design science, systems thinking and ontologies summary-upward a-v1.0

1ES/ENVS4523 Systems Thinking Discussion Group, Antony Upward #211135423

Design Science, Systems Thinking, and the creation of Ontologies

An Emerging Approach to Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences

and

The Elements of my MES Thesis Research Design

December 14, 2011Antony Upward

http://www.yorku.ca/fes/


Why This Presentation?

• Want to validate my epistemological and methodological approach to my MES thesis

• Specifically… the question I want you to respond to:– Have I appropriately applied the right parts of

information systems knowledge on how to build ontologies to the appropriate elements of my research design?


Agenda

• Introduction A. OntologyB. DesignC. Systems• Discussion

D. Thesis Research Design E. Conclusion

• Appendix

Today

FYI Only


Working Definition of Sustainability

A. Sustainability – an emergent property of the systems of systems comprising the environment, society and the economy

B. “The possibility that human and other life will flourish on this planet forever”†

C. “The interplay between a continuously evolving state of nature and a continuously changing state of mind”, not “a [static] ecological condition”‡

† p6 Ehrenfeld, J. (2008). Sustainability by design: a subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven: Yale University Press. “Forever” means “for a long time” – defining this is problematic. For the moment I consider this to be > 1000 years. ‡ p23, p381 Allen, T. F. H. (2003). In Hoekstra T. W., Tainter J. A. (Eds.), Supply-side sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.


Thesis…Starting point• Need to quickly create conditions which increase

the likelihood of sustainability emerging*• Typically science examines what already exists

to generate new knowledge• Question:

– Are there faster / complementary ways to generate the new knowledge we need to improve our sustainability?

• Specifically related to business / organizations – a key mechanism of change in our society

• My Answer: – Yes!

* Being less unsustainable is also necessary, but not sufficient


Research Problem

• “In entrepreneurship [unlike in, say, car design] we still rely on real-life crash tests which leads to costly failures”*

• Hence, there is value in a tool which helps to increase the quality (reliability, consistency, effectiveness) of strongly sustainable business models and the efficiency of business model designers who create them

* Osterwalder, A. (2011). The new business models: designing and testing great businesses. Lift 11, Geneva, Switzerland. 1-87. slide 19 [minute 3.00-3.30] (http://liftconference.com/lift11/program/talk/alex-osterwalder-new-business-models and http://www.slideshare.net/Alex.Osterwalder/lift11-presentation


Thesis – Working Title†

• An Outline of a Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models

A term used by Ecological Economists to indicate the impossibility of substituting human, manufactured, social or financial capital for natural capital in time frames which might help mitigate the worst effects of climate change and other anthropomorphic impacts as described by the IPCC and other bio-physical science. This implies the need for organizations to balance the achievement social, environmental and monetary goals

This is a masters thesis – I’m not claiming completeness nor a high degree of generalizability

From a practitioner perspective… think about a “tool” or “structure” or “model” for describing business models*

A description of how a business will succeed over time – the “logic of success”

Sustainability is an inherently systemic and hence interdisciplinary concept*

† Possible improved title is: Towards an Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: A Design Science Exploration* Details to follow


Thesis – Working Title

• An Outline of a Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models

• An Exploration of a Proposition Using a Design Science Approach including a Comparative Case Study of Firms Seeking to Improve Their Sustainability

There is no “theory of business models”, let alone a “theory of strong sustainability”: we don’t know enough to be able to hypothesize

From a practical perspective…to explore something new it must first be built. To build something it must first be designed*

From a practical perspective…to explore something new, after you have designed and built it, you must evaluate / validate / test it in the real world*

* Details to follow


A. ontology vs. An Ontology*• ontology:

– Branch of metaphysics (philosophy)– Classification of being

• The study of “nature, its essential properties, relations of beings and the organization of reality”

– Aristotle

• An Ontology:– Information Science (Artificial Intelligence)– Only one of a number of possible classifications

• “An explicit specification of a conceptualization”• An artefact of the study of ontology• An artefact of a design process

– Value: Enables communication based on the disambiguated meaning / shared vocabulary

• Important for designers of business models– Gruber†

* Bullinger, A. C. (2008). Innovation and Ontologies: Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation Management. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag / GWV Fachverlage GmbH. (The book of her PhD, Part II, Section 1: Ontology – Concept Formation pp134-142) † Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220. doi:10.1006/knac.1993.1008

Conceptualization must be shared (i.e. more then one person must agree to the proposed ontology for it to be useful)

Explicit implies formal, rigorous and structured AND incomplete! (like any model)


Concept-ualization#3 Concept-

ualization#2

Ontology #2

A. Business Model Ontology

Strongly Sustainable

Business Model Ontology


Business Models

Operating Firms

Models(representations, descriptions, etc.)

Social Constructions(agreements, relationships, money, power, etc.)

…is a tool to help describe…

…may be described in a

standardized way using…

...describe the logic of operating firms…may be

described using a…

“Reality”

Conceptualization#1

Ontology #1

Ontology #3

Choice*

Choice*

* Choice = decision based on human purpose (hence human value judgement) = i.e. design is inherently normative

A description that explains how a specific business will succeed over time

A structure which can contain descriptions how any business will succeed over time

(i.e. Instantiations of Business

Models)

aka a meta-model for modelling strongly sustainable business models


A. Prescription / Description in the Business Model Ontology

• Challenge: the need to prompt business model designers with ideas which could lead to their business model designs being strongly sustainable (through the designers own learning processes), without requiring them to first adopt the designers world-view (i.e. without being prescriptive)

• Response: – Build the ontology based on two contradictory prescriptive models (profit first and strongly sustainable),

• Enables instantiations of the ontology to describe business models with a range of sustainabilities– Evaluate the ontology with a range of sources with a range of world-views

SSBMO

* This is implicitly assumed in Osterwalder’s ontology. Osterwalder has subsequently agreed with Milton Friedman – “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.† Based on the science which is starting to be able to be prescriptive about what changes in human value systems and behaviours are required for humans avoid the worst impacts of human activity on our society and planet.

“Strongly Sustainable”†

Conflicting Prescriptive Models (i.e. Sources of Construct Definitions and Models / Relationships from Key Theoretical Frames)

“Profit First”*

Business Model #1

(Described using SSBMO)

Business Model #2


Business Model #3


Range of Business Model Designers’ World-Views on Sustainability Captured

Description of Business Models(i.e. instantiations of the SSBMO)

Captured in SSBMO Design(i.e. Construct and Model)


A. Challenge #1 with Designing An Ontology

• How do we know ontology #1 is more valid than ontology #2 or #3?– What does “more valid” mean?

• Is there methodological body of knowledge which can help?– Yes – design science


B. Design as a Research Method*

* i.e. Design as a science. This is strongly related to, but not to be confused with the science of design – i.e. the scientifically valid descriptive, explanatory and predictive knowledge of how to undertake the design activity† Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research. Design Issues, 20(1), pp. 16-29.

• Design research is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge related to designs [of useful things] and the design activity†

Adapted from Patokorpi, E., & Ahvenainen, M. (2009). Developing an abduction-based method for futures research. Futures, 41(3), 126-139. