Regular Paper

Using Systems Engineering to Create a

Framework for Evaluating Industrial
Symbiosis Options
Bertha Maya Sopha,1, * Annik Magerholm Fet,2 Martina Maria Keitsch,3 and Cecilia Haskins2

1
Industrial Ecology Programme and Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Høgskoleringen 5, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
2
Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trond-
heim, Norway
3
The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, NO-0130 Oslo, Norway
CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS OPTIONS

Received 14 December 2008; Accepted 3 March 2009, after one or more revisions
Published online 9 June 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI 10.1002/sys.20139

ABSTRACT
Motivated by the success of industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Denmark, there have been many attempts
to establish industrial symbiosis around the world. Modeling the complex system that underlies an
industrial symbiosis provides much needed understanding of these interactions in the planning stage.
Therefore, guidance and/or a framework are needed to identify “what to model” and to keep the modeling
process on track. This paper applies systems engineering to create a framework for modeling industrial
symbiosis. The proposed framework provides a practical road map for the modeling process that connects
relevant concepts and techniques. A case is introduced to illustrate use of the framework. © 2009 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 13: 149–160, 2010

Key words: industrial symbiosis; systems engineering; framework

1. INTRODUCTION change of waste, byproducts, and energy, and to reduce the

Today’s industrial practices are regarded as unsustainable
[Mirata, 2005, Ehrenfeld, 2000]. Firms have faced increasing
pressure from consumers and from governments to become
more environmentally responsible. There have been many
attempts to seek more sustainable practices through the ex-
* Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed (e-mail: bertha.so-
pha@ntnu.no; annik.fet@iot.ntnu.no; martina.keitsch@adm.aho.no;
cecilia.haskins@iot.ntnu.no).
Contract grant sponsor: Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU)
Systems Engineering Vol. 13, No. 2, 2010
© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
use of virgin raw materials and pollution. Industrial Symbio-
sis is characterized by physical exchange of materials, energy,
water, and/or byproducts between collaborating business
partners. Implementing industrial symbiosis in the form of
eco-industrial parks (EIP) is seen as a model for more envi-
ronmentally responsible production [Gertler, 1995; Haskins,
2006, 2007; Mirata, 2005]. The term industrial symbiosis was
coined to describe the situation in Kalundborg, Denmark,
where they have created a highly integrated industrial system
that optimizes the use of byproducts, water cascades, and
minimizes the waste that leaves the (EIP) system. Many
projects have been conducted to replicate the success of
industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Denmark in other parts
of the world. Such examples can be found in Rotterdam, The
Netherlands [Baas, 1998], Forth Valey, Scotland [Harris and
Pritchard, 2004], Montreal, Canada [Dias and Yates, 2001],

149
150 SOPHA ET AL.
Tampico, Mexico [Young, 1999], Brownsville, Texas [Martin
et al., 1996] and Kwinana, Australia [Bossilkov, van Beers,
and van Berkel, 2005], to name a few. However, development
of industrial symbiosis entails much research including gen-
eration and screening of synergy, developing engineering and
technology platform, and enabling mechanisms for imple-
mentation [Haskins, 2006].
A complex system is any system featuring a large number
of interacting components (agents, processes, etc.) whose
aggregate activity is nonlinear (not derivable from the sum-
mations of the activity of individual components) and typi-
cally exhibits a hierarchical self-organization under selective
pressures. Despite the fact that industrial symbiosis is com-
plex, it still needs to be designed and managed. Controlling
the design will always involve both engineering as well as a
management [Sage, 1981], and tools that support both as-
pects.
The consequences of decisions in a complex system are,
by their nature, difficult to predict and understand. In order to
gain some insight into the effects of decisions in dynamic
complex systems, modeling and simulation models are com-
monly used. Models create a view of the systems that exposes
the connections between the parts of the system and their
interactions. Through simulation, the effect of time and space
compression on the system uncovers interactions that would
normally unfold over lengthy time periods. Even though these
models are approximations of the real world, information
gained through simulation can support decision-making proc-
ess. Moreover, the simulation can play a valuable role as tools
to better understand behaviors and interactions in complex
system [Rizzoli, Davis, and Abel, 1998]. Modeling and simu-
lation support the view of many potential alternative futures.
Industrial symbiosis literature points out that the barriers
and success factors range from lack of technical and economi-
cal appeal, organizational arrangement, the nature of the
decision making process, awareness related to information
and know-how, and actors’ attitudes toward the relationships
to be formed [Ehrenfeld and Gertler, 1997; Korhonen, 2001;
Heeres and Vermeulen, 2004; Wolf, Eklund, and Söderström,
2005; Fichtner et al., 2005]. There is, therefore, a strong need
for a systemic approach to better understand the full implica-
tions of the decision to create these relationships [Fiksel,
2006]. Lack of information may pose a problem for further
dissemination of eco-industrial park practices [Eilering and
Vermeulen, 2004]. This is in line with the study conducted by
Mirata [2005] and Heeres and Vermeulen [2004] on the de-
velopment and functioning of industrial symbiosis that de-
pends on the various factors rooted in the different domains:
• Technical: An exchange is technically feasible in terms
of physical, chemical, and spatial attributes of in- and
output streams, compatibilities between needs and ca-
pacities, availability of reliable and cost-efficient tech-
nologies.
• Economic: An exchange might be economically sound
or economically not risky from a company perspective
in terms of costs of virgin inputs, value of waste and
byproduct streams, transaction and opportunity costs,
size of capital investment and discount rates.
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
• Political/regulatory/legal: Caused by various environ-
mental laws and regulations, e.g., overarching environ-
mental policies, nature and implications of relevant
laws and regulations, and relevant fiscal elements
(taxes, fees, fines, levies, subsidies, and credits).
• Informational: The right people have the needed infor-
mation at the right time, for example, access to relevant
information, availability of timely and reliable informa-
tion from a wide spectrum of areas to the right parties,
and continued review of information.
• Organizational and institutional: The intended ex-
change might not fit in the current corporate organiza-
tional structure in terms of trust, openness,
environmental maturity, level of social interaction and
mental proximity, local availability of decision-making
power, organization history, nature of interaction
among industry, policy makers and regulators, and so-
cial embeddings (degree of familiarity).
This paper applies systems engineering to build a frame-
work for modeling of industrial symbiosis as well as provid-
ing a practical road map for connecting some relevant
techniques in the modeling process.
The structure of this paper is as follows. This paper will
first introduce the multidisciplinary context of the problem
domain, before presenting a system methodology, and pro-
posing a framework for deriving a model of industrial sym-
biosis. A case study is offered for illustration of the application
of the framework. The paper closes with some discussion and
conclusions about the work.
2. MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONTEXT
This section extends the discussion of the multidisciplinary
context for industrial symbiosis presented by Haskins [2006].
2.1. Industrial Ecology and Industrial Symbiosis
Industrial ecology, an emerging field, provides a new concep-
tual framework for understanding the impacts of industrial
systems on the environment. One goal of industrial ecology
is to change the perception of the linear nature of our industrial
systems, where raw materials are used and products, bypro-
ducts, and waste are produced, to the acceptance of a cyclical
system perception where the waste is reused as energy or raw
materials for another product or process. However, there is
much discussion and debate over its definition as well as its
practicality.
Some industrial ecologists assert that the power of the
industrial ecology approach lies in its “objective scientific
foundation.” As a “science of sustainability” [Allenby, 1995],
the tasks are limited to deliver “pure facts” to company
managers or political decision-makers. Other interpreters go
in the opposite direction. Ehrenfeld [2000] argues, for exam-
ple, for an interpretative approach to this field of study. He
further states a need for competing paradigms in the field:
positivism and natural science tradition on the one hand,
historicism, hermeneutics, and phenomenology, on the other.
Regarding the historical development of industrial ecology,
 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS OPTIONS
Frosch and Gallopoulus, who coined the name of the concept
in a “philosophical” introduction in 1989, warned about the
philosophical imperfections of industrial ecology, especially
those related to ecosystems metaphor [Frosch, 1992]. In the
following years, especially in the mid and late 1990s, the
cultural dimension of industrial ecology became almost as
important as the technological and ecological [Keitsch, 2006].
Today, industrial ecology implies diverse philosophical
and methodological features. Industrial symbiosis is an appli-
cation of industrial ecology that shows this diversity best.
There are various definitions of the concept with different
implications. Several terms are used interchangeably in the
literature [Ayres and Ayres, 1996; Chertow, 2000; Cox, Black-
stone, and Spencer, 1995; Gertler, 1995; Lowe, Moran, and
Holmes, 1996; NCWI, 2004]. These terms can vary depend-
ing on the system boundaries, specifics of the project, and its
management umbrella or geographical location. However,
they have one thing in common; they attempt to create a
system by exchanging material/energy with collaboration
among companies within region/geographic proximity whose
objectives are to improve economic, environmental, and so-
cial performance. The basic concept of industrial symbiosis
is man’s attempt to learn and apply ecosystem principles to
an industrial system.
Table I presents ecosystem principles applied to natural
and industrial ecosystems as proposed by Korhonen [2001].
The most well-known example is the eco-industrial park at
Kalundborg, Denmark, which represents a highly integrated
industrial system that commercially exploits production
byproducts and minimizes the waste that leaves the system as
well as representing a win-win economic-environmental situ-
ation among the actors [The Kalundborg Centre for Industrial
Symbiosis, 2008].
Early studies of industrial symbiosis are dominated by the
technical and economic perspectives. As early as 2003, Co-
hen-Rosenthal and Musnikow [2003] challenged the reduc-
tionist and engineering approaches in industrial ecology, by
stressing the importance of a solid understanding of the
functioning of industrial networks and the role of human
resources. Therefore, the link to business models is particu-
Table I. Ecosystem Principles Applied to Natural and Industrial Ecosystems
151
larly important. Recent studies tend to look at industrial
ecosystems, industrial metabolism, and industrial symbiosis
from a biological and engineering point of view. However, the
languages of economics and technology are different, and
having the combined viewpoints strengthens our under-
standing of the benefits of industrial symbiosis. Reducing
environmental impacts and even making more efficient use of
resources does not seem to be enough to make a symbiosis
happen. There was also another attempt to use biological
models in the business context as proposed by Fairtlough
[1995] that illustrates the use of biological analogies in busi-
ness thinking and discusses the interaction between competi-
tion and cooperation. It is obvious that such innovative
thinking requires innovative concepts. Industrial ecology can
then be a rich source of concepts as well as source of inspira-
tion and creativity towards sustainability.
2.2. Supply Chain Management
There are burgeoning sources that discuss the definition of
supply chain management. From many definitions [Lambert,
Stock, and Ellram, 1998; Lummus and Vokorka, 1999;
Monczka and Morgan, 1997; Quinn, 1997; Simchi Levi,
Kaminsky, and Simchi-Levi, 2003], a supply chain could be
summarized as all the activities that concern flow of materials,
flow of information, and flow of funds from the point of origin
to the point of consumption. Supply chain management aims
to coordinate and integrate all the activities into seamless flow
of processes. Hassan [2006] discusses advantages of treating
the supply chain as a system.
The main goal of supply chain operations is customer
satisfaction. To meet this goal, the integration of material and
information flow is needed. The most important aspect in
managing a supply chain is to manage the link between each
node within the chain to synchronize the entire supply chain
so that the effective and efficient flow of material, information
and funds will be achieved by integrating supply and demand
management within and across companies.
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
152 SOPHA ET AL.
2.3. Business Strategy
Business strategy refers to aggregated operational strategies
of a single firm or that of a Strategic Business Unit [SBU) in
a diversified corporation. It is about the way in which a firm
competes in its chosen arenas. Business strategy is the process
of specifying an organization’s objectives, developing poli-
cies and plans to achieve these objectives, and allocating
resources to implement the plans [Warren, 2004; Barney,
1991; Tichy, 1983]. It provides overall direction to the whole
enterprise. Business strategy must be appropriate for its re-
sources, circumstances, and objectives. The unique feature of
this concept is its approach to allocating resources (tangible
or intangible) to meet its objectives.
2.4. Systems Theory and Systems Thinking
Systems theory was initially proposed in the 1940s by the
biologist, Ludwig van Bertalanffy [Laszlo and Bertalanffy,
1972]. The concept emphasizes that real systems are open to,
and interact with, their environments. Compared to the tradi-
tional theory, systems theory shifts the focus from a closed-
system to an open-system perspective; from parts to the
organization of the parts; from static to dynamic processes.
Using systems theory, all phenomena can be viewed as a web
of relationships among elements, and all systems have com-
mon patterns, behaviors, and properties that can be under-
stood and used to develop greater insight into the behavior of
complex phenomena and to move closer toward a unity of
science.
Systems thinking is derived from systems theory as a
discipline to view systems from a broad perspective that
includes seeing overall structures, patterns, and cycles in
systems, rather than seeing only specific events in the system.
Systems thinking provides a framework to understand the
systems and the behavior characteristics of a multi-minded
system [Senge, 1980].
2.5. Systems Engineering
Systems engineering has been in the domain of the technical
community [Bahill and Gissing, 1998]. It can be viewed as
the application of engineering techniques to the engineering
of systems, as well as the application of a systems approach
to engineering efforts [Thomé, 1993]. Systems engineering
originated in the fifties and sixties in the large military and
space development program. Wymore [1976] pointed out that
systems engineers should use interdisciplinary teams to state
the problem, identify the system’s functions and require-
ments, define performance and cost figures of merit, investi-
gate alternative designs, and test the system. This process is
recursive and iterative, and much of it is done in parallel.
Various definitions of systems engineering appear in the
literature [Asbjørnsen, 1992; Blanchard, 1990; Sage, 1981,
Thomé, 1993]; however, a common thread can be found
among them. Systems engineering is a multidisciplinary field
dedicated to managing design so that all elements are inte-
grated to provide an optimum, overall system as contrasted
with the integration of optimized subelements.
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
Systems engineering could be defined both as a discipline
and a process [Asbjørnsen, 1992; Blanchard, 1990]. As a
discipline, it deals with the analysis and design, the operation,
and the maintenance of large integrated systems in a total life
cycle perspective. It takes into account technology, manage-
ment, legal aspects, social and environmental issues, finance
and corporate strategies to shape total systems integration. As
a process, systems engineering supports the acquisition of a
system for consumer use or the process of bringing a system
into being; the process employed in the development of
systems from the point when a need is identified through
production and/or construction and ultimate deployment of
that system for consumer use.
Today, however, systems engineering is widely utilized in
a range of applications and industries. One application of
systems engineering as a method that is relevant to this article
has been proposed by Fet [2002], who proposed systems
engineering as an appropriate method for Industrial Ecology,
able to encompass the various methods such as cleaner pro-
duction (CP), life cycle assessment (LCA), design for envi-
ronment (DfE), environmental management system (EMS),
environmental performance evaluation (EPE), and environ-
mental auditing (EA) for environmental assessment and man-
agement. Fet maintains that systems engineering is an
effective tool to integrate distinct disciplines and technologies
in complex systems into an overall unified purpose.
2.6. System Dynamics
System dynamics was first developed in the 1950s by Jay W.
Forrester [Sterman, 2000] as a method for understanding the
dynamic behavior of complex systems over time. It deals with
internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behav-
ior of an entire system and related systems, and has evolved
into a widespread approach for modeling nonlinear, dynamic
systems.
System dynamics differs from other approaches to study
complex systems in its use of feedback loops and the use of
stocks and flows. These elements help to describe how even
seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity. The
approach uses differential equations to represent changes in
stocks and flows and considers nonlinearity, feedbacks, and
delays. The basis of the method is the recognition that the
structure of any systems—the many circular, interlocking,
sometimes time-delayed relationships among its compo-
nents—is often just as important in determining its behavior
as the individual components themselves.
Table II presents a summary of the concepts, their distinc-
tive features, and the contribution to the concept of industrial
symbiosis.
2.7. Contributions from Social Science
To achieve an adequate understanding of the interplay be-
tween humans and their environment requires knowledge and
insight from social science. The interdisciplinary approach is,
therefore, essential for solving complex system problems
because it allows a problem to be studied from different angles
[McNeill, Garcia-Godos, and Gjerdåker, 2001]. One of the
practical methods to understand the complexity of industrial
 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS OPTIONS 153

