Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Survival of The Flexible: Explaining The Recent Dominance of Nature-Inspired Optimization Within A Rapidly Evolving World
Survival of The Flexible: Explaining The Recent Dominance of Nature-Inspired Optimization Within A Rapidly Evolving World
igure 1 Different perspectives for assessing algorithm utility. Panel a) At small time scales.
the utility of an algorithm is viewed from the perspective of a static algorithm design. Under
these conditions. classical explanations of algorithm utility can be divided into fitness
landscape (top) and computational resource (bottom) arguments. %45: Popular algorithms
are effective for problems with problem characteristics that are common. or are becoming
increasingly so. for so called ~real world problems. In the diagram. the distance between an
algorithm (box) and problem (circle) indicates the suitability of the pairing. 49942:
Algorithms often have different cost-benefit profiles. such that the preferred technique can
sometimes depend on the computational resources available. The blue arrow indicates
current trends in the availability of computational resources and provides a conceptual
illustration of how this could influence views of algorithm utility. Panel b) rom a broader
perspective. algorithm utility is influenced by an algorithm framework`s adaptability
towards different problems. %45: Illustration of how algorithm flexibility influences utility.
49942: Algorithm adaptation profiles which show hypothetical values of solution quality as
a function of the amount of time given to algorithm development. The blue arrow indicates
the general trend of smaller available algorithm development times (see Section 3.2).
To ill:strate how a 5roblem`s liIecycle inIl:ences the relevance oI design Ilexibility, I introd:ce
three timescales: (T1) algorithm runtime; the time needed to reach a sto55ing criteria d:ring a
search 5rocess, (T2) algorithm development time; the time allotted to design an algorithm Ior a
5roblem, and (T3) problem lifespan; the amo:nt oI time that a 5roblem is relevant to a client.
6
A 5artic:larly im5ortant 5oint that I want to make in this disc:ssion is that the initial
5erIormance oI an algorithm on a 5artic:lar 5roblem is not act:ally im5ortant so long as eIIective
design changes can be discovered within the allotted design time (T2). S:ch design ada5tation
ca5abilities will de5end in 5art on the variety oI design change o5tions that are available as well as
the n:mber oI design change attem5ts that can be considered (~T2/T1). The im5ortance oI
algorithm design ada5tation is inIl:enced by several Iactors. For instance, a short 5roblem liIes5an
(T3) can 5lace considerable 5ress:re on T2 while the extent that a new 5roblem Iorm:lation
deviates Irom 5revio:s Iorm:lations will hel5 to determine the im5ortance and meaning oI ra5id
and eIIective ada5tation. Each oI these Iactors s:bstantial changes in 5roblem Iorm:lation, small
T3, and large T2/T3 all Iavor algorithmic Irameworks that q:ickly ada5t to new conditions, e.g.
movement to the leIt in the bottom gra5h in Fig:re 1b.
Partic:lar details will nat:rally de5end on the ty5e oI 5roblem considered. For instance, the
meaning oI T3 will de5end on whether a 5roblem is solved once (e.g. most design 5roblems) or
many times, e.g. in sched:ling. II solved once and a sol:tion can be reached at any time d:ring T3,
then T3 will 5lace a straightIorward constraint on algorithm :tility, e.g. T2 T3. When 5roblems
are re5eatedly solved, algorithm :tility might be estimated by sol:tion q:ality (e.g. cost)
im5rovement over other algorithms m:lti5lied by the time it is im5lemented, e.g. Asol:tion
q:ality} x T3-T2}. However when T3 is small, ra5id im5lementation can be im5ortant d:e to the
val:e oI being Iirst to market or val:e Irom avoiding bottlenecks within a larger 5roiect. Under
these conditions, the ra5id design oI s:IIicient algorithms can tr:m5 a better 5erIorming algorithm
that takes a longer time to develo5 |1|.
Algorithm adaptation during and after development
The 5roblem liIecycle has th:s Iar been described as having a liIes5an over which 5roblems are
relevant and a time window when algorithm develo5ment takes 5lace. What is observed in 5ractice
is ty5ically more com5licated. By looking closely at the individ:al com5onents oI a 5roblem
liIecycle, additional advantages Irom algorithm Ilexibility can be revealed.
First, as5ects oI a 5roblem (e.g. constraints, 5roblem Iorm:lation, even obiectives) can change
over the co:rse oI an algorithm develo5ment 5roiect. The reasons Ior these changes are varied |1|.
Partic:larly Ior new 5roblems, it is common to learn more abo:t the :nderlying nat:re oI the
5roblem, and conseq:ently want to change the 5roblem deIinition, as one develo5s ways to solve
it. In addition, s:rrogate models oI a 5roblem can change iI a client decides that the original
7
5roblem deIinition is no longer satisIactory, e.g. d:e to changes in a market5lace, man:Iact:ring
Iacility, 5ersonnel, raw materials, etc. A client`s tr:e interests are not always ca5t:red by a well
deIined 5roblem Iorm:lation and can involve a network oI interde5endent s:b-5roblems and soIt
obiectives that exist as tacit domain knowledge. Altho:gh sometimes Ir:strating to o5timization
algorithm develo5ers, early s:ccess d:ring algorithm develo5ment can also breed a desire Ior
change, e.g. a desire to ex5and the sco5e oI the 5roblem. However, it is worth noting that a change
in the 5roblem deIinition does not necessarily reIlect 5oor 5lanning or 5oor :nderstanding by the
client. Instead, well-regarded insights Irom management science s:ggest that these 5roblem
changes are likely a conseq:ence oI intelligent yet boundedlv rational individ:als attem5ting to
make sense oI their dynamic and com5lex world (cI |32, 33|). These arg:ments s:ggest that
changes to a 5roblem d:ring algorithm develo5ment are not always 5reventable and are likely to
be a 5ersistent Ieat:re in I:t:re o5timization contexts.
Changes to a 5roblem also occ:r Ior reasons o:tside the control oI the client and may take 5lace
aIter an algorithm is already im5lemented, e.g. see |6|. Ty5ical reasons Ior this incl:de :nex5ected
changes in a market or in the internal o5erating conditions oI a Iirm |1|.
In s:mmary, 5roblems can change d:ring and aIter the time that might have been allocated to
algorithm develo5ment. When this occ:rs, an algorithm m:st eIIectively ada5t and do so q:ickly
eno:gh to kee5 :5 with changing req:irements, e.g. oI a client d:ring algorithm develo5ment or a
market d:ring algorithm im5lementation. Under these circ:mstances, an algorithmic Iramework
whose general s:itability de5ends greatly on the conditions set o:t in the original 5roblem
deIinition might Iind itselI less able to accommodate new :nex5ected conditions that arise.
A Dynamic and VoIatiIe MarketpIace
The accelerating 5ace oI technological and organizational change has been doc:mented :sing
several s:rrogate metrics Ior technological 5rogress, innovation, and man:Iact:ring activity |34-
42|. The rate oI change is oIten not steady however and analogies have been made between
organizational, technological, and market changes and the 5:nct:ated eq:ilibria oI biological
evol:tion, i.e. where 5eriods oI a55arent stasis are Iollowed by ra5id change |43, 44|.
Technological 5rogress and diversiIication is 5artic:larly ra5id in inIormation technology |37,
38|, energy sectors |36|, biochemical and 5etrochemical ind:stries |39|, and some man:Iact:ring
sectors |40-42|. Altho:gh ra5id ex5ansion is not :niversally observed across ind:stries, it is
5artic:larly ac:te in domains where o5timization algorithms are oIten a55lied, i.e. those sensitive
8
to innovations in ICT.
Technological innovations can drive growth, however they can also be disr:5tive. There is
considerable evidence that 5rod:ct liIecycles are shrinking and that this is res:lting in a
s:bseq:ent 5:sh Ior shorter 5rod:ct develo5ment times across many sectors |45-51|. In res5onse,
research on the com5etitive advantage oI Iirms 5laces considerable em5hasis on the val:e derived
Irom ra5id 5rod:ct develo5ment, innovation s5eed and ada5tation in changing markets. This
em5hasis is largely organized aro:nd the st:dy oI 'dynamic ca5abilities and time-based
com5etition |53-60|. The changing b:siness conditions i:st described are likely to have a direct
bearing on the :tility oI I:t:re algorithm Irameworks. An overview oI these global trends and
others that are relevant to o5timization research is given in Fig:re 2.
igure 2 Panel a) Trends and interactions between optimization timescales. The amount of
time needed for an algorithm to search for a solution (T
1
) is decreasing due to technological
progress. As a result. a smaller proportion of algorithm development time (T
2
) is spent with
the algorithm running and more is spent on algorithm design changes. Because a problem`s
lifespan (T
3
) is decreasing and problem definition volatility is increasing. the available time
to make algorithm design changes is becoming more constrained. Panel b) Major trends
that have a direct bearing on optimization research.
Given these trends, the n:mber oI new o5timization 5roblems is ex5ected to increase within
ind:stries that are growing and diversiIying in res5onse to technology and market changes.
Viewed as an ecosystem oI ex5anding and diversiIying reso:rces, the algorithms most oIten
im5lemented are likely to be those that can most q:ickly ex5loit these diverse reso:rces. In other
words, algorithmic 5aradigms that are the most Ilexible to new conditions and can contrib:te to an
organization`s time-based com5etitive advantage are more likely to be :tilized.
The second maior trend is one oI growing volatility in extant 5roblems: Ior many ind:stries the
antici5ation oI I:t:re conditions (e.g. in organizational ca5abilities, reso:rces, markets,
com5etitors) is becoming more :ncertain. In addition, the 5roblems that a Iirm wants solved today
9
might only 5artially resemble the relevant 5roblems oI the I:t:re. In s:ch volatile environments,
the :tility oI an algorithm Iramework will not be derived Irom the ability to solve a static 5roblem.
Instead it will be the ability to ada5t to changing 5roblem conditions that is likely to deIine the
s:ccess or Iail:re Ior many o5timization a55lications.
Design FIexibiIity in NIM and MOT
MOT research decom5oses the world oI o5timization 5roblems into mathematically tractable
domains involving 5recise ass:m5tions and well-deIined 5roblem classes. The rationale Ior this
decom5osition is straightIorward; an algorithm can be a55licable to many 5roblems meeting the
req:isite conditions. It sho:ld be stressed that when s:ch conditions are satisIied, MOT oIten
generate s:5erior sol:tions com5ared with NIM algorithms. However, these constraints on
algorithm-5roblem s:itability take on new meaning Ior 5roblems that change s:bstantially d:ring
their liIecycle. MOT s:itability will req:ire both c:rrent and I:t:re 5roblem Iorm:lations to meet
s5eciIic conditions and iI changes to a 5roblem Iorm:lation eliminate mathematical reg:larities
ex5loited by the MOT, then this will limit the MOT`s :tility.
On the other hand, beca:se NIM algorithm design modiIication is common5lace, an algorithm
Iramework`s 5o5:larity m:st rely on m:lti5le s:ccesses in diIIerent contexts involving diIIerent
algorithm variants. Under these circ:mstances, long-term NIM algorithm 5o5:larity is less likely
to reIlect the 5erIormance oI the canonical algorithm and instead more likely reIlects s:ccess in
algorithm design modiIication across 5roblem contexts (see Fig:re 1b). Based on these arg:ments,
it is 5la:sible that s:ccessI:l NIM are readily ada5ted to the :niq:e attrib:tes oI diIIerent
5roblems.
Towards a theory of aIgorithm fIexibiIity
Altho:gh the conce5t oI algorithm Ilexibility is straightIorward, the conditions that determine
whether an algorithm is Ilexible are m:ch less obvio:s and need to be ex5lored in greater detail.
Along these lines, I Ieel it is im5ortant to make 5rogress in answering the Iollowing (related)
q:estions:
Adaptive plasticity to environmental (problem) context: What general conditions make
it easy/diIIic:lt to incor5orate domain knowledge into an algorithm.
#obustness to internal (algorithm) context: Are there general conditions where the
incl:sion oI a 5artic:lar o5erator or a design change has a catastro5hic im5act on other
10
im5ortant search characteristics oI the algorithm?
rigins of design innovation (Exaptation): When is it 5ossible to im5lement algorithm
'b:ilding blocks in new ways to achieve a more eIIective search 5rocess Ior a s5eciIic
5roblem?
Below I 5ro5ose some q:alitative attrib:tes that one might ex5ect in an algorithm that is
ada5table to diIIerent o5timization contexts.
robust yet adaptable behavior: Partic:lar search characteristics can be achieved thro:gh
n:mero:s distinct algorithm Iorm:lations (rob:st, many-to-one ma55ing) yet at the same
time these search characteristics can be changed and Iine-t:ned when needed (ada5table,
one-to-many ma55ing).
modularity and loose coupling: There are Iew req:irements that one Ieat:re oI the
algorithm design 5laces on other design Ieat:res or on the 5roblem deIinition. This might
be viewed as the 5resence oI I:nctional enca5s:lation and virt:al 5rotocols within
algorithm search behavior.
#esponsive: Algorithm changes are easy to make and easy to test. Learning by doing is
ra5id s:ch that the time needed to ada5t the algorithm to a local context is Iast eno:gh to
make learning by doing a viable a55roach. Also, design im5rovements can be discovered
witho:t :nderstanding the mechanics oI the algorithm.
eedback: UseI:l Ieedback inIormation is available that 5rovides g:idance abo:t what
as5ects oI the algorithm design may need to change.
essons from nature
The q:alities oI an ada5tive algorithm Iramework listed above describe several Ieat:res that are
relevant to ada5tation in biology. For instance, in a review by Kirschner and Gerhart |62|, they
highlight mod:larity, a loose reg:latory co:5ling, 5rotocols, I:nctional versatility, and ex5loratory
behavior as being highly relevant to the evolvability oI biological systems. A rob:st yet Ilexible
algorithmic core that can broadly ada5t to diIIerent 5roblem conditions 5rovides the basis oI o:r
conce5t:al :nderstanding oI algorithm Ilexibility (Fig:re 5b) and shares many similarities with
observations oI biological evol:tion |62|. For instance, altho:gh individ:al s5ecies are highly
so5histicated s5ecialists o5erating within :niq:e habitats, most s5ecies share a set oI conserved
core 5rocesses |62, 63|. Trait diIIerences between many com5lex s5ecies can largely be attrib:ted
11
to diIIerences in the time and 5lace in which I:nctions are exec:ted while there are relatively
Iewer diIIerences in the obiects (enzymes, com5artments, cells) 5erIorming the 5artic:lar
I:nctions.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that there has been some 5rogress in :nderstanding the
relationshi5 between rob:stness, Ilexibility, and evolvability in the context oI biological evol:tion
and artiIicial liIe |64-67|. These develo5ments might event:ally 5rovide new design 5rinci5les that
can contrib:te to the develo5ment oI Ilexible and rob:st algorithms. For instance, recent st:dies
have indicated that degeneracy is an im5ortant contrib:tor to the rob:stness and evolvability oI
biological systems |66, 67|. egeneracy reIers to conditions in which m:lti-I:nctional
com5onents within a system can be I:nctionally interchangeable in certain contexts, yet 5rovide
:niq:e I:nctions in other contexts. In other words, when degeneracy is 5resent there are many
diIIerent ways to achieve a 5artic:lar I:nctional o:tcome, however these same 5rocesses can
a55ear to have highly diverse o:tcomes within new environments, th:s 5roviding a basis Ior
selective diIIerences that are revealed by 5artic:lar environmental contexts |68|. I have 5resented
arg:ments and sim:lations to demonstrate how these conce5ts can be a55lied in man:Iact:ring
assembly systems |69|, strategic 5lanning Ior land vehicle Ileets |70|, and in certain ty5es oI
dynamic o5timization 5roblems involving m:lti-agent systems |71|. While it is not yet clear how
these conce5ts can be a55lied to im5rove :5on algorithm Irameworks, these theoretical
develo5ments might :ltimately 5rove relevant to I:t:re algorithm research, 5artic:larly iI the
5ro5erties that Iacilitate evolvability in biological systems are widely a55licable to other com5lex
ada5tive systems.
ConcIusions
O5timization 5roblems are not traditionally tho:ght oI as having an ex5iration date. However,
waning are the days when a commercial o5timization 5roblem can be deIined and st:died Ior
many years witho:t the 5roblem changing. More and more in today`s com5anies, new 5roblems
ra5idly come into existence and existing 5roblems :nex5ectedly change. Under these conditions,
sol:tion q:ality de5ends on ra5id algorithm develo5ment and an algorithm`s ca5acity to
accommodate new inIormation.
In this 5a5er I 5ro5osed that the dominance oI nat:re-ins5ired meta-he:ristics is 5artly d:e to
their ca5acity to be eIIiciently and eIIectively modiIied to Iit the characteristics oI a 5roblem. In a
12
volatile and dynamic world, the 5o5:larity oI these algorithms might have less to do with the
eIIicacy oI a 5artic:lar algorithm on a 5artic:lar set oI 5roblems and more to do with the ability to
incor5orate domain knowledge q:ickly and to be advantageo:sly combined with other methods.
Under these volatile conditions, it is im5ortant Ior :s to gain a dee5er :nderstanding oI the basic
5rinci5les that allow Ior ada5tation in com5lex systems. #ecent insights in com5lexity science
and systems biology may 5rovide g:idance in the develo5ment oI algorithms with more Ilexible
designs Ior tackling the growing n:mber oI 5roblems with a short and volatile liIecycle.
References
|1| Z. Michalewicz and . B. Fogel, ow to solve it. modern heuristics: S5ringer-Verlag
New York 2004.
|2| J. M. Whitacre, "#ecent Trends Indicate #a5idly Growing ominance oI Nat:re-Ins5ired
O5timization in Academia and Ind:stry," Computing. (in 5ress).
|3| J. Holland, daptation in natural and artificial svstems: MIT 5ress Cambridge, MA,
1992.
|4| . E. Goldberg, Genetic algorithms in search. optimization and machine learning:
Addison-Wesley Longman P:blishing Co., Inc. Boston, MA, USA, 1989.
|5| Q. T. Pham, "EIIect oI N:merical Errors on the PerIormance oI O5timization Methods,"
5resented at the Proceedings oI Chemeca, Brisbane, A:stralia, 2005.
|6| . B. Fogel, "Introd:ction to evol:tionary com5:tation," Modern euristic Optimization
Techniques. Theorv and pplications to Power Svstems. 5. 1, 2007.
|7| Y. Jin and J. Branke, "Evol:tionary o5timization in :ncertain environments-a s:rvey,"
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionarv Computation. vol. 9, 55. 303-317, 2005.
|8| J. He and X. Yao, "From an individ:al to a 5o5:lation: An analysis oI the Iirst hitting
time oI 5o5:lation-based evol:tionary algorithms," IEEE Transactions on Evolutionarv
Computation. vol. 6, 55. 495-511, 2002.
|9| P. K. Lehre and X. Yao, "Crossover can be constr:ctive when com5:ting :niq:e in5:t
o:t5:t seq:ences," 2008, 55. 595604.
|10| J. He. et al., "A note on 5roblem diIIic:lty meas:res in black-box o5timization:
ClassiIication, realizations and 5redictability," Evolutionarv Computation. vol. 15, 55. 435-443,
2007.
|11| T. Blickle, "Theory oI Evol:tionary Algorithms and A55lication to System Synthesis,"
Swiss Federal Instit:te oI Technology, 1996.
|12| W. Wieczorek and Z. J. Czech, "Selection Schemes in Evol:tionary Algorithms,"
Proceedings of the Svmposium on Intelligent Information Svstems (IIS2002 ). 55. 185-194, 2002.
|13| E. Van Nimwegen and J. P. Cr:tchIield, "O5timizing E5ochal Evol:tionary Search:
Po5:lation-Size e5endent Theory," Machine Learning. vol. 45, 55. 77-114, 2001.
|14| T. Smith. et al., "Local evolvability oI statistically ne:tral GasNet robot controllers,"
Biosvstems. vol. 69, 55. 223-243, 2003.
|15| S. Niissen and T. Back, "An analysis oI the behavior oI sim5liIied evol:tionary
algorithms on tra5 I:nctions," IEEE Transactions on Evolutionarv Computation. vol. 7, 55. 11-22,
2003.
|16| . E. Goldberg and K. eb, "A Com5arative Analysis oI Selection Schemes Used in
Genetic Algorithms," Urbana. vol. 51, 55. 61801-2996.
|17| J. M. Whitacre. et al., "Making and breaking 5ower laws in evol:tionary algorithm
5o5:lation dynamics," Memetic Computing. vol. 1, 5. 125, 2009.
|18| F. Herrera. et al., "Tackling #eal-Coded Genetic Algorithms: O5erators and Tools Ior
Behavio:ral Analysis," rtificial Intelligence Review. vol. 12, 55. 265-319, 1998.
|19| A. Eiben and J. Smith, Introduction to evolutionarv computing: S5ringer Verlag, 2003.
|20| K. e Jong, Evolutionarv computation. a unified approach: The MIT Press, 2006.
|21| L. avis, andbook of Genetic lgorithms: Van Nostrand #einhold New York, 1991.
13
|22| . E. Goldberg and S. Voessner, "O5timizing global-local search hybrids," Urbana. vol.
51, 5. 61801, 1999.
|23| P. Merz and B. Freisleben, "A Com5arison oI Memetic Algorithms, Tab: Search, and Ant
Colonies Ior the Q:adratic Assignment Problem," in congress on evolutionarv computation, 1999,
55. 2063-2070.
|24| K. A. e Jong. et al., "Using Markov chains to analyze GAFOs," Foundations of genetic
algorithms. vol. 3, 55. 115-137, 1995.
|25| T. Back. et al., "Evol:tionary com5:tation: comments on the history and c:rrent state,"
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionarv Computation. vol. 1, 55. 3-17, 1997.
|26| Z. Michalewicz, "A hierarchy oI evol:tion 5rograms: An ex5erimental st:dy,"
Evolutionarv Computation. vol. 1, 55. 51-76, 1993.
|27| Z. Michalewicz, Genetic algorithms data structures evolution programs: S5ringer,
1996.
|28| P. P. Bonissone. et al., "Evol:tionary Algorithms omain Knowledge #eal-World
Evol:tionary Com5:tation," IEEE Transactions on Evolutionarv Computation. vol. 10, 5. 256,
2006.
|29| Z. Michalewicz, Genetic algorithms data structures: S5ringer, 1996.
|30| K. e Jong, "Evolving in a changing world," Lecture notes in computer science. 55. 512-
519, 1999.
|31| J. Branke and . C. MattIeld, "Antici5ation and Ilexibility in dynamic sched:ling,"
International Journal of Production Research. vol. 43, 55. 3103-3129, 2005.
|32| H. A. Simon, Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Santa Monica: #and Cor5, 1953.
|33| K. E. Weick. et al., "Organizing and the 5rocess oI sensemaking," Organization Science.
vol. 16, 5. 409, 2005.
|34| #. Fre. et al., "Prod:ctivity growth, technical 5rogress, and eIIiciency change in
ind:strialized co:ntries," The merican Economic Review. 55. 66-83, 1994.
|35| #. K:rzweil, "The law oI accelerating ret:rns," KuzweilI. net. Retrieved Nov. vol. 24, 5.
2008, 2001.
|36| H. Koh and C. L. Magee, "A I:nctional a55roach Ior st:dying technological 5rogress:
extension to energy technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change. vol. 75, 55. 735-
758, 2008.
|37| J. B. Waldner, Nanocomputers and swarm intelligence: Wiley-ISTE, 2008.
|38| C. Walter, "Kryder's law," Scientific merican. vol. 293, 5. 32, 2005.
|39| B. Achilladelis. et al., "The dynamics oI technological innovation: The case oI the
chemical ind:stry* 1," Research Policv. vol. 19, 55. 1-34, 1990.
|40| L. Argote and . E55le, "Learning c:rves in man:Iact:ring," Science. vol. 247, 55. 920-
924, 1990.
|41| S. Alberth, "Forecasting technology costs via the ex5erience c:rveMyth or magic?,"
Technological Forecasting & Social Change. vol. 75, 55. 952-983, 2008.
|42| C. Harmon, "Ex5erience c:rves oI 5hotovoltaic technology," Laxenburg. IIS. pp. vol.
17, 2000.
|43| A. Sood and G. J. Tellis, "Technological evol:tion and radical innovation," Journal of
Marketing. vol. 69, 55. 152-168, 2005.
|44| C. J. G. Gersick, "#evol:tionary change theories: A m:ltilevel ex5loration oI the
5:nct:ated eq:ilibri:m 5aradigm," The academv of management review. vol. 16, 55. 10-36, 1991.
|45| A. GriIIin, "Metrics Ior meas:ring 5rod:ct develo5ment cycle time," Journal of Product
Innovation Management. vol. 10, 55. 112-125, 1993.
|46| M. . #osena: Jr, "S5eeding yo:r new 5rod:ct to market," Journal of consumer
Marketing. vol. 5, 55. 23-36, 1988.
|47| W. Q:alls. et al., "Shortening oI the PLC: an em5irical test," The Journal of Marketing.
vol. 45, 55. 76-80, 1981.
|48| #. A. Bettis and M. A. Hitt, "The new com5etitive landsca5e," Strategic Management
Journal. vol. 16, 55. 7-19, 1995.
|49| M. CrawIord, "The hidden costs oI accelerated 5rod:ct develo5ment," Journal of Product
Innovation Management. vol. 9, 55. 188-199, 1992.
|50| M. #. Millson. et al., "A s:rvey oI maior a55roaches Ior accelerating new 5rod:ct
develo5ment," Journal of Product Innovation Management. vol. 9, 55. 53-69, 1992.
|51| A. L. Page, "Assessing new 5rod:ct develo5ment 5ractices and 5erIormance: establishing
cr:cial norms," Journal of Product Innovation Management. vol. 10, 55. 273-290, 1993.
|52| B. L. Bay:s, "Are 5rod:ct liIe cycles really getting shorter?," Journal of Product
Innovation Management. vol. 11, 55. 300-308, 1994.
14
|53| G. Stalk, "Timethe next so:rce oI com5etitive advantage," arvard Business Review.
vol. 66, 55. 41-51, 1988.
|54| G. Stalk and T. M. Ho:t, Competing against time: Free 5ress New York, 1990.
|55| E. H. Kessler and A. K. Chakrabarti, "Innovation s5eed: a conce5t:al model oI context,
antecedents, and o:tcomes," The cademv of Management Review. vol. 21, 55. 1143-1191, 1996.
|56| S. A. Zahra. et al., "Entre5rene:rshi5 and dynamic ca5abilities: a review, model and
research agenda," JOURNL OF MNGEMENT STUDIES-OXFORD-. vol. 43, 5. 917, 2006.
|57| C. E. HelIat and M. A. PeteraI, "The dynamic reso:rce-based view: Ca5ability
liIecycles," Strategic Management Journal. vol. 24, 55. 997-1010, 2003.
|58| . J. Teece, "Ex5licating dynamic ca5abilities: the nat:re and microIo:ndations oI
(s:stainable) enter5rise 5erIormance," Business Week. 5. 64, 2004.
|59| K. M. Eisenhardt and J. A. Martin, "ynamic ca5abilities: what are they?," Strategic
management iournal. 55. 1105-1121, 2000.
|60| K. Eisenhardt and B. N. Tabrizi, "Accelerating Ada5tive Processes: Prod:ct Innovation in
the Global Com5:ter Ind:stry," dministrative Science Quarterlv. vol. 40, 1995.
|61| A. E. Eiben and M. Jelasity, "A critical note on ex5erimental research methodology in
EC," 2002, 55. 582587.
|62| M. Kirschner and J. Gerhart, "Evolvability," Proceedings of the National cademv of
Sciences. US. vol. 95, 55. 8420-8427, 1998.
|63| J. Gerhart and M. Kirschner, "The theory oI Iacilitated variation," Proceedings of the
National cademv of Sciences. vol. 104, 5. 8582, 2007.
|64| S. Ciliberti. et al., "Innovation and rob:stness in com5lex reg:latory gene networks,"
Proceedings of the National cademv of Sciences. US. vol. 104, 55. 13591-13596, 2007.
|65| A. Wagner, "#ob:stness and evolvability: a 5aradox resolved," Proceedings of the Roval
Societv of London. Series B. Biological Sciences. vol. 275, 55. 91-100, 2008.
|66| J. M. Whitacre and A. Bender, "egeneracy: a design 5rinci5le Ior achieving rob:stness
and evolvability," Journal of Theoretical Biologv. vol. 263, 55. 143-53, Mar 7 2010.
|67| J. M. Whitacre and A. Bender, "Networked b:IIering: a basic mechanism Ior distrib:ted
rob:stness in com5lex ada5tive systems," Theoretical Biologv and Medical Modelling vol. 7, 15
J:ne 2010 2010.
|68| G. M. Edelman and J. A. Gally, "egeneracy and com5lexity in biological systems,"
Proceedings of the National cademv of Sciences. US. vol. 98, 55. 13763-13768, 2001.
|69| #. Frei and J. M. Whitacre, "egeneracy and Networked B:IIering: 5rinci5les Ior
s:55orting emergent evolvability in agile man:Iact:ring systems," Journal of Natural Computing -
Special Issue on Emergent Engineering. (in 5ress).
|70| J. M. Whitacre. et al., "Evol:tionary Mechanics: new engineering 5rinci5les Ior the
emergence oI Ilexibility in a dynamic and :ncertain world
(htt5://www.box.net/shared/l56kcd62:k)," Natural Computing. (in 5ress).
|71| J. M. Whitacre. et al., "The role oI degenerate rob:stness in the evolvability oI m:lti-
agent systems in dynamic environments," in PPSN XI, Krakow, Poland, 2010, 55. 284-293.