper differs from the vast majority of the research output on municipal waste management systems by concentrating of the structure and operation of the organisation responsible for such a system, not on technologies and processes. Its unique research contribution focuses on the development process of a sustainable MWM organisation in the context of circular economy, i.e., how adaptation and resilience can be built in the organisational structure of a municipality by assigning certain roles and tasks to its units (division, departments, etc.). Towards this end, initially, we briefly discuss the complexity of MWMS and the difficulties that arise in their adaptation to environmental change. We then present the basic concepts of the Viable System Model, as well as elements of VIPLAN (VIability PLANning), which is a method for developing organisations with the structural and behavioural characteristics of VSM. Then, we develop a demonstrative case study of the different phases of the application of VIPLAN in a reference organisation (the Municipality of Patras in Western Greece). The application case concerns the development and assignment of new roles, tasks and responsibilities, with the objective of viability, to an existing formal organisational structure. Finally, we draw the conclusions of our research.
2. Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems and the Need for Adaptation
In general, the management of municipal solid waste extends in two principal streams, dry and wet [31]. Clearly, the composition and rate of production of mixed municipal waste is directly influenced by the socio-economic state of a country/area and its dynamics. The principal sources of municipal solid waste are homes, shops and other commercial sites, public institutions, construction and demolition sites, and urban services [32]. In the broader context of IWMS, four alternative strategies are followed: (1) the reduction of waste generation, (2) the reuse of necessary materials, (3) the collection, disposal, and recovery of recyclable materials, and (4) the conversion of waste to energy (WTE) [33,34]. These comprise a number of operations, such as waste prevention, waste reduction at the source, the recycling and reuse of waste, energy recovery from raw materials, waste treatment (thermal, biological, etc.), and the disposal of residues in properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills. The accomplishment of these operations requires the implementation of logistical activities, such as temporary storage, collection, transport, and transhipment of waste [35].
The activities involved in waste streams/processes include waste sorting at different points and with different methods [36], temporary storage in different containers and forms between generation and collection by the authorities, collection by the authorities or contracted third parties according to selected methods (e.g., door-to-door, set out-set back, backyard carry, just-in-time, drop-off or bring systems, neighbourhood and/or zone containers, green points, and buyback centres [37], and transportation, before exploitation, recovery, and eventual disposal.
Usually, in the context of circular economy, integrated waste management systems comprise different waste treatment methods and technologies, and pay particular attention to an efficient and sustainable waste-to-energy (WTE) conversion [33,38]. Overall, the objective is to apply, individually, or in combination, physical, chemical, thermal, and biological processes that result in a change in the characteristics of the waste, the facilitation of its handling, and achieving the recovery of useful materials and energy. Adequate space is required for landfilling and the operation of disposal services for the residues generated by treatment methods [39]. The currently used treatment methods include various thermal treatment (burning) approaches, a number of biological treatment (composting) methods, as well as methods of mechanical processing and sanitary landfill disposal.
Beyond the multiplicity of technologies and processes and their interdependencies, the complexity of integrated waste management systems and the related organisations is increase by the fact that they extend over socially and economically disparate districts that are interwoven with equally complex social processes which exhibit inertia to change. As a result, complex and sometimes dangerous situations arise that make planning inadequate and ineffective due to the limited flexibility built in to rigid organisational structures and behaviours. Therefore, in order to accomplish effective planning and operation, it is crucial to implement appropriate holistic organisational design methods to address complexity, as well as to manage potential risks and their consequences [13,40]. The Viable System Model approach that we used in this paper is a step in this direction.
3. The Viable System Model
The Viable System Model (VSM) belongs to the organisational cybernetics stream of the systems discipline [26]. A fundamental characteristic of VSM is its consideration of organisations as viable (living) systems. By viability it is meant that the organization (system) has the ability to maintain its separate existence, i.e., survive (does not fail) over time through learning, adaptation, self-regulation, and evolution, despite ongoing (even unforeseen) changes in its environment. Viable organisations have their own knowledge creation and problem-solving capability (24). This is accomplished through a holistic consideration of three principal organisational functions: operations, management, and niche/environment. The environment is of the same importance as, and is considered in conjunction with, the organisation per se, as no organisation can survive if its environment loses its viability [41]. In addition to the autonomy of operational units, the VSM manages complexity through recursion, i.e., considering the organisation as a “Russian doll” whose basic structure—the system of operations (O), Management (M), and Environment (E)—repeats itself at many different organisational levels as fractal.
The VSM comprises five systems that are necessary and sufficient for viability, and these are assigned to the operations and management functions [41,42,43]. System 1 comprises the primary operational activities carried out for accomplishing the objective of the organisation (implementation), i.e., in our case, for providing a waste-free urban environment in a specific district (formal organisational units, sites, areas-within-sites, etc.). To reduce their complexity, and in order to be more manageable, these activities may be further divided into sub-activities, and so on. Usually, decomposition takes place until the level of individual actions is reached. System 2 provides coordination to System 1 activities, as well as conflict resolution and stability. Coordination mechanisms include standards, protocols, operational schedules, etc. [41,44]. System 3 is responsible for delivery management. It provides resources through resource negotiation/bargaining with the operational units, maintains the organisation’s infrastructure, measures its performance (monitoring and accountability), and optimises the execution of System 1′s activities in the particular context of legal and organisational norms (cohesion). To accomplish these tasks, it maintains three related vertical information channels with System 1: resource negotiation, accountability, and legal and corporate/organizational norms. System 3* is at the same level and monitors the execution of the activities of System 1 though sporadic audits. Monitoring takes place to ensure that the management’s will is implemented, as well as to build trust between managers and the units they manage. Systems 3 and 3* provide cohesion in the operation of the organisation. System 4 scans the environment, plans, and “strategizes” (intelligence). System 4 is an innovation generator and incubator, and compensates the interests of System 3, which looks “inside and now,” with its findings of “outside in the future” [44] (or “outside and then” [41]. Finally, System 5 is responsible for overall policy making and for constructing and guaranteeing the identity of the organisation (policy), as well as for developing and maintaining the core values and ethos of the organisation. Systems 1 and 2 are the operational functions (O), whereas Systems 3, 4, and 5 provide administration/strategic management to operational activities (M). System 1 interacts with parts of the external environment through of a number of autonomous, specialised operational units, while System 4 does the same, but also employing projections of the current environment into the future. These projections are used for planning the operation of the system. All of the systems, from System 5 to System 1, are interconnected in a number of ways and information flows among them in various time scales (for the basic structure of VSM, see Section 7.4 below).
4. Methodological Design of a Viable Organization
As was indicated above, the Viable System Model is a generic model (of structure and behaviour) for a viable organisation that can adapt to environmental changes, surviving and maintaining its separate existence, and that is usually defined according to its purpose. It is structured in such a way that allows for the systematic management of complexity in the auditing of an organization for viability and in diagnosing the related issues of viability (Viable System Diagnosis), as well as for developing/designing a viable organisation (Viable System Design).
VIPLAN was developed to facilitate the accomplishment of the above tasks. Essentially, it is a participative methodology to diagnose and design a viable organization as a system according to the basics of the VSM [24,26]. Originally developed to support strategic information management, it comprises five steps. In order to explore the organisational identity that the diagnosis, or design, concerns, the first step concentrates on “naming systems” as transformational entities using the TASCOI (Transformation, Actors, Suppliers, Customers, Owner, Interveners) framework. In VSM, the system transformation is assumed to be carried out through production activities and regulatory functions, the latter regulating the execution, as well as defining, supporting, and/or servicing the former [24]. The actors are those stakeholders that carry out the work of the organisation, i.e., the transformation, the customers are those receiving the (tangible or intangible) outcome of the transformation, the owners adapt and strategically guide the organization, and the interveners are those that can define and/or influence the context in which the organisation operates. The recursive nature of the organisational model, whenever it is applied, necessitates naming systems recursively.
The second step in VIPLAN is to identify the activities of the systems defined in step 1, and their interrelationships. The activities are necessary for carrying out the transformation. A hierarchical structure of primary and supporting activities is assumed, i.e., activities contain sub-activities, which, again, can be unfolded into their own sub-activities, and so on. Technological, structural, and geographical models facilitate the accomplishment of this step. In order to manage complexity locally, the third step (“unfolding complexity”) deals with uncovering the recursive structure of the organisation, whereas the fourth step includes the discussion and design of the distribution of resources and discretion (decision-making power) from the global level to the most basic level of the primary activities of the organisation. Primary activities are the activities responsible for the production of the services (or products) of an organisation, whereas regulatory/support functions are responsible for the production, regulation, and support of the primary activities [24]. In order to be autonomous, i.e., to have a separate identity and viability, each primary activity must have decision-making power and control of its resources. This takes place through the distribution of discretion to specific roles, and indirectly determines the degree of centralisation/decentralisation of the organisation. Finally, in the last step (step 5), the design of the organisation structure as depicted in the VSM model template is carried out, taking into account the results of the four previous steps, and by allocating primary activities and regulatory functions to the functions of the five systems of the model (implementation, coordination, cohesion/monitoring, intelligence, and policy).
Usually, VIPLAN, as well as the alternative but related Self-transformation Methodology (STM) [41,45], is not employed in a strict step-by-step procedural fashion. They are adjusted according to the specific situation [46]. Recent employments of both methods emphasize their problem structuring process perspective, i.e., they are also used as a tool to facilitate participative learning in collaborative organisational diagnosis and design [26,47,48].
Beyond the specifics of the methodologies mentioned above, overall, in a more global view, the employment of VSM in organisational design entails three main phases [26,49]: The first phase concerns the definition of the focal organisation’s identity, its purpose and its internal and external stakeholders. Clearly, tools such as TASCOI can be employed to facilitate this task. The second phase concentrates on “unfolding” the complexity of the organization, i.e., the consideration and analysis of the organization as a recursive (hierarchical) structure, followed by the identification of the primary activities (production activities and regulatory functions), which are necessary to achieve the purpose at each (recursion) level. Finally, the third phase concerns the testing of the organisation’s designed viability. This is accomplished by re-considering the design of Systems 1 to 5 of Beer’s VSM model and by making queries about the structure and function of each system (from 1 to 5) in real, or simulated, conditions of (service-providing) process execution.
5. The Context of the Application Case: The Municipality of Patras WMS
The reference case used in this study for the application of VSM in the design of a flexible and adaptive organisation for MWM was the Municipality of Patras in Western Greece. Patras is the third-largest city in Greece and is the capital of the Prefecture of Achaia. It has an area of 333.14 km2 and a permanent population of 215.922 inhabitants, and it is an important commercial and tourist hub. The present spatial form of the municipality was founded under the Kalikratis local government program in 2011 by the merger of the pre-existing municipalities of Patras, Vrachneika, Messatida, Paralia, and Rion. The headquarters of the municipality are in Patras. The centre of the city is about 8 km (road distance) from the main Patras Landfill Site (Xerolaka), where, currently, all of the mixed municipal solid waste that is not recycled is disposed.
The municipality is responsible for collecting the stream of mixed municipal waste (mixed municipal solid waste), as well as the streams of large-volume, green, and recyclable waste, both dry and wet. At the time of the study, mixed waste was driven for disposal to the landfill, while the recyclable materials were transferred for processing at the Patras Centre for the Management of Recyclable Materials (PCMRM). The municipality operated separate collection schemes for various recyclable waste streams (packaging, glass, paper, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEE), etc.)
Table 1 depicts estimates of the volume of waste in the Municipality of Patras. The estimates, as regards the mixed, green, and large-volume waste, are calculated by the amounts left for final disposal at the landfill (truck weighing forms, etc.), while, for the case of recyclable packaging materials (carton, metal (aluminium, leucoxene), plastic), the data were produced by the PCMRM. For the other streams of recyclable packaging waste, such as glass, paper, etc., the data were collected by external contractors. Table 1 provides indicative data for past years. One should notice the amount of paper (packaging) waste that started to appear in significant amounts after the beginning of the COVID pandemic (2020).
In addition to the Municipality of Patras’ operations, separate collection is implemented in cooperation with the accredited Alternative Management Systems (AMS) for: (a) packaging and other recyclables, (b) electrical—electronic devices and lamps, (c) portable batteries, and (d) textiles and footwear. At the time of the study, the responsibility for the operation, monitoring, and improvement of the activities that make up the municipal waste management system belonged to the divisions of Cleaning Recycling and Resource Management (CRRMD) and Environment, Energy and Green (EEGD) (more specifically the Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) of EEGD).
CRRMD is responsible for the implementation of the majority of activities along the waste supply chain, i.e., temporary storage, collection, transportation, and maintenance and repair of the mechanical equipment used. In order to ensure the uninterrupted accomplishment of these activities, while aiming at their continuous improvement and sustainability, the CRRMD relies on a number of support functions, such as planning and control of the separate waste collection streams, i.e., location of bins, number of bins per separate collection stream, etc.; system development and scheduling for the collection and transport of waste; system development and scheduling for the separate collection and transport of recyclable materials; system development and scheduling for cleaning public spaces and the protection of public health; and, finally, scheduling maintenance, repair, and renewal programmes for the vehicle fleet, machinery, and other equipment of the Municipality.
The Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) of the Division of Environment, Energy and Green (EEGD), in consultation and cooperation with CRRMD, also implements a number of support functions, such as planning and monitoring mechanisms and systems for the management of municipal solid waste (in cooperation with the Solid Waste Management Association or the competent Solid Waste Management Bodies); monitoring and supervision of activities related to the treatment and recovery of solid waste; and monitoring and supervision of activities related to the licensing of solid waste management projects.