Table II. Concept, Distinctive Features, and Contribution to the Industrial Symbiosis

symbiosis is stakeholder/actor analysis [Xiaoyun, 2000].
Such analysis identifies all actors involved, their multiple
interests and objectives, and particularly their interactions or
interfaces [Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 2004].
In addition, communication with the stakeholders is in-
valuable since the stakeholders can explain what is needed
and why and how the needs will eventually contribute to
decisions. One possible approach that allows communication
with and among stakeholders is the use of scenarios built into
a simulation. The main purpose of developing scenarios is to
stimulate thinking about possible occurrences, possible as-
sumptions relating these occurrences, possible opportunities
and risks, and possible courses of action [Jarke, Bui, and
Carrol, 1998]. The scenario study can be performed by means
of qualitative method such as interview, brainstorming, and
workshop. These methods enable involvement of the stake-
holders from early stage of modeling as the model will be built
for and with stakeholders.
Systems theory and systems thinking are utilized in the
conceptual study stage because of their character of expand-
ing to take into account larger and larger numbers of interac-
tions as an issue is being studied, instead of isolating smaller
and smaller parts of the system, to formulate a system’s view
of a problem and to see the “big picture.” Systems theory
serves as a bridge for areas to engage in interdisciplinary
dialogue and advance ideas for their own autonomous frames
as well as within the area of systems science itself. Therefore,
systems theory and systems thinking are used to define what
the system is and how it functions. Moreover, the concepts
help to give better understanding of relationship between
subsystems by integrating concepts such as industrial ecol-
ogy/industrial symbiosis, supply chain management, and
business strategy.

3. SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
The major challenge in industrial symbiosis is to address
social and technical issues in the modeling. The subject of
industrial symbiosis has natural interdisciplinary interactions.
This section discusses the reasoning to utilize systems the-
ory/thinking, systems engineering, and system dynamics and
configure these three concepts to build a systems methodol-
ogy for application in further study. Figure 1 depicts the triad
that builds the systems methodology. Within the triangle are
three circles that represent the various concepts, their contri-
bution to the methodology, and their interactions. Figure 1. Systems methodology for modeling industrial symbiosis.

Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys

154 SOPHA ET AL.
Systems engineering efforts are concerned with the appro-
priate definition, development and deployment of a system
[Sage, 1997]. Systems engineering is for solving problems,
not only for clients but with clients [Sage, 1980]. According
to the International Council on Systems Engineering, this
discipline is an interdisciplinary approach and a means for
enabling the realization and deployment of successful sys-
tems. Adopting systems engineering as a process method in
modeling industrial symbiosis will help to assure that the
correct system is modeled, and that the system is modeled
correctly.
System dynamics will be utilized as modeling tool. System
dynamics models the system behavior as a number of inter-
acting feedback loops, balancing and reinforcing, and delay
structures.
The interactions between the circles that have specific
contributions will be utilized as systems methodology for
modeling industrial symbiosis. The effective systems method-
ology lies at the interaction of four foundations: (1) holistic
thinking; iteration of structure, function and process, (2) op-
erational thinking; dynamics of multi-loop feedback systems,
chaos, and complexity, 3) self-organization; movement to-
ward a predefined-order sociocultural model, and (4) interac-
tive design; redesigning the future and inventing ways to bring
it about [Gharajedaghi, 2006]. It is believed that the proposed
systems methodology above resonates with the effective sys-
tems methodology. The systems methodology is intended to
provide a means to define problems and to design solutions.
4. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
The proposed framework for creating an industrial symbiosis
model as presented in Figure 2 consists of two parts, the
Systems Engineering (SE) Process and the corresponding
Figure 2. Framework for industrial symbiosis modeling (after Fet
[2002]).
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
Method. The SE Process is composed of steps that are adopted
from Fet’s 6-step systems engineering process [Fet, 2002].
Each step explains the task as well as its objective. The SE
Process is mainly divided into two parts, defining the problem
and designing the solution. The separation is a unique char-
acteristic of interactive design. According to Ackoff [1999,
page 138], “We fail more often not because we fail to solve
the problems we face, but because we fail to face the right
problem. We have been taught how to solve problems but
never how to define one.” Defining the problem is addressed
in steps 1–3, where the main focus is to answer the questions
what is the problem, why has the problem occurred, what is
needed, and what is the expectation. The problem solution is
achieved in steps 4–6 by trying to answer the question of how
to solve the problem. If the design cannot then produce a
desired outcome, then, most probably, the problems lie in the
environment, and the focus of change should be directed
outward. All the processes are conducted iteratively, repre-
sented by closing loops for each step.
A Method mirrors each step of the SE Process. These
methods are for the most part qualitative methods, such as
interviews, brainstorming, literature study, survey, field study,
and workshop. A combination of methods could also be
utilized. Use of these methods is proposed to facilitate the
communications between stakeholders and modeler as well
as communication amongst stakeholders.
5. PRESENTATION OF A CASE
5.1. Case Background
This section introduces a case in order to describe the com-
plexity of industrial symbiosis and to illustrate the usefulness
of the proposed framework towards the case. Many attempts
to establish industrial symbiosis have been conducted around
the world. There is also an attempt, initiated by Statoil, to
develop an industrial symbiosis in Mongstad, Norway.
The Mongstad pilot project is being conducted to investi-
gate how Mongstad, as an industrial site, can increase its value
added and resource efficiency. The refinery at Mongstad
produces a large amount of unutilized heat as a byproduct.
Seawater used as cooling water in the refinery processes is
directly discharged to sea with a temperature of approxi-
mately 25ºC. The Norwegian government has established
regulations that Statoil is not allowed to increase the sea
temperature within 5 km by more than 5ºC with these dis-
charges. Statoil, therefore, wants to improve its environmental
performance by reducing the thermal waste from cooling
water by directing this water to other purposes.
Inspired by the industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Den-
mark, the idea to apply cooling water to aquaculture was
conceived. Statoil leveled a 14,000 m2 area in the immediate
surroundings of the Mongstad refinery for aquaculture pur-
pose. Thermal aquaculture is a method for using heated efflu-
ents productively. Heated discharge water from the plants
represents a large thermal energy source for maintaining the
temperature of a culture medium in a range that is optimum
for the growth of some aquatic species. Technical problems
include the reliability of heated discharge water, unscheduled
 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS OPTIONS
shutdowns, and cost of production and adding a treatment
plant to take care of fish wastes [Yarosh, 1971].
Mongstad Vekst, as a coordination body in this case, con-
ducted the technical-feasibility study to evaluate the operation
at Mongstad as a potential source of heated water for fish
farming through direct use or heat exchangers. Based on the
study, the refinery cooling water is a source of relatively high
and stable water temperatures that are attractive to marine fish
farms on land and establishing aquaculture at Mongstad was
determined to be technically feasible [Havbruksrapport,
2003]. Mongstad Vekst is also providing the infrastructure for
delivering cooling water to aquaculture operation as well as
attracting potential aquaculture companies into the site. The
possible types of species to be raised in aquaculture at Mong-
stad are cod, halibut, and turbot. However, Mongstad Vekst
only has a license for growing the latter species.
However, the situation today is that aquaculture companies
have not made use of this prepared site, in spite of their
proclaimed interest. Based on interviews conducted with the
aquaculture companies, the main reason for slow adoption is
that they are questioning the economic feasibility of the
venture.
5.2. Case Analysis
In considering an aquaculture business venture, there are a
number of important decisions to be made. Deciding which
aquaculture species to produce is the first step that needs to
be determined. Each species has its own potential and con-
straints, biological, and economic. The principal question is
can this species be raised and sold for a profit? For each
species under consideration, it is critical to study not only the
production methods, but also markets available and operation
as well as anticipated costs, market price, and expected profits
[Aquaculture and Fisheries, 2007].
There are additional advantages and disadvantages for
aquaculture firms when joining an industrial symbiosis. The
factors that positively support the aquaculture are the avail-
ability of cooling water at a reasonable price, the prepared
infrastructure location, and the license for turbot farming. In
this case, the fish species and the location are decided. The
negative factors that inhibit aquaculture establishment are the
high investment cost and the high labor cost.
The potential for aquaculture is related not only to techni-
cal feasibility but also to future markets for the products. The
uncertainty of the future markets for the fish products is a
challenge. In addition, legal and regulatory restrictions such
as water quality and water rights may influence the viability
of the idea. The condition at Mongstad could be contrasted
with successful aquaculture attributes that correspond to (1)
experience/skill, (2) market knowledge (market access, price,
level of competition, when to produce), (3) species site selec-
tion requirement, (4) appropriate system design, and (5) busi-
ness management experience [Anonymous, 2003; Asche and
Khatun, 2006; Lichtkoppler, 1993; Pomeroy, 2007; Ström-
bom and Tweed, 1992].
Summarizing, the profitability of aquaculture is dependent
on market (level of competition, marketability), production
and distribution (operation, source of good quality water,
staffing, business structure), and legal aspect (requirement
155
from the state about aquaculture operation). A specific ques-
tion raised on the case is will waste heat utilization by
aquaculture be beneficial for both parties in the long term,
and under what conditions?
To answer the question above is not as simple as it looks.
The valuation method for investment analysis such as Dis-
counted Cash Flow (DCF), Net Present Value (NPV), Interest
Rate of Return (IRR), or Benefit-Cost Analysis could be used
[Newnan, Eschenbach, and Lavelle, 2004]. However, they are
not sufficient since they are bottom-up approaches that only
regard financial criteria, without strategic design or other
strategic issues, such as collaboration. As Baumann [2004,
page 293] stated, “the different ways of managing industrial
production lead to different environmental performance,”
meaning the industrial performance does not depend on solely
the technology but also depends on how it is managed.
All the components above as well as their relationships
must be properly addressed when analyzing industrial sym-
biosis. However, it is very difficult to see the effect of one
component due to changes in other components because each
component is interlinked with each other and the results are
not just simply the sum of their contributions. The uncertainty
and the nonlinearity then cause a dynamic and complicated
state.
The purpose of an industrial symbiosis model of this case
is to simplify the representation of the system in a way that
supports analysis of the performance of the system. In this
case, modeling becomes a decision-making support tool that
helps the stakeholder(s) to identify benefits and risks of using
the prepared site.
6. APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK
This section applies the 6-step processes of the framework
towards the case. It should be noted that the work proposed
in this section was not actually conducted during the project.
Step One: Identify Need. This is the first stage of the
modeling definition in which the problem analysis is con-
ducted. In this stage, the research question is defined in order
to determine the boundary of the system. Qualitative method
is utilized in order to formulate a problem definition that
identifies those elements that can be controlled and those that
cannot, as well as elements that are influential but cannot be
controlled. The scope of the question will help decide the
boundary of target systems.
To understand what is needed and the rationale, stake-
holder analysis is utilized. This analysis exposes the major
commonalities shared between different actors, their conflicts
and the tradeoffs. Table III describes the most influencing
stakeholders in the system as well as their needs. The method
of interview, field study, and brainstorming could be utilized.
Based on the analysis above, one conclusion is that there
is a need for a decision support tool that could help the
aquaculture company stakeholders to assess environmental
and economic feasibility before joining the industrial symbio-
sis, as well as to identify barriers and support factors.
Step Two: Define Requirements. In this step, the identi-
fied needs are translated into requirements. Requirements
could be broken down into several investigative subquestions,
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
156 SOPHA ET AL.
Table III. Stakeholder’s Needs
for example, what are the possible approaches to meet the
needs and what are the critical properties that a feasible
approach must have?
A parallel consideration is to specify the requirements for
modeling an industrial symbiosis. In this case, the modeling
must be:
1. Physically able to represent the system as realistically
as possible, employing the critical representation of
reality as seen by stakeholders
2. Informative for the stakeholders in terms of economic
and environmental performance indicators previously
defined by stakeholders
3. Capable of including the system as-is and the what-if
scenarios to identify barriers and support factors.
Step Three: Specify Performance. In this step the ques-
tion that needs to be answered is what indicators should be
used to meet the requirements and what is the expected
performance? The next step is thus to examine the perform-
ance indicators and the preferred trends of behavior over time
of indicators as well as to determine certain influencing
variables in the case. This can help reveal systems archetypes
at work because they depict the “signature” behavior patterns
that each of archetype typically shows. Focusing on the pat-
tern of observed data reduces the common temptation to
force-fit a problem into a particular archetype storyline.
Table V describes possible expected performance derived
from the requirements. The methods to define the appropriate
indicators are by literature review, interview, field study, or
survey.
Step Four: Analyze. This is a very important step in
conceptualizing a model. In this case the system dynamics
modeling approach is selected. Based on the expected per-
Table IV. Stakeholder’s Requirements
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
formance determined in the previous step, the next question
is what or which processes drive the performance?
The main purpose is to yield a preliminary general model
of the systems, its elements/components, their dynamic rela-
tionships, and, finally, the conceptual model (systems archi-
tecture). The output of this step is a conceptual model that is
presented as closed loop diagram. Scenario building brain-
storming and workshops are useful methods. An examination
of the relationships between state variables and any existing
archetypes and theories is conducted, and if there is no arche-
type or theory, experts in the relevant discipline will be
interviewed. The model will then be enhanced by discus-
sion/interview or by using the Delphi method. There is a
tradeoff of complexity—usability. Iterations are conducted to
achieve the optimum model that meets the objective. This step
ends after consensus is reached.
Step Five: Design and Improve. After the conceptual
model is built, the next step is then formulation and formali-
zation. The aim is to establish the theoretical, logical, and
mathematical relationships among variables in the closed-
loop diagram. The values or the range of values of the avail-
able parameters are defined. These could be obtained from
secondary data sources such as databases, archives, or pre-
vious research. Unavailable parameter data can be determined
by judgment. This step is conducted iteratively until the
stakeholders agree upon the analytical model.
Step Six: Implementation. In this step, tests will be
conducted based on the experiment plan (scenarios) which
specifies the purpose, circumstances, and predicted output.
Experimenters will list the procedures and parameters used;
record the phenomena and findings for each experiment as
well as record communication process during simulation.
Furthermore, all the reports are collected and distributed. The
result of this experiment is then reflected towards the research
 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS OPTIONS
Table V. Possible Performance Specification
questions. If it is found unsatisfactory the iteration is con-
ducted.
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Industrial symbiosis, as a complex system, is difficult to
envisage and appreciate, but needs to be understood for plan-
ning and implementation. Modeling potential scenarios is one
approach to understand the interactions among components
for supporting the decision making process. Since modeling
an industrial symbiosis is intricate due to its complexity, a
guideline for such models is needed. The aim of this article is
to create a framework for evaluating industrial symbiosis
options using modeling.
Systems methodology is presented to organize the frame
of reference. The proposed framework methodology utilizes
systems thinking and systems theory during the conceptual
study, utilizes system dynamics as a modeling tool, and util-
izes systems engineering as a method in the modeling process.
The framework consists of two parts; the SE Process and the
Method. The SE process part, derived from system engineer-
ing process, is divided into two parts, defining the problem
and designing the solution. The method part describes quali-
tative methods that could be employed in each step of process.
Further work remains to explore the possible alternatives to
system dynamics as the modeling tool.
The framework is dynamic in the sense that it involves time
and is hierarchical as it is applied at levels of greater and
greater detail from the system to subsystems, from the corpo-
rate level to plant level, from the business performance to the
process driving the performance.
This article also illustrates the application of this frame-
work towards the case of introduction of aquaculture business
in order to establish a potential industrial symbiosis in Nor-
way. Having applied systems engineering to the case, it is
found that systems engineering provides a systematic tool to
address the questions of who is involved (identifying stake-
holders), what is needed (revealing problem), why the needs
exist (rationale), and how to meet the need. On the other hand,
systems engineering is not a standalone method. As a result,
it calls other methods to accomplish the case objective. The
qualitative methods are thus introduced as complementary for
systems engineering method to facilitate the communication
between modeler and stakeholders as well as communication
