No abstract

Real estate development organizations are working in an environment that is associated with uncertainties due to the complexity of their structure and operation systems, which make them more prone to crises events. Therefore, a proactive approach for crisis management should be integrated with their long‐term strategies. System archetypes have the ability to unfold the complexity within these organizations and to provide them with an effective aiding tool in this management process. Identifying crises' scenarios and deploying them on system archetypes are essential in order to make the archetypes functional and operative. The standard archetypes in their qualitative form clarify crises' symptoms, characteristics, root causes and consequences. While in their quantitative form demonstrate with numbers the positive impact of the adopted containment strategy. The outcome of the deployment process provides a comprehensive knowledge about crises' scenarios and their containment policies that enhances the decision‐making process within the organizations.

Real Estate development organizations are vulnerable to crises' events due to the complexity of the external environment, internal structure, and operation systems. This paper aims to present, analyze, and compare between two proposed approaches for managing development crises based on system dynamics methodology. Twenty crises' scenarios are identified in order to be utilized in the analysis process of two approaches. These approaches are the conceptual approach and the scenario-based approach. The conceptual approach provides a framework to manage crises in a broad manner using Mitroff's model. The scenario-based approach uses crisis event characteristics to specify its containment policy. The crises' characteristics are identified by analyzing courses with time, classifying attributes, and specifying archetypes. The outcome of the analysis process for both approaches should guide developers and upgrade the quality of their decision in selecting adequate containment policies.