21. Yüzyılda Finansal Risk Yönetimi



Submitted to the third International Conference in Economics ECON2013 to be held in Eskisehir, Turkey on 19-21 June 2013.




Fatma ÇINAR [1] @fatma_cinar_ftm

Assoc. Dr. Kutlu MERİH [2] @CORTEXIEN




For contemporary enterprises to achieve competitive power and gain success, taking only the new technology and quickly transforms into physical values and an excellent way to manage the assets and liabilities does not seem enough to succeed. While recent advances in communication technologies caused to a strategical change of organizations structures, for their performance modeling it is required to develop a new theory “Complexity” based on cybernetic concepts. The application of this theory a new “Complexity Management” approach is required outside the conventional paradigm, Businesses, must use measurement and management systems consistent with their organizational structures and strategies in order to achieve their sustainability. Today, many organizations, while developing strategies for customer relations, competitive forces and institutional capacities, they content with financial measures of performance levels. However, these approaches fail on the measurement of the real value created by the company.

In particular the quantitative modeling of organizations is not enough just to corporate performance management activities. Due to lack of mathematical and statistical methods to express Intangible factors that influence performance in enterprises, new modeling techniques based on organic-Informatics and control structure of the corporations are required. In this study we suggest a model in all aspects of business valuation as an organic complex structure and we call it “Complexity Business Balance Card (CBBC)”. With “CBBC” we aim to model of the effects of complex actors on the overall performance (efficiency and effectiveness) by the aid of a “Fishbone Diagram” like “Sycamore Tree” diagram.

Ensuring the continuity of the activities of enterprises, financial data, as well as the internal values to be shown on the tables of the whole matrix of relations. To achieve this model must be capable of data exchange with SQL-based data source objects and On-Line and Real-Time data monitoring. Thus, interactive “Strategic Planning Instrument” models are formed. With this, it will be apparent the priority of relations of all the “assets” effecting the performance and to what extent the strategic objectives are achieved and cause-and-effect relationships which affect the long-term financial success are displayed.


Keywords: Multi-Dimensional Performance Evaluation Model, Complexity Management, Complexity Business Balance Card (CBBC), Complex Soft Systems, Sustainable Organizational Performance.


JEL Classifications: D Microeconomics, D2 – Production and Organizations, D21 – Firm Behavior: Theory, D 81 – Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty.



Object-Based Business Modeling Application Techniques: Complexity Business Balance Card (CBBC) As Sycamore Tree Diagram



For contemporary business organizations, analytical and quantitative modeling techniques are not sufficient for modeling of the complex structured corporate performance management activities. Mathematical and statistical methods lack of performance to express the impact of intangible factors. That makes mandatory to use new models that are based on organic thinking, Informatics and control theory. In this study, we propose a new modeling technique based on object based modeling of the financial relations of the organizations. This model aimed to represent at all aspects of the complex structure of an organic structure of an organization. We call it “Complexity Business Card Balance (CBBC) Model”. “CBBC” model tries to comprehend to understand the behavior of complex systems overall performance of the whole complex of actors (efficiency and effectiveness) contributions by the aid of a Fishbone Diagram like “Sycamore Tree Diagram”.


air max 360

Fractal Structure of Organizations: Sycamore Tree Diagram

Businesses are quite blurred the boundaries of problem areas and problem areas that often are intertwined. A “problem area” should be kept under the control of a business process. In fact, all the functional areas of business are a problematic and will be concerned with its own sub-problem areas. They complicate the modeling and analysis of the business processes which leads to the formation of the “Complex-Dynamic-Organic” structures.

Conventional organigram representations of organizational structures are lack of representing the intricate relations of organizational structural modules. A new way of thinking is required to express and analyze this relation. We propose a new model of organizational structures to analyze the dynamical behavior of organizational performance. We name it as “Complexity Business Balance Card (CBBC)” with “Sycamore Tree Diagram” which uses an object oriented structure both modeling and evaluating the organizational behavior. This is a kind of “Object Oriented Fishbone Diagram”.


Sycamore Tree Diagram of the organizations basically made of object oriented modules that permits to approach and use the informatics resources of organizations. These modules represent the “Relations of Organizational Objects” in an organic way of thinking. In other words “Object Based Organizational Structure Model (Sycamore Tree)” represents organic organizational structure, its internal balance and coordination processes, horizontal and vertical linkages and its self-control with the fractal structured hierarchy of the organizational objects.