amongst stakeholders. This has the advantage that the model
157
is used as decision support tool by stakeholders as well as used
as learning tool by modeler.
Moreover, the proposed framework can be adopted for any
project in establishing industrial symbiosis since this frame-
work is used to derive the needs and requirements needed
specifically by the case. Further work remains to examine the
effectiveness of the framework as a method.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial support provided by Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology (NTNU), Norway, is gratefully acknow-
ledged. The authors thank the four anonymous reviewers for
their insights toward the improvement of this paper.
REFERENCES
R.L. Ackoff, Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management,
Wiley, New York, 1999.
B. Allenby, EHS, The white paper from the Electronics and the
Environment Committee (EHS) at the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) on sustainable development
and industrial ecology, IEEE, New York, 1995.
Anonymous, Aquaculture in Victoria investment analysis: A guide
for local government to assist regional aquaculture development,
Department of Primary Industries, Canberra, Australia, 2003,
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/, last accessed April 2007.
Aquaculture and Fisheries, University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff,
http://www.uaex.edu/aqfi/extension/aquaculture/startingbusine
ss, last accessed May 2007.
O.A. Asbjørnsen, Systems engineering, principles and practice,
Skarpodd, Arnold, MD, 1992.
F. Asche and F. Khatun, Aquaculture: Issues and opportunities for
sustainable production and trade, Issue Paper no. 5., University
of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway and Center for Policy Dialogue,
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/ictsd_se-
ries/nat_res/Asche_Khatun_2006.pdf, last accessed April 2007.
R.U. Ayres and L.U. Ayres, Industrial ecology—towards closing the
material cycle, Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996.
L. Baas, Cleaner production and industrial ecosystems: A Dutch
experience, J Cleaner Prod 6 (1998), 189–197.
A.T. Bahill and B. Gissing, Re-evaluating systems engineering
concepts using system thinking, IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet
Part C Appl Rev 28 (1998), 516–527.
J. Barney, Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage, J
Management 17 (1991), 99–120.
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
158 SOPHA ET AL.
H. Baumann, Environmental assessment of organizing: Towards a
framework for the study of organizational influence on environ-
mental performance, Prog Indust Ecol 1 (2004), 292–306.
B.S. Blanchard, Systems engineering and analysis, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
A. Bossilkov, D. van Beers, and R. van Berkel, Industrial symbiosis
as an integrative business practice in Kwinana Industrial Area,
lessons learnt and ways forward, Proc 11th Int Sustainable Dev
Res Conf, Finland, 2005, available online at http://c4cs.curtin.
edu.au/resources/publications/2005/is_kia_lessons_wayforward.
pdf
M.R. Chertow, Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy, Ann
Rev Energy Environ 25 (2000), 313–337.
E. Cohen-Rosenthal and J. Musnikow, Eco-industrial Strategies:
Unleashing synergy between economic development and the
environment, Work and Environment Initiative, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, NY, 2003.
J.F. Cox, J.H. Blackstone, and M.S. Spencer, APICS dictionary, 8th
edition, American Production and Inventory Control Society,
Falls Church, VA, 1995.
S. Dias and R. Yates, Advancing cooperative by-product synergy
program between Canada, Mexico & USA, Hatch, Regina,
SK, Canada, 2000.
J.R. Ehrenfeld, Industrial ecology: Paradigm shift or normal sci-
ence? Amer Behav Sci 44 (2000), 229–244.
J. Ehrenfeld and N. Gertler, Industrial ecology in practice: the
evolution of interdependence at Kalunborg, J Indust Ecol 1
(1997), 67–79.
J.A.M. Eilering and W.J.V. Vermeulen, Eco-industrial parks: Toward
industrial symbiosis and utility sharing practice, Prog Indust Ecol
1 (2004), 245–270.
G. Fairtlough, Biological models and business success, Bus Strategy
Rev 6 (1995), 27–40.
A.M. Fet, “Environmental management tools and their application—
a review with references to case studies,” Knowledge for inclu-
sive development, The University of Texas at Austin and the
Instituto Superior Tecnico, Austin, 2002, Chap. 19.
W. Fichtner, I. Tietze-Stockinger, M. Frank, and O. Rentz, Barriers
of inter-organizational environmental management: two case
studies on industrial symbiosis, Prog Indust Ecol 2 (2005),
73–88.
J. Fiksel, Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach,
Sustainability Sci Practice Policy 2 (2006), 1–8, http://ejour-
nal.nbii.org, last accessed October 2006.
R.A. Frosch, Industrial ecology: A philosophical introduction, Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 89 (1992), 800–803.
N. Gertler, Industrial ecosystem: Developing sustainable industrial
structures, Dissertation, Master of Science in Technology and
Policy and Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
1995.
J. Gharajedaghi, System thinking: Managing chaos and complexity,
2nd edition, Elsevier, New York, 2006.
S. Harris and C. Pritchard, Industrial ecology as a learning process
in business strategy, Prog Indust Ecol 1 (2004), 89–111.
C. Haskins, Multidisciplinary investigation of eco-industrial parks,
Syst Eng 9 (2006), 313–330.
C. Haskins, A systems engineering framework for eco-industrial
park formation, Syst Eng 10 (2007), 83–97.
Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys
M.M.D. Hassan, Engineering supply chains as systems, Syst Eng 9
(2006), 73–89.
Havbruksrapport, Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway,
2003, http://www.imr.no/produkter/publikasjoner/havbruksrap-
port/havbruksrapport, last accessed May 2006.
R.R. Heeres, and W.J.V. Vermeulen, Eco-industrial park initiatives
in the USA and the Netherlands: First lessons, J Cleaner Prod 12
(2004), 985–995.
M. Jarke, T. Bui, and J.M. Carrol, Scenario management: An inter-
disciplinary approach, Requirements Eng 3 (1998), 155–173.
The Kalundborg Centre for Industrial Symbiosis, Kalundborg, Den-
mark, 2008, http://www.symbiosis.dk/, last accessed March
2008.
M. Keitsch, Changing technology perceptions, Prog Indust Ecol
(PIE) 3 (2006), 41–58.
J. Korhonen, A material and energy flow model for co-production
of heat and power, J Cleaner Prod 10(2001), 537–544.
D.M. Lambert, J.R. Stock, and L.M. Ellram, Fundamentals of logis-
tics management, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.
E. Lanszlo and L. v. Bertalanffy, The relevance of general systems
theory: Paper presented to Ludwig von Bertalanffy on his seven-
tieth birthday, The International Library of Systems Theory and
Philosophy, New York, 1972.
F.R. Lichtkoppler, Factors to consider in establishing a successful
aquaculture business in The North Central Region, Technical
Bulletin Series #106, USDA Grant #89-38500-4319, U.S. De-
p ar tment of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1993,
http://govdocs.aquake.org/cgi/reprint/2003/604/6040170.pdf,
last accessed April 2007.
E. Lowe, S. Moran, and D. Holmes, Fieldbook for the development
of eco-industrial parks, indigo development, Vol. 2. Final report,
Research Triangle Institute Project Number 6050, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC, issued as Eco-industrial parks: A guidebook for
local development teams, Indigo Development, Daytona Beach,
FL, 1996.
R.R. Lummus and R.J. Vokurka, , Defining supply chain manage-
ment: A historical perspective and practical guidelines, Indust
Management Data Syst 99 (1999), 11–17.
S.A. Martin, R.A. Cushman, K.A. Weitz, A. Sharma, and R. Lin-
drooth, Applying industrial ecology to industrial parks: An eco-
nomic and environmental analysis, Research Triangle Institute,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1996.
D. McNeill, J. Garcia-Godos, and A. Gjerdåker, Interdisciplinary
research on development and the environment, SUM Report No.
10, Centre for Development and the Environment, University of
Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2001.
M. Mirata, Industrial symbiosis: A tool for more sustainable regions?
Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, Sweden, 2005.
R.K. Mitchell, B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood, Toward a theory of
stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of
who and what really counts, Acad Management Rev 22 (2004),
853–886.
R.M. Monczka and J. Morgan, What’s wrong with supply chain
management, Purchasing 122 (1997), 69–73.
D.G. Newnan, T. Eschenbach, and J.P.Lavelle, Engineering eco-
nomic analysis, 9th edition, Oxford University Press, New York,
2004.
NWCI, Mersey Banks Industrial Symbiosis Project: A study into
opportunities for sustainable development through inter-com-
 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS OPTIONS 159

