A system of systems (SoS) framework is proposed for policy design that takes into account the value systems of multiple participants, harnesses the complexity of strategic interactions among participants, and confronts the risks and uncertainties present in participants’ decision making. SoS thinking provides an integrative and adaptive mindset, which is needed to tackle policy challenges characterized by conflict, complexity, and uncertainty. With the aim of putting SoS thinking into practice, operational methods and tools are presented herein. Specifically, SoS engineering methodologies to create value system models, agent-based models of competitive and cooperative behaviour under conflict, and risk management models are developed and integrated into the framework. The proposed structure, methods and tools can be utilized to organize policy design discourse. Communication among participants involved in the policy discussion is structured around SoS models, which are used to integrate multiple perspectives of a system and to test the effectiveness of policies in achieving desirable outcomes under varying conditions. In order to demonstrate the proposed methods and tools that have been developed to enliven policy design discourse, a theoretical common-pool resources dilemma is utilized. The generic application illustrates the methodology of constructing ordinal preferences from values. Also, it is used to validate the agent-based modeling and simulation platform as a tool to investigate strategic interactions among participants and harness the potential to influence and enable participants to achieve desirable outcomes. A real-world common pool resources dilemma in the provisioning and security considerations of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore is examined and employed as a case study for applying strategic conflict models in risk management. Overall, this thesis advances the theory and application of SoS engineering and focuses on understanding value systems, handling complexity in terms of conflict dynamics, and finally, enhancing risk management.

A system of systems (SoS) framework is proposed for policy design that takes into account the value systems of multiple participants, harnesses the complexity of strategic interactions among participants, and confronts the risks and uncertainties present in participants’ decision making. SoS thinking provides an integrative and adaptive mindset, which is needed to tackle policy challenges characterized by conflict, complexity, and uncertainty. With the aim of putting SoS thinking into practice, operational methods and tools are presented herein. Specifically, SoS engineering methodologies to create value system models, agent-based models of competitive and cooperative behaviour under conflict, and risk management models are developed and integrated into the framework. The proposed structure, methods and tools can be utilized to organize policy design discourse. Communication among participants involved in the policy discussion is structured around SoS models, which are used to integrate multiple perspectives of a system and to test the effectiveness of policies in achieving desirable outcomes under varying conditions. In order to demonstrate the proposed methods and tools that have been developed to enliven policy design discourse, a theoretical common-pool resources dilemma is utilized. The generic application illustrates the methodology of constructing ordinal preferences from values. Also, it is used to validate the agent-based modeling and simulation platform as a tool to investigate strategic interactions among participants and harness the potential to influence and enable participants to achieve desirable outcomes. A real-world common pool resources dilemma in the provisioning and security considerations of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore is examined and employed as a case study for applying strategic conflict models in risk management. Overall, this thesis advances the theory and application of SoS engineering and focuses on understanding value systems, handling complexity in terms of conflict dynamics, and finally, enhancing risk management.

Enligt högskolelagen ingår det i högskolors och universitets uppdrag, förutom utbildning och forskning, också att samverka med omgivande samhälle. Då samverkansuppdraget inte är lika väldefinierat som utbildnings- och forskningsuppdraget, finns det behov av en gemensam målbild mellan lärosäten och externa parter gällande vad man önskar uppnå med samverkan. Detta examensarbete undersöker vilka likheter och/eller skillnader som finns med avseende på de mål som extern part, forskare och lärare samt samverkansrådgivare har i de mål som ligger som grund för samverkan mellan ett universitet och externa parter. Det har genomförts nio stycken semistrukturerade intervjuer från tre olika intressegrupper av samverkan: samverkansrådgivare på Linnéuniversitetet, lärare & forskare på Linnéuniversitetet samt externa intressenter. Värdefokuserat tänkande har använts som teoretisk referensram. Utifrån intervjuerna har de fundamentala och instrumentella målen konstruerats i en målstruktur för respektive informant. De fundamentala och instrumentella målen visar vad de olika informanterna har för värderingar kring samverkan och vilka mål de olika parterna önskar uppnå med att samverka med varandra. Fundamentala mål som förekom i flera av målstrukturerna var att bidra till nytta för samhället, att bidra till samhällsutvecklingen och att lösa gemensamma samhällsutmaningar. Ett instrumentellt mål som förekom i flera av målstrukturerna är vikten av att arbeta med studenter, då detta bidrog till att uppfylla de fundamentala målen att stärka kompetensförsörjningen i regionen och kom till nytta för samhällsutvecklingen. De instrumentella målen att arbeta med forskningsprojekt leder till att de fundamentala målen för ökad innovation och att lösa gemensamma samhällsutmaningar kan uppnås. / According to the Higher Education Act, colleges and universities are required to, in addition to education and research, collaborate with the outside society. Since collaboration is not as clearly defined as education and the research assignment, there is a need for a common goal image about what you want to achieve with collaboration. This master’s degree thesis studies what similarities and/or differences an external part, researchers & teachers and senior advisor in collaboration, have as goals with collaboration between a university and external partners. Value-focused thinking is used as theoretic framework. The study consists of nine semi structured interviews from three different interest groups: senior advisors in collaboration from Linnaeus University, researchers & teachers from Linnaeus University and external partners. From the interviews fundamental objectives and means objectives were identified and structured into hierarchies and means-ends networks from each informant´s answers. The fundamental and means objectives show what similarities and differences the informants have for values concerning collaboration and what goals the different parties wish to achieve by collaborating with each other. Fundamental objectives that existed in several of the structures were to contribute to the benefit of society, to contribute to the development of society and to solve common social challenges. A means objective that existed in the goal structures is the importance of working with students, as working with students helped fulfil the fundamental objectives to strengthen the competence in the region and came to benefit the development of society. The means objectives in research were to contribute to the fundamental objectives in strengthen innovation and benefit by enabling to solve common societal challenges.

Preventing cyberterrorism is becoming a necessity for individuals, organizations, and governments. However, current policies focus on technical and managerial aspects without asking for experts and non-experts values and preferences for preventing cyberterrorism. This study employs value focused thinking and public value forum to bare strategic measures and alternatives for complex policy decisions for preventing cyberterrorism. The strategic measures and alternatives are per socio-technical process.