Over the years, the council and the management of the municipality have given high priority to recycling and the recovery of solid municipal waste by sorting at the source. This will result in high quality clean recycled materials (paper, plastic, metal, glass), and will reduce the cost of sorting, as well as the residuals from sorting centres and processing plants. To achieve sorting at the source, the municipality has started to implement a program for continuously increasing the number of recycling corners and small green spaces, and is also acquiring equipment for biowaste collection and branch shredding.
In the near future, waste management in the municipality is going to change radically with the operation of two additional units: (1) a waste treatment unit and (2) a biowaste treatment unit. The Biowaste Treatment Unit (green) will start operating soon, as the Centre for the Sorting of Recyclable Materials and the Waste Transfer Station (WTS) will do. Significant changes to the existing waste management system will also bring the abolition of the existing landfill.
Despite these efforts, measures towards improving the flexibility and adaptability of the municipal waste management organisation have been sparse and ad hoc. Scanning the broader environment (with no clear roles and poorly established information transfer channels), and planning, monitoring, and coordinating (poorly decentralised) operations have been activities carried out in an unofficial and incoherent way. In view of the current challenges and requirements for organisational flexibility and adaptability, related initiatives are under consideration. This study is in the broader context of these initiatives.
6. Research Methodology
The research reported in this paper is a desk study undertaken by two academic researchers and an engineer who is closely associated with the reference case organisation. At the same time, as it was aiming at a number of organisational interventions, our research had some of the characteristics of action research. In carrying out the research, a number of municipality documents, as well as local and national legislation documents, were consulted for recording the organisation’s current state. In parallel, in situ visits and a number of informal ad hoc interviews with experts, managers, and employees of the municipality were conducted over a period of four months. As in other similar cases [46,49], no formal VSM diagnosis has been carried out as the existing organisation did not have the explicit objectives of flexibility and adaptation in its initial design.
The overall research procedure is depicted in Figure 1. It forms the core of our demonstrative case study of the process of development of a flexible and adaptive municipal waste management organisation.
The organisational design process followed the three generic phases of VSM development [26,49]. Hence, it comprised the following tasks/activities which were carried out by the research team, almost sequentially:
- Phase 1:
The aim was to arrive at a structured, basic definition of the system/organization of the specific operational units/divisions of the municipality. The transformation/system definition for the organisational unit was developed according to the TASCOI framework.
- Phase 2:
The aim of Phase 2 was the unfolding of the complexity of the organisation and determination of VSM systems’ functionalities. More specifically:
- Phase 2.1:
The primary activities of the MWMS were identified using information about the waste supply chain and the spatial distribution of the reference case system. Potential sources of change that impact specific activities and propagate through the system were also identified.
In the same phase, the unfolding of complexity for activities and assets was carried out through:
-. The identification of operational units (divisions and departments) of the formal organisation of the reference case on the basis of its organogram and spatial distribution within the boundaries of the municipality,
-. The mapping of different waste streams activities in their entirety (collection, sorting, transport, recycling, recovery, repair, dispose) [51].
-
Phase 2.2:
VSM System 1 units/functions were identified. The distribution of System 1 functions to the operational units defined in 2.1 was carried out.
-
Phase 2.3:
The structures, interdependencies, and functionality of VSM systems 2, 3, 4, and 5 were defined.
-
Phase 3:
Reflection on, and testing of, organisational design were carried out by revisiting design questions and by developing three brief test/demonstrative scenarios of environmental/niche change to see how the viable organisation would respond through the structure of the five VSM systems.
As depicted below in more detail, elements and tools of VIPLAN were used in the three phases as the method proceeded. Phases 1 to 3 were repeated recursively for subsystems. In effect, the aim of applying this loose form of VIPLAN was to map the production activities and regulatory functions that make up the five systems of adaptation- and resilience-exhibiting VSM to the existing organisation structures (subunits) of the unit responsible for MWM. In practice, this implied the development of a structure of new or modified roles and processes (a new modus operandi) that would implement the required flexibility and adaptability to the organisation’s external environment dynamics.
7. Design of a Viable and Resilient Waste Management System
7.1. Identification of the System
As depicted above, the process commences with the identification of the transformation that the organisation/system will carry out. For the specific MWMS of the reference case (Patras), the transformation can be expressed as
“A system that transforms legislation, operational policy, consumption, and public health and hygiene related information, supplied by central government, local authorities, citizens and other stakeholders through formal and informal channels, into roles, organisational structures, plans and operational procedures for keeping the metropolitan area of Patras free of disposed urban waste in an efficient and effective way, while making the best possible recycling and recovery of materials”.
The rest of the items of the TASCOI were defined as follows:
Actors: Managers and other employees involved in the planning and operation of the core waste management organization, as well as in peripherally related organisations (e.g., contracted private recycling units).
Suppliers: Suppliers of consumption pattern information, suppliers of waste composition information, suppliers of operations resources (trucks, waste bins, etc.), suppliers of processing, recycling, and disposal technology and facilities, and suppliers of technical and labour-related information (industrial relations, health and safety, etc.)
Customers: The citizens and the businesses, as well as other public, private, and non-governmental organizations that reside in the specific metropolitan area.
Owner: The related organizational unit(s) of the municipality of the city.
Interveners: The municipality’s council and top management, technical personnel, and external authorities related to the integrated waste management system’s design and operation.
Taking into account the vertical organisation of work and the horizontal supply chain of the waste management operations, the above-defined transformational activity of a flexible and adaptive municipal waste management organisation can be organised into four sub-activities at large (production activity and regulatory functions) that ought to be carried out for the transformation: the collection and organisation of information about citizens’ consumption patterns and public opinion, waste treatment and recycling/recovering technologies, and operations and related national and international legislation and directives; risk assessment and priority setting for responding to the challenges and opportunities present in the gathered information; the development of waste collection and transport operations that correspond to the challenges of the external environment as they are indicated in the collected information; the development of the waste treatment, recycling, and recovery operations required for responding to the dynamics of the external environment as they are also present in the acquired information (Figure 2). The transformation applies to different levels: from the entire municipality as a public organisation to its special units and sub-units that are related to different treatment technologies, processes, waste streams, and municipality districts. As was already indicated, the analysis and design steps that follow mainly concern the organisational unit(s), which has the principal responsibility for waste management and recycling in the context of circular economy.
In VIPLAN, the structure of the MWM organization is designed according to different models, each taking into account a particular dimension of the characteristics of the processes responsible for carrying out the transformation, i.e., technology, customers/suppliers, geography, and time. These constitute the complexity drivers of the environment, and, consequently, of the corresponding organisational structure. Clearly, the resulting structure is a model structure (of roles and activities organized in the five systems of VSM), on which the existing structure of the organisation had to be transitioned or mapped, if it is not designed from scratch. This means that the model structure (Systems 1 to 5) will eventually consist of activities and regulatory functions that already exist, of newly defined ones, or of a combination of the two, which is what happened in our case. The organisational design was conducted by assigning primary activities and regulatory functions to existing organisational units (divisions and departments), and then, these units to VSM Systems 1 to 5.
7.2. Structural Underpinning of Flexible and Adaptive MWM Organization
According to the above generic methodology, in the context of VIPLAN, phase 2 concerns the identification of the primary activities of the MWMS. This necessitates an understanding of the organisation according to the aforementioned drivers of complexity, i.e., technology, customers/suppliers, geography, and time, and their corresponding models. This was accomplished with the help of the corresponding models. Figure 3 depicts the unfolding of complexity for the reference organization, focusing on the organisational unit, which is principally responsible for waste management, including recycling and recovery (CRRMD). In the figure, the chunking of complexity in the model is according to customers/suppliers and, as in hierarchies, customer/supplier relationships (of command, information, etc.) exist between different levels. The figure shows that the Division of Cleaning, Recycling and Resource Management (CRRMD) is in effect a decentralized unit, implementing a matrix organisational structure along the dimensions of geography (different districts) and its constituent departments (e.g., Department of Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection (DWRMC), Department of Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance (DVEM), etc.).
In the same fashion, Figure 4 shows the technological model of the MWM organisation, whose primary activities are distributed across municipal districts and according to the technologies and technological artefacts used for dry and wet waste collection and processing.
Figure 5 presents the unfolding of complexity for the Division of Cleaning, Recycling and Resource Management (CRRMD) down to the level of primary activities that are part of the cybernetic loops formed with their environmental niches. Here, the drivers of complexity are initially customers, which correspond to the two main tasks that can be carried out independently: waste collection and recycling/recovery, i.e., households and businesses, and consumers of recycled materials, respectively. Both tasks can be further distinguished according to the state of the waste material, dry or wet. The cybernetic loops of System 1 implement the two-way interaction of each unit/activity with its local niche, according to the sequence of regulatory activities: the assessment of internal conditions/requirements, the assessment of external (niche) conditions, comparison, and the implementation of any changes under the direction of System 3 and coordinated with other activities by System 2. Each of these activities includes a number of lower-level activities (production/primary activities and regulatory functions), as depicted in Table 2 and Table 3. These tables were constructed using data from the reference case, the Municipality of Patras. They indicate the formal organisational units, which are responsible for each element (primary activity and regulatory function). At the bottom of Table 3, the acronyms used in the tables for the different organisational units are explained.
Table 4, below, depicts the relationships between the primary activities and the regulatory functions of the reference organisation as determined by the research team from the information gathered. In general, activities are defined and/or monitored by regulatory functions. For instance, the collection-and-transportation-to-landfill activity (PA2 in Table 2) requires the topological planning of collection points (e.g., bins) and the definition of collection routes (by RF1, RF2, and RF3 in Table 3), the assessment and acquisition of the appropriate technological means (RF4), the development of public awareness to dispose consistently (RF8), a certain number of resources supplied to carry out the task (RF10), proper maintenance of resources (RF11), and trained personnel (RF12). Risks must be considered and mitigated when defining activities (RF13), while activities must be coordinated with other transportation activities (RF14). Finally, each activity should be defined taking into account, and monitoring for, the appropriate safety and occupational health standards (RF17).
As a second demonstrative example, we may consider the “processing of recyclable materials” activity, carried out by a contractor. The activity is defined and monitored by the municipality. To accomplish this activity efficiently, the planning and organisation of the optimal operation of the entire waste collection and transport system is necessary (RF3). In addition, the use of the best (soft and hard) technologies for the management of recyclable materials (RF4) is required, as it is also for the efficient collection and maintenance of useful data (RF6), processes for monitoring recycling (RF7), and public awareness about recycling programs and materials (RF8). Procurement programs for appropriate resources (RF9), trained personnel (RF12), and risk management (RF13) are important factors for the specific activity. As it is (or may be) an activity carried out by external contractors, selection (RF15) and monitoring (RF16) are crucial functions for the primary activity. Setting safety and occupational health standards and monitoring contractors for compliance are crucial for both contractors’ and municipality’s personnel (RF17).
The relationships between primary activities and regulatory functions are, more or less, constant, with the exemption of unforeseen events and emergency cases when changes take place through direct algedonic (emergency) links among the five systems of VSM [44].
7.3. Development of a Viable MWM Organization Using VSM
In general, the Viable System Model depicts, in a holistic and structured way, the relationship between primary activities and regulatory functions. As was already indicated, primary activities are the constituent parts of System 1, whereas regulatory functions realise Systems 2 to 5. For the specific case of the Patras MWMS, the design of VSM’s Systems 1 to 5 was guided by a series of questions, as depicted in Table 5. Answering these questions provides leads for the exact specification of the functions/operations of the five VSM systems, as well as for assigning regulatory functions to the four VSM management systems (M).
On the basis of Table 5, and taking into account the distribution of regulatory functions (Systems 2–5), as well as the formal reference-case organisation’s units that are responsible for their implementation, the VSM Systems 1 to 5 (implementation, coordination, coherence, intelligence, policy) are depicted in Table 6. The corresponding organisational structure is given in Figure 6 and described in Section 7.4. As it becomes clear from Table 6, the Cleaning, Recycling and Resource Management division takes most of the responsibility for the viability of the MWMS by distributing discretion according to the principal drivers of complexity (geography, suppliers (dry/wet), and corresponding technologies).
7.4. The MWMS Viable Systems Model
Based on the above analysis, the systems of the Viable System Model, as formulated in response to the questions in Table 5, are outlined as below. They correspond to the structure of the MWM organization of the reference case municipality. Table 6 depicts the organisational units involved in the implementation of each of these systems.
-
System 1
System 1 is responsible for the actual operations of the different collection and recycling streams (dry, wet, large, etc.), for the different districts of the municipality (chunks of complexity and activity control using technological and geographical criteria), i.e., chunking of complexity per waste stream (dry, wet) and per district (five districts, as in Figure 6). The activities for which System 1 is responsible extend along the entire supply chain, from waste collection, sorted or unsorted at the source, to materials recovery and residue disposal. For the reference case, the tasks of System 1 are undertaken by the different districts’ units of the CRRMD, as well as by the most relevant departments, e.g., DLP for the collection and transport vehicles’ scheduling and route planning.
-
System 2
System 2 is responsible for the coordination of the operations/activities of System 1. As was already indicated, to tame the complexity, the operations of System 1 are distributed into smaller units according to geographical areas, the type of waste (dry or wet), and the processing and recycling technologies. Coordination is needed for shared resource utilization and for information routing among different waste streams. It is achieved through (common) resource (bin lorries, special cleaning equipment, etc.) scheduling. System 2 is also responsible for (re)redirecting resources when special events take place and additional resources are required for specific activities. In practice, coordination will be carried out by the DDPC and DWRMC of CRRMD, but also by divisions and units that are specific to particular resources (e.g., OSHD for human resources).
-
System 3
System 3 is the heart of planning and target performance setting using measures, such as the time to complete collection in a specific route, collection volumes, the percentage of recyclable waste sorted at source, etc. It is also responsible for resource distribution to primary activities of System 1 on the basis of different complexity chunking criteria. It is also responsible for performance measurement (developing metrics and carrying out the measurements), and for assessing the degree of efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources (collection trucks, drivers, workers, etc.). System 3′s organisational units have the responsibility for producing the “Clean city manual” addressed to all the stakeholders of the municipal waste management system. System 3 and System 3*, which carries out sporadic audits of System 1′s activities, mainly after special events such as an open air festival or the city’s carnival, will be realized in CRRMD and its departments, but also in POISD, EEGD, and other divisions.
-
System 4
By definition, System 4 is responsible for scanning the internal and external environments for important signals concerning the evolution of the municipality’s waste management system and the challenges that it faces. It receives performance data for the internal organizational environment from Systems 3 and 3*, as well as information about current and future citizens’ consumption patterns, epidemics, climate change scenarios, new packaging materials, waste processing and recycling technologies, related international good practices, etc. In addition, System 4 develops scenarios for possible future normal and extreme situations, so that the relevant departments are prepared to respond. Moreover, System 4 scans the environment for national and international legislation and directives regarding waste management or/and their updates. It also searches for external service providers and contactors that are required to implement new requirements in operations, maintenance, and training. The principal implementer of System 4′s functions will be CRRMD. However, more specialised units also contribute to System 4’s functions, such as FinD, which is involved in external contractor selection and monitoring.
-
System 5
System 5 is responsible for developing the municipality’s strategy with respect to waste management. Decision making at this level is conducted by the municipal council and high-ranking officials who need to balance political with technocratic criteria in the use of the municipality’s finite resources for specific districts, technologies, and operational activities. Here, decision making explicitly takes into account economic criteria. System 5 is responsible for maintaining a consistent identity for the waste management function across the different units that are involved by using a common language, consistent practices, and compatible technologies. In doing this, it will try to maintain the balance between exploration (new initiatives based on new methods and innovative technologies suggested by System 4) and exploitation (i.e., strengthen existing activities using performance data supplied by System 3). Risk analyses will be taken into account in decision making.
7.5. VSM-Based Integrated Waste Management Organizational Structure Brief Test Scenarios
As part of the generic VSM methodology and VIPLAN [24,26], to demonstrate how the designed organizational structure would consistently respond to external environmental disturbances, three brief evaluative scenarios were developed for the Municipality of Patras and are presented below in the context of the VSM.
-
SCENARIO A: Increased volume of waste in a specific district
The local unit of System 1 that corresponds to a specific area (Rion) informs the appropriate organisational units of System 3 (Department of Design Planning and Control (DDPC) and Department of Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection (DWRMC)) that more collecting and transportation resources are required for the area due to the weekly operation of two new farmers’ open markets. This signifies a change in the specific niche of the external environment. Depending on the permanence of the issue, resources could be assigned temporarily or permanently. Units of System 2, DDPC and DWRMC, but also operational units such as DLP (Department of Logistics Planning) and DCCAST (Department of Cleaning Common Areas and Special Teams), are prompted to adjust the coordination rules/schedules and priorities as, at least initially, some resources (collection vehicles) have to be shared with other areas.
As the increasing demand becomes permanent, System 5 is informed by System 3 units to take into account the structural modification of demand and, beyond repairing actions, to discuss in municipal governing bodies the acquisition of additional resources. The latter is a task that is assigned to System 4, i.e., to look for larger fast-loading collection vehicles and related economic vendor offers. The entire adaptation process is coordinated by DDPC in the Cleaning Recycling and Resource Management Division (CRRMD).
-
SCENARIO B: Development of a new entertainment district
An old light-industry area (handicraft and small food business) is converted into a leisure and gastronomy district with theatres, bars, restaurants, etc. All internal streets become “pedestrians only” streets. This is, again, a change in a specific spatial niche of the external organisational environment.
The local unit of System 1 that corresponds to the specific district informs the units of System 3 of the changing situation. DDPC and DWRMC employees realize that new types of resources for the collection of recyclable and non-recyclable waste are required: a light collection/transport vehicle and collection bins for glass, cartons, and food waste. This concentrated area of food and drink outlets provides a good opportunity to process and use food leftovers for composting, and even for feeding small animals in the municipal refuge. A message is sent to System 4 units to look for technologies and resources for accomplishing this task with operational and economic efficiency.
In view of plans for a second such area that are under development, System 5 is informed to examine investments in appropriate resources for the collection and recycling/reuse of waste from such areas, and for planning the integration of the areas into the brown bins municipal waste stream (bio-waste).
-
SCENARIO C: Spread of a pandemic
A spread of a new pandemic and the imposition of a lockdown increased the use of packaging, as the majority of products are now delivered by couriers. Internet-based sales of all types of products flourish, resulting in a huge increase in mostly recyclable packaging. The changes in consumption patterns and waste generation (more domestic consumption and less in businesses outside the home) are sensed for each area by System 1′s local units, which inform System 3 (DDPC and DWRMC) to redirect resources to household areas from commercial ones. Changing consumption and waste generation patterns are forwarded to System 4 units to search for appropriate systems and technologies for distribution. To increase sanitation, special collection streams for masks and other medical waste are set up under the direction of System 5 functional units. Again, System 4 takes the responsibility for the distribution of resources to the organizations (hospitals, etc.) and the areas in which they are mostly needed. Sporadic audits of the state of cleanliness and sanitation are carried out in the context of System 3*.
8. Conclusions
As urbanisation and consumption increase in uncertain times, waste management is becoming one of the biggest problems that municipal authorities face throughout the world. It also constitutes a challenge and opportunity to improve the state of the earth and citizens’ lives through various forms of recycling/reuse in the context of circular economy. At the same time, municipal waste management (MWM) systems operate in uncertain environments: consumption patterns change, even from district to district within the same municipality, new packaging materials are invented, some with the main objective of recyclability, new processing and recycling technologies appear, information technology allows for the development and implementation of complex collection and reuse schemes, and severe and extreme events, such as pandemics and the effects of climate change, take place. These impose on municipal authorities the requirement of a complex governance capacity for municipal waste management systems. This implies that MWM organisations must be flexible and able to respond and adapt quickly in complex external environment changes, as the ones mentioned above.