pany collaboration, North West Chemical Initiative (NWCI),
Cheshire, UK, 2004.
R. Pomeroy, Decision-making factors for investment in aquaculture,
aquaculture fact sheet, Publication No. CTSG-03-13, Connecti-
cut Sea Grant College Program, The University of Connecticut,
Groton, http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/Decision.pdf, last ac-
cessed April 2007.
F.J. Quinn, What’s the buzz? Logistics Management 36 (1997),
43–47.
A.E. Rizzoli, J.R. Davis, and D.J. Abel, Model and data integration
and re-use in environmental decision support systems, Decision
Support Syst 24 (1998), 127–144.
A.P. Sage, Desiderata for systems engineering education. IEEE
Trans Syst Man Cybernet SMC-10, 12 (1980), 693–695.
A.P. Sage, System engineering: Fundamental limit and future pros-
pects, Proc IEEE 69 (1981), 158–166.
A.P. Sage, Systems engineering and management for industrial
ecology and sustainable development, IEEE Int Conf Syst Man
Cybernet, 1997, pp. 784–790.
P.M. Senge, The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning
organization, Currency Doubleday, New York, 1980.
D. Simchi Levi, P. Kaminsky, and E. Simchi-Levi, Designing and
managing the supply chain: Concepts, strategies and case studies,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
J.D. Sterman, Business dynamics: System thinking and modeling
for a complex world, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000.
D.B. Strömbom and S.M. Tweed, Business planning for aquacul-
ture—is it feasible? NRAC Fact Sheet No. 150-1992, Northeast
Regional Aquaculture Center, University of Massachusettes,
North Darmouth, MA, 1992, http://aquanic.org/publica-
t/usda_rac/efs/nrac/nrac150.pdf, last accessed April 2007.
The Kalundborg Centre for Industrial Symbiosis, Kalundborg, Den-
mark, 2008, http://www.symbiosis.dk/, last accessed March
2008.
N.M. Tichy, Managing strategic change: technical, political and
cultural dynamics, Wiley Series on Organizational Assessment
and Change, Wiley, New York, 1983.
B. Thomé, Systems engineering: Principles and practice of com-
puter-based systems engineering, Wiley, Chichester, 1993.
K. Warren, Competitive strategy dynamics, Wiley, New York, 2004.
A. Wolf, M. Eklund, and M. Söderström, Towards cooperation in
industrial symbiosis: Considering the importance of the human
dimension, Prog Indust Ecol 2 (2005), 185–199.
W.A. Wymore, Methodology for Interdisciplinary Teams, Wiley,
New York, 1976.
L. Xiaoyun, Actor analysis in natural resource management, IDRE
Workshop Short Notes Interdisciplinarity, 2000, p. 15.
M.M. Yarosh, Waste heat utilization, Proc Natl Conf, October 27–29,
Gatlinburg, TN, 1971, 348 pp.
R. Young, By-product synergy: A demonstration project, Tampico,
Mexico, Business Council for Sustainable Development—Gulf
of Mexico, Austin, TX, 1999.