Each cell of this table is a fractal structured object oriented module which is available by Object Oriented software like MS Office, Ms Project, C++ or JAVA. We used both MS Office and Java to activate this technique. Fractal means here that each cell has its own Sycamore Tree. This structure has the capability of both representing the modular-hierarchical structure of organization and able to use its informatics resources.


Description of the Objects

An Object is an entity which has the property of functioning and gives response to the stimulus. Each object is characterized by its Properties, Events (Stimulus) and Methods (Responses). In this manner organizational entities are a form of objects. Some objects are basic and all the other objects are obtained the extension of these basic objects. Extended object have all the properties and methods of basic objects and some more. The most basic object of an organization is the human being. All of the organizational forms are the extensions of these basic objects.

Organizational Agents: These are the strategically structural combinations of the basic organizational objects. These could be Administration, Finance, Procurement, Production, Marketing, etc. Agents are objects themselves but they are more professionalized combinations of building block objects.



Description of the Object Modules of CBBC Sycamore Tree

Cortex Cortex is the basic object module of an organization. All of the other object modules are the extended form of this basic object. In real World this is the founding will and Management of organizations. It serves the purpose of control, coordination and regulation of all other structural objects and relations with the surrounding complex world. No organization can exists without a Cortex object and each organizational object has a linkage with Cortex. Conventional business thinking names this as “Management” but the Cortex is something more than management.
Financial Environment Relations The basic object of the financial relations Agent is the invested capital. With the extension of the capital object (investments), the other objects become to materialize. Transforming capital to the products / services all the other objects exercises their functions. In addition, capital agent has horizontal relations with accounting, balance sheet, banking and capital markets agents. In this paper we elaborate this object later.
Production Relations This object directly related to the products / services that appropriate to the sector controls and coordinates the logistical and production processes. R & D Innovation processes are associated with this object and its other agents.
Marketing Relations This object is the extension of Production object and controls the perception of the market for the products, managing the sales channels and coordination with innovation objects.
Customer Relations This object controls and coordinates the transformation products / services to the customers in an appropriate manner and related to every object which concerns customers.
Competitions Relations This object concerns with product / service offering positions to be taken by the company observing product / service life curves of the other competitive products.
Global Environment Relations This object concern with product / service developments in the global arena, technology investments and macro-economic order, new / potential customers, new strategies such as mergers.
Innovation Relations This object related with R & D and product objects directly.
Information & Communications Technologies Relations This object provides alternative informatics assets for the strategically management of the enterprises.
Regulatory Relations The agent in the legal sphere concerns with the compliance with the requirements and regulations issued by the state authorities. For example, mandatory balance sheet and accounting operations.
Stakeholder Relations This object taking into account of all stakeholders, and their complex business agents related with the enterprise.


All of these objects interact among themselves with object relations and each of them is related and controlled by the Cortex.

Each box and each arrow on the Sycamore Tree Diagram itself is a Sycamore Tree Diagram. Therefore a Sycamore Tree Diagram is a fractal hierarchy of Sycamore Tree Diagrams.

Sycamore Tree Diagram for Financial Object: Financial CBBC

Sycamore Tree Diagram reveals how activities of agents affect the performance of the business. In this section we concentrate on the “CBBC” which reveals the relations of “Financial Affairs” with all other agents of the enterprise. This model tries to identify the priority of the “Business Objects” performances which affect the strategic objective of long-term financial success and performance of the system.












Capital, Accounting, Financial Statements, Alternative Finance Objects

The most basic object of the Financial Agent is the “Capital” of enterprise. Capital has strategically importance on the assets that directly affect business performance. “Accounting Agent” provides the registration of all business transactions. We assume the starting point of the Financial CBBC as the “Balance Sheet Agent”. The enterprises relations with the banking system and state departments are carried out through the balance sheet of the enterprise that creates a bridge with these agents. Here the relations of the capital object with all other objects are coordinated through reporting mechanisms targeted to Cortex. Capital, on the other hand, enjoy the supply of funds from the “Alternative Financing Objects” of the capital markets.

Financial Control and Coordination: Auditing

Financial Management of companies requires the valuation of financial performance of the enterprise in the sector in which it operates. This includes the strength of the competition and analyzed with the help of financial information. The company’s total assets and liabilities estimated monetary values determined by the “Valuation Agent” applying the methods of assessment. Ensuring the compliance of the appropriateness of the valuation of financial consolidation and reporting requirements made of “Independent Audit Agent”.

Conflict Resolution Agent: Legal Disputes

In our view the object which we claim to have critical importance is the “Conflict Resolution Agent” which manages “legal disputes”. This object has the intangible nature but has critical effect of the other Financial Management Objects and their network management processes and finally has an impact on the performance of a weighted direct and long-term financial success of the enterprise.

Public Regulation and Supervision Agent: BRSA and CMB

Compliance to banking transactions and regulatory rules by the Fund diversity necessitates “BRSA agent” and other derivative products market transactions and corporate governance regulations necessitates “CMB agent”.

Each of these agents will have their own Sycamore Tree Diagrams (Fractal Structure)

Working Principles of Financial Management Object

The fundamental agent of the Financial Management Object is capital and this is strictly related to the external “Banks” agent. “Capital Object” relationships with other objects of Sycamore Tree Diagram are reported to the Cortex and are coordinated by this. In the same way other objects are related with each other by the horizontal and vertical relations.



All of these relationships in a business unit or process emerge from the conceptual meaning of the complex business universe. To understand and control of them requires mathematics, graphics and the informatics tools. Analysis and forecasting in the behavior of these relations must be modeled with appropriate Complexity Oriented techniques. Object Oriented Sycamore Tree Diagram hopefully will be one of them.

In this study we aimed to suggest an object oriented technique for the decision-makers, to fulfill the organizational activities with strategically efficiency. Complexity Business Balance Card (CBBC) model and Sycamore Tree Diagram are the tools we developed to achieve these purposes.

The nature of business continuity is just not possible to express only with profit maximization. Beside the financial data there are intangible strategically factors that cannot be expressed in figures. These are the hidden assets of enterprises. The financial statements are not represent the factors like legal disputes or innovation activities. Through this model, the complex organizational structures of enterprises operating in an ever increasing competitive environment will contribute to the systematic contribution in reaching the objectives of the management functions. This study suggests that complex thinking is a must in many ways for organizations rather than a necessity.



Allen, P. M., (2001). “A Complex Systems Approach to Learning in Adaptive Networks”, International Journal of Innovation Management Vol. 5, No.2. pp. 149 – 180.

Bak, P., Tang, C. and Wiesenfeld, K., (1988). “Self – Organized Criticality”, Physical Review, 38, 364 – 374.

Chenhall R. H., (1996). “Strategies of Manufacturing Flexibility, Manufacturing Performance Measures and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Investigation”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 7/5, 25-32.

Churchman, C. W., (1979). “The Systems Approach”, 2nd ed, Dell, New York.

Çınar, F., (2010). “1980 Sonrası Gelişen Yönetim Teorileri ve Örgüt İlişkisi”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.

Çınar, F., (2011). “21. Yüzyılda Organizasyonel Formlar ve Karmaşıklık (Complexity) Paradigması”, Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=1919>

Çınar, F., (2011). “Kaotik Sosyoteknik Ortamlarda Complex (Karmaşık) Organizasyonlar”, Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=1929>

Çınar, F., (2012). “Kompleksite Ortamında Başarılı Yöneticilik”, Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=2008>

Çınar, F., (2013). “Performans Ölçümünde Finansal ve Finansal Olmayan Yöntemlerin Birlikte Kullanımını Esas Alan Yöntem: Complexity Business Balance Card (CBBC)” Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=2079>

Coşkun, A., (2006). “Stratejik Performans Yönetiminde Performans Karnesi Kullanımı: Türkiye’deki Sanayi İşletmeleri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma”. MÖDAV Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi 8(1).

Ghalayini A.M., Noble J. S., (1996). “The Changing Basis of Performance Measurement”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(8).

Gürol, Y. D., (2004). “Toplam (Dengeli) Başarı Göstergesi (Balanced Scorecard) Yönteminin Stratejik Bilginin Sağlanması Sürecindeki Yeri”, 3. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi, s. 315 – 322 Eskişehir.

Holland, J. H., (2000). “Implicit Order – Creating Complex Adaptive” Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, pp.9-10. V1-485.

Holland, J. H., (2001). “Emerged” Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, pp.5-6.

Kaplan, S. Robert & Norton, P. David., (2007). “Balance Scorecard Şirket Stratejisini Eyleme Dönüştürmek”, Sistem Yayıncılık.

Kauffman, S. A., (1996). “At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self Organization and Complexity”, Penguin Books, London.

Kauffman, S. A., (1991). “Antichaos and Adaptation: Biological Evolution May Have Been Shaped by More Than Just Natural Selection”, Scientific American, 265, 78-84.

Kei, Fang M., (2003). “Complexity of The Socio-Economic System” Journal of Capital Normal University, vol.1, Jan.2003, pp.101-103.

Kuhn, T. S., (1996). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, 3. Bas. University of Chicago Press, (Türkçesi için bkz. Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı, Alan Yayıncılık).

Mabey, C., Salaman, G., Storey, J., (2001). “Organizational Structuring and Restructuring”, in Salaman, G., ed. Understanding Business Organisations, Routledge, London, p. 157, 158, 164.

Morgan, G., (1993). “Imaginization”, Sage. Newbury Park, California.

McMaster, M. D., (1996). “The Intelligence Advantage. Organizing for Complexity”, Newton, MA, Butterworth Heinemann. Rakotobe-Joel, T. eds. University of Warwick, UK.

McMillan, E., (2000). “Using Self Organizing Principles to create effective project teams as part of an organizational change intervention: A case study of the Open University”, in Complexity and Complex Systems in Industry, McCarthy, I. and Rakotobe-Joel, T. Eds. University of Warwick, UK.

Mathew, K. M., White, M. C. ve Long, R., (1999). “Why Studying the Complexity Sciences in the Social Sciences?”, Human Relations, 52, 439-462.

Merih, K., (2011). “Stokastik Finans Mühendisliği ve Kompleksite”, Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=1556>

Merih, K., ve Çınar, F., (2012). “Örgüt Yapılarındaki Değişimin Modellenmesinde Kompleksite (Complexity) Yaklaşımı.”, 32. Ulusal Yöneylem Araştırması ve Endüstri Mühendisliği Kongresi, s.261, Haziran 2012, <http://yaem2012.org/>, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=2016>


Merih, K., ve Çınar, F., (2013). “Örgüt Performansının “Complexity Business Balance Card” (CBBC) Modeli İle Ölçümlenmesi Üzerine Bir Öneri”, Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=2293>

Merih, K., C. Coşkun Küçüközmen (2013). “Entegre Raporlama” – “Object Tabanlı İşletme Performasının (CBBC) Modeli ile Ölçümlenmesi”, Üzerine Söyleşi. Şubat’13, İzmir. <http://.www.coskunkucukozmen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/soylesi.pdf.>

Merih, K., (2013). “Object Kökenli (Object Oriented) İş Modeli Geliştirme” Riskonomi Dergisi, İstanbul. <http://www.riskonomi.com/wp/?p=2336>

Principia Cybernetica Web: <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/TOCEXPAN.html>

Straub, R., (2013). “Why Managers Haven’t Embraced Complexity”, HBR Blog Network, May 6. <http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/05/why_managers_havent_embraced_c.html?utm_source=Socialflow&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=Socialflow>

Rowley, T. J., (1997). “Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 887–910.

Siwei, C., (1999). “Virtual Economy and Financial Crises”, Management Science Journals, vol. 2 Feb. pp.2-4.

Slocum, R. K., and Frondorf, D. S., (2000). “Business Management Using a Fractally- Scaled Structure”, Complexity and Complex Systems in Industry.

Xuesen, Q., and Yu Jingyuan, and Dai Ruwei, (1990). “A New Field of Science – Open Complex System and Its Methodology” Natural Magazine, vol. 1, Jan. pp.3-5.

Waldrop, M. M., (1994). “Complexity”, Penguin Books, New York.

Waldrop, M. M., (1997). “Karmaşıklık: Düzen ve Kaosun Eşiğinde Beliren Bilim”, (Çev.: Z. Dicleli), İstanbul. Türk Henkel Dergisi Yayınları.

Wiener, N., (1948). “Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Machine and Animal”, Cambridge. MIT Press: Mass.

ZhangXiaoPeng and LiuZeYuan (2011). “Deepening Study of Science of Complexity and Crisis Management”, International Conference on Social Science and Humanity, IPEDR vol.5 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore.




[1] Capital Markets Board of Turkey, fatma.cinar@spk.gov.tr
[2] Beykent University, Institue of Social Sciences, kutlu@merih.net


Comments are closed.