In this paper, through a demonstrative case study, we presented a method for the design of such organisations using the Viable Systems Model (VSM) and the related VIPLAN methodology. The VSM is a systems approach for designing viable/adaptive organisations. It provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for an organisation to be viable through flexibility and adaptability. Although VSM and VIPLAN are mostly suitable for (pure) action research, we carried out desk research with the characteristics of action research, as far as interventional potential is concerned, using the Municipality of Patras in Western Greece as a reference organisation. Using its current MWM organisation and the functional requirements for flexibility and adaptation as departure points, we determined the primary activities and regulatory functions necessary for a flexible and adaptive MWM organisation. We then allocated these elements to existing formal organisational units, which were then distributed to the five systems that make up the adaptation-and-resilience-exhibiting VSM. In this way, we developed a structure of new and/or modified roles and processes (a new modus operandi) that can implement the required flexibility and adaptation to the organisation’s external environment dynamics. Three brief cases/scenarios were used to validate, as well as demonstrate, the ability of the designed organisation to respond to external environmental disturbances.
Overall, this paper surfaced the need for flexibility and adaptation in municipal waste management organisations, and demonstrated a response to this need through the use of organisational cybernetics and VSM that emphasize the harmonious co-existence of an organization with its environment (natural, social, economic, and technological). This is one of the primary objectives of circular economy, indicating that flexible and adaptive organisations are necessary for taking advantage of the technologies and methods that research on circular economy is producing.
The value of the work presented in this paper is in the development of a demonstrative case study of the organisation design process of flexible and adaptive organisations for municipal waste management. Through the case study, the paper provides procedural knowledge for the practitioners facing similar situations. It also provides a knowledge base for researchers that want to improve related organisational design processes for similar situations.
Conceptualization, E.D.A., K.G. and Y.M.; methodology, E.D.A.; investigation, K.G.; resources, E.D.A., K.G. and Y.M.; data curation, K.G.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G. and E.D.A.; writing—review and editing, E.D.A.; visualization, Y.M.; supervision, E.D.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Additional data can be obtained from the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Structural underpinning of the municipal waste management organisation.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Unfolding of complexity of the reference case waste management organization.
Collected MSW (tones) amounts with corresponding percentages (source: [
| Year | T.Q.C. 1 (tn) | Mixed MSW (%) | M.P.W.2 (%) | Green Waste (%) | Bulky (%) | Glass 3 (%) | Paper 4 (%) | W.E.E.E.5 (%) | Sent to Landfill (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | b | c | =a + b + c | ||||||
| 2017 | 94.87372 | 85.62 | 8.97 | 4.95 | - | 0.45 | - | 0.01 | 90.57 |
| 2018 | 98.04958 | 83.05 | 9.67 | 6.38 | 0.41 | 0.49 | - | 0 | 89.84 |
| 2019 | 102.37593 | 80.22 | 10.21 | 8.56 | 0.47 | 0.54 | - | 0.00 | 89.25 |
| 2020 | 99.99696 | 80.42 | 10.51 | 7.96 | 0.62 | 0.47 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 89.00 |
1 T.Q.C. = Total Quantities Collected; 2 Μ.P.W. = percentage of mixed packaging waste separately collected; 3 Glass = percentage of glass collected separately; 4 Paper = percentage of paper collected separately; 5 W.E.E.E. = Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.
Primary activities and organizational units.
| Primary Activity | Division | Department |
|---|---|---|
| PA1: Preventive and corrective maintenance of collection bins | CRRMD | DVEM |
| PA2: Collection and transport of mixed waste to the landfill | CRRMD | DLP DWRMC |
| PA3: Collection and transportation of recyclable waste (of each peripheral Local District/Borough) to the treatment plant | CRRMD | DLP DWRMC |
| PA4: Collection and transportation of recyclable materials (Borough of Patras) to the processing plant | CRRMD Contract | |
| PA5: Collection and transport of bulky waste for shredding, compacting and final disposal at the landfill | CRRMD | DLP |
| PA6: Collection and transport of (large) pruning waste for shredding and final disposal at the landfill | CRRMD | DLP |
| PA7: Weighing of waste and recyclable materials | EEGD | |
| PA8: Processing of recyclable materials (different technologies) | Contract | |
| PA9: Preventive and corrective maintenance of the treatment plant in the Selection of Recyclable Materials Unit (SRMU) | Contract | |
| PA10: Final waste disposal after recovery | Contract | |
| PA11: Cleaning of common areas without using technological means | CRRMD | DCCAST |
| PA12: Cleaning of streets, squares, etc. using technological means | CRRMD | DLP |
| PA13: Cleaning farmers’ open markets | CRRMD | DLP |
| PA14: Fuel supply of vehicles and machinery | CRRMD | DLP |
| PA15: Preventive and corrective maintenance of vehicles and equipment | CRRMD | DLP |
Regulatory functions and organizational units.
| Regulatory Function | Division | Department |
|---|---|---|
| RF1: Planning and monitoring programs for collection routes as well as positioning of collection bins | CRRMD POISD | DDPC DWRMC |
| RF2: Implementation of planning projects, regulations, licensing | CRRMD POISD EEGD | DDPC |
| RF3: Planning and organization of the optimal operation of the municipal waste collection and transport system | CRRMD | DDPC |
| PF4: Planning, search for new advanced, optimal programs, and schedules for the management of recycled materials, targeting new technologies. | CRRMD |
DDPC |
| RF5: Development of programs to improve the operations of cleaning of the common areas of the Municipality. Monitoring the proper execution of relevant schedules. | CRRMD |
DDPC |
| RF6: Collection, processing, and storage of data related to the operation of the municipal solid waste management system for compiling statistical data, as well as for the development and monitoring of relevant efficiency, etc., indicators. | CRRMD |
DDPC |
| RF7: Monitoring the implementation of programs for the collection of end-of-life vehicles, as well as of recycling programs for old tires, electrical appliances, etc. | CRRMD | DDPC |
| RF8: Implementation of programs to raise public awareness and inform citizens about MSW management (recycling, sorting at source, etc.). | CRRMD | DDPC |
| RF9: Implementation of procurement programs and services in relation to the operational needs of CRRMD, the operational needs of the Municipality of Patras for technological resources, and in relation to the health and safety of employees | CRRMD | DDPC |
| RF10: Implementation of programs for updating and monitoring the register of vehicles and machinery, periodic technical inspections, updating their status data, etc. | CRRMD | DDPC |
| RF11: Implementation of monitoring programs for: (a) repair works, (b) scheduled maintenance, (c) fuel and lubricant consumption, (d) use and cost of spare parts and perishables. | CRRMD | DDPC |
| RF12: Training of personnel | CRRMD |
DDPC |
| RF13: Risk management | MCU |
|
| RF14: Coordination of different waste stream operations | CRRMD | DWRMC |
| RF15: External contractors’ selection | FinD | IDT |
| RF16: External contractors’ monitoring and evaluation | FinD | DPA |
| RF17: Safety and Occupational Health of personnel involved in cleaning and recycling operations | CRRMD OSHD |
CRRMD: Cleaning Recycling and Resource Management Division; POISTD: Planning Organization & Information Systems Division; EEGD: Environment Energy and Greens Division; DDPC: Department of Design Planning and Control; DWRMC: Department of Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection; DVEM: Department of Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance; DLP: Department of Logistics Planning (Vehicle Scheduling and Route Planning); DCCAST: Department of Cleaning Common Areas and Special Teams and Tools; HRD: Human Resources Division; OSHD: Occupational Safety and Health Division; MCU: Management Control Unit; CPD: Civil Protection Division; FinD: Division of Finance; IDT: Interdepartmental Team(s); DPA: Department of Procurement and Auctions; DEE: Department of Environment and Energy.
Primary activities and regulatory function of the reference MWM organisation.
| Regulatory Functions | RF1: Route Planning | RF2: Plan Implementation | RF3: Planning Transport | RF4: Technology Scanning | RF5: Planning for Open Common Spaces | RF6: Data Management | RF7: Monitoring Recycling | RF8: Public Awareness | RF9: Procurement Programs | RF10: Resources registry Management | RF11: Resources Maintenance | RF12: Training | RF13: Risk Management | RF14: Coordination of Waste Streams | RF15: External Contractors’ Selection | RF16: External Contractor Monitoring | RF17: Safety and Occupational Health | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Activities | ||||||||||||||||||
| DISTRICT PATRAS | ||||||||||||||||||
| PA1: Bins maintenance | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
| PA2: Waste to landfill | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||
| PA3: Recyclable waste to treatment | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
| PA4: Recyclable materials to process | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||
| PA5: Process and disposal | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||
| PA6: Disposal of large materials waste | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||
| PA7: Weighing of recyclable waste | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
| PA8: Processing of recyclable | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||
| PA9: Plant(s) maintenance | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
| PA10: Final disposal after recovery | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||
| PA11: Cleaning (no technology use) | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| PA12: Cleaning (technology use) | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||
| PA13: Cleaning farmers’ open markets | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||
| PA14: Fuel supply of resources | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| PA15: Maintenance of resources | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
Developing specifications for a flexible and adaptive MWM system in the form of the Viable System Model.
| VSM | Integrated Waste Management System Activities |
|---|---|
| System 5 (Governance of the resilience provision activity) | Defining the importance of integrated waste management for the city and maintaining the identity of the CRRM Department (CRRMD) by answering the following questions: |
| System 4 (Intelligence for demand patterns and technological and organisational resources) | Scanning the internal and external organisational environments for information about the state of operations, as welll as (future) consumption patterns, waste collection, and processing technologies, technologies for recycling, energy production, etc., related methods, best practices, legislation changes, etc. by answering the following questions: |
| System 3 (operational management of CRRMD) | Responsible for the integrity of CRRMD through resource negotiation and performance management by answering the following questions: |
| System 3* (audit of CRRMD) | Audit channel to help System 3 evaluate the performance of System 1 by answering the question: |
| System 2 (coordination of primary activities of CRRMD) | Coordination between, and within, the activities of integrated management system by answering the following questions: |
| System 1 (operations of distributed integrated waste management system) | Proactive and reactive activities for achieving the operational objectives of the integrated waste management system by answering the following questions: |
The assignment of regulatory function to the VSM’s systems.
| Regulatory function | Implementation |
Coordination |
Cohesion Monitoring Resource Bargaining |
Intelligence |
Policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF1: Route planning | ● CRRMD/DDPC, |
||||
| RF2: Plan Implementation | ● CRRMD/DDPC, |
● CRRMD/DDPC, |
● CRRMD/DDPC, |
||
| RF3: Planning transport | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | |||
| RF4: Technology scanning | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ||||
| RF5: Planning for open common spaces | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ||
| RF6: Data management | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | |||
| RF7: Monitoring recycling | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ||||
| RF8: Public awareness | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/ DDPC | |
| RF9: Procurement programs | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ● CRRMD/DDPC | |||
| RF10: Resources registry management | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ||||
| RF11: Resources maintenance | ● CRRMD/DDPC | ||||
| RF12: Training | ● CRRMD/DDPC,HRD,OSHD | ● CRRMD/DDPC,HRD,OSHD | ● CRRMD/DDPC,HRD,OSHD | ● CRRMD/DDPC,HRD,OSHD | |
| RF13: Risk management | ● MCU,OSHD,CPD | ● MCU,OSHD,CPD | ● MCU,OSHD,CPD | ● MCU,OSHD,CPD | |
| RF14: Coordination of waste streams | ● CRRMD/DWRMC | ● CRRMD/DWRMC | |||
| RF15: External contractors’ selection | ● FinD/DPA | ● FinD/DPA | ● FinD/DPA | ||
| RF16: External contractor monitoring | ● FinD/DPA | ● FinD/DPA | ● FinD/DPA | ||
| RF17: Safety and Occupational Health | ● CRRMD,OSHD | ● CRRMD,OSHD | ● CRRMD,OSHD | ● CRRMD,OSHD |
References
1. Mahyari, K.F.; Sun, Q.; Klemeš, J.J.; Aghbashlo, M.; Tabatabaei, M.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Birkved, M. To what extent do waste management strategies need adaptation to post-COVID-19?. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 837, 155829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155829] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35561899]
2. Pinto, A.D.; Choi, J.; Abichou, T.; Sanusi, F.; Aninat, E. Adaptations of Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems in Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic. Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference; Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 26–29 May 2021; Springer Nature: Singapore, pp. 163-176.
3. Wakabayashi, Y.; Peii, T.; Tabata, T.; Saeki, T. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costs for pre-disaster waste management systems. Waste Manag.; 2017; 68, pp. 688-700. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.014]
4. Vyas, S.; Prajapati, P.; Shah, A.V.; Varjani, S. Municipal solid waste management: Dynamics, risk assessment, ecological influence, advancements, constraints and perspectives. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 814, 152802. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152802] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34982993]
5. Nicolli, F.; Mazzanti, M.; Iafolla, V. Waste dynamics, country heterogeneity and European environmental policy effectiveness. J. Environ. Policy Plan.; 2012; 14, pp. 371-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2012.719694]
6. Fleurbaey, M.; Bouin, O.; Salles-Djelic, M.L.; Kanbur, R.; Nowotny, H.; Reis, E. A Manifesto for Social Progress: Ideas for a Better Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018.
7. Raab, K.; Tolotti, G.; Wagner, R. Challenges in solid waste management: Insights into the disposal behavior of suburban consumers in Guatemala City. Front. Sustain. Cities; 2021; 3, 683576. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.683576]
8. Verma, S.; Khan, R.; Mili, M.; Hashmi, S.A.R.; Srivastava, A.K. Advanced Materials from Recycled Waste; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022.
9. Pires, A.; Martinho, G.; Rodrigues, S. Sustainable Solid Waste Collection and Management; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
10. Guerrero, L.A.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag.; 2013; 33, pp. 220-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23098815]
11. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World Bank Publications: Herndon, VA, USA, 2018.
12. Weghmann, V. Waste Management in Europe. European Public Services Union (EPSU). Available online: https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Waste%20Management%20in%20Europe_EN_1.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2023).
13. Adamides, E.D.; Mitropoulos, P.; Giannikos, I.; Mitropoulos, I. A multi-methodological approach to the development of a regional solid waste management system. J. Oper. Res. Soc.; 2009; 60, pp. 758-770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602592]
14. Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett.; 2021; 19, pp. 1433-1456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01100-y]
15. Hoareau, C.E.; Ahmad, N.; Nuid, M.; Khoi, D.N.; Kristanti, R.A. Sustainable technology in developed countries: Waste municipal management. Ind. Domest. Waste Manag.; 2021; 1, pp. 48-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53623/idwm.v1i1.49]
16. Prajapati, P.; Varjani, S.; Singhania, R.R.; Patel, A.K.; Awasthi, M.K.; Sindhu, R.; Zhang, Z.; Binod, P.; Awasthi, S.K.; Chaturvedi, P. Critical review on technological advancements for effective waste management of municipal solid waste—Updates and way forward. Environ. Technol. Innov.; 2021; 23, 101749. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101749]
17. Sliusar, N.; Filkin, T.; Huber-Humer, M.; Ritzkowski, M. Drone technology in municipal solid waste management and landfilling: A comprehensive review. Waste Manag.; 2022; 139, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.12.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34923184]
18. Awino, F.B.; Apitz, S.E. Solid waste management in the context of waste hierarchy and circular economy frameworks: An international critical review. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.; 2023; pp. 1-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4774] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37039089]
19. Daskalopoulos, E.; Badr, O.; Probert, S.D. An integrated approach to municipal solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 1998; 24, pp. 33-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(98)00031-7]
20. Anschütz, J.; IJgosse, J.; Scheinberg, A. Putting Integrated Sustainable Waste Management into Practice. 2004; Available online: https://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/Abteilungen/sandec/schwerpunkte/sesp/CLUES/Toolbox/t12/D12_1_Anschuetz_et_al_2004.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
21. Elsaid, S.; Aghezzaf, E.H. A framework for sustainable waste management: Challenges and opportunities. Manag. Res. Rev.; 2015; 38, pp. 1086-1097. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2014-0264]
22. Huber, J. Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization. J. Environ. Policy Plan.; 2000; 2, pp. 269-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714038561]
23. Beer, S. The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. The Viable System Model: Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM; Espejo, R.; Harnden, R.J. Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1989; pp. 11-37.
24. Espejo, R.; Reyes, A. Organizational Systems: Managing Complexity with the Viable System Model; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
25. Perez-Rios, P.J. Design and Diagnosis for Sustainable Organizations. The Viable Systems Method; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
26. Jackson, M.C. Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019.
27.
28.
29.
30. Panagiotakopoulos, P.D.; Espinosa, A.; Walker, J. Sustainability management: Insights from the Viable System Model. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 113, pp. 792-806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.035]
31. Chintapalli, P.; Vakharia, A.J. The waste management supply chain: A decision framework. Decis. Sci.; 2023; pp. 1-15.
32. Badran, M.F.; El-Haggar, S.M. Optimization of municipal solid waste management in Port Said–Egypt. Waste Manag.; 2006; 26, pp. 534-545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.05.005]
33. Malinauskaite, J.; Jouhara, H.; Czajczyńska, D.; Stanchev, P.; Katsou, E.; Rostkowski, P.; Thorne, R.J.; Colon, J.; Ponsá, S.; Al-Mansour, F. et al. Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy; 2017; 141, pp. 2013-2044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128]
34. Sharif, N.; Pishvaee, M.; Aliahmadi, A.; Jabbarzadeh, A. A bi-level programming approach to joint network design and pricing problem in the municipal solid waste management system: A case study. Resoures Conserv. Recycl.; 2018; 131, pp. 17-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.008]
35. Oyebode, O.J. Evaluation of municipal solid waste management for improved public health and environment in Nigeria. Eur. J. Adv. Eng. Technol.; 2018; 5, pp. 525-534.
36. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, S.; Li, J.; Zhou, K. From intention to behavior: Comprehending residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior formation process. Waste Manag.; 2020; 113, pp. 41-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.031] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32505110]
37. Pires, A.; Martinho, G.; Chang, N.-B. Solid waste management in European countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. J. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 92, pp. 1033-1050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024]
38. Zaman, U.A. Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment technologies using life cycle assessment method. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2010; 7, pp. 225-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03326132]
39. Lombardi, L.; Carnevale, E.; Corti, A. A review of technologies and performances of thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste Manag.; 2015; 37, pp. 26-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.010]
40. Abad, F.; Naeni, L.M. A hybrid framework to assess the risk of change in construction projects using fuzzy fault tree and fuzzy event tree analysis. Int. J. Constr. Manag.; 2022; 22, pp. 2385-2397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1790474]
41. Espinosa, A. Sustainable Self-Governance in Businesses and Society: The Viable System Model in Action; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2022.
42. Beer, S. The Heart of the Enterprise; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1979.
43. Beer, S. Brain of the Firm; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1981.
44. Hoverstadt, P. The Fractal Organization: Creating Sustainable Organizations with the Viable System Model; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
45. Espinosa, A.; Walker, J. Complexity management in practice: A Viable System Model intervention in an Irish eco-community. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2013; 225, pp. 118-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.09.015]
46. Arghand, A.A.; Alborzi, M.; Ghatari, A.R. A methodology for IT governance by viable system modeling (VSM): An action research in designing a data center. Syst. Pract. Action Res.; 2022; 35, pp. 131-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09559-8]
47. Harwood, S. Introducing the VIPLAN methodology (with VSM) for handling messy situations–Nine lessons. Syst. Pract. Action Res.; 2021; 34, pp. 635-668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09545-6]
48. Vik, M.B.; Finnestrand, H.; Flood, R.L. Systemic problem structuring in a complex hospital environment using viable system diagnosis–keeping the blood flowing. Syst. Pract. Action Res.; 2022; 35, pp. 203-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09569-6]
49. Adamides, E.D.; Katopodis, T.; Mountouris, A.; Sfetsos, A. Organising for Resilience to Climate Change in Critical Infrastructures: The Application of Viable System Model in an Oil Refinery. Syst. Pract. Action Res.; 2023; 36, pp. 609-640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-022-09623-x]
50. Municipality of Patras (MoP). Decision No 30/12-04-2023 of the «Quality of Life» Committee for the Approval of the Updated Local Waste Management Plan. Available online: https://e-patras.gr/el/04i-synedriasi-12-04-2023 (accessed on 24 April 2023). (In Greek)
51. Reike, D.; Vermeulen, W.J.V.; Witjes, S. The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2018; 135, pp. 246-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Georgousoglou, Konstantinos; Mouzakitis, Yannis