Bertha Maya Sopha is a Ph.D. candidate in the Industrial Ecology Programme and Department of Energy and Process
Engineering, at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). She earned a bachelor of science from
the Chemical Engineering Department of Gadjah Mada University, Jogjakarta, Indonesia, and a master’s degree from
the Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden. The educational background has given her the blend of technical and managerial perspectives. Her research
interest is in the area of complex systems, investigating the mechanism of how actors and the networks involved in a
system cause the emergent phenomena.

Annik Magerholm Fet is a professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), where she is an
expert in environmental management, systems engineering, and life-cycle analysis. She currently leads multidisciplinary
initiatives within NTNU for Global Production and Corporate Social Responsibility. She is also the Director of Education
and Research for the Norwegian Systems Engineering Council and holds a position as board member of the Environ-
mental Product Declaration (EPD) Norway.

Martina Maria Keitsch is a senior advisor and researcher at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design. She has a
doctorate in philosophy in the field of environmental ethics and aesthetics. She has worked for over 15 years in the
design area, mainly with eco-industrial design, CSR, design theory, environmental ethics, systems methodology, theory
of science and aesthetics.

Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys

160 SOPHA ET AL.

Cecilia Haskins is an American living and working in Norway and blending the best of both cultures into her personal
and professional life. After earning her Ph.D. in Systems Engineering from NTNU, she has conducted postdoctoral
research on innovative applications of systems engineering to sociotechnical problems such as those encountered in
software development, sustainable development, and global production systems. Her educational background includes
a BSc in Chemistry from Chestnut Hill College and an MBA from Wharton, University of Pennsylvania. This
combination has contributed to her ability to understand issues with an insider’s view of both the business environments
and the technical solution domains. She has been recognized as a Certified Systems Engineering Professional since
2004.

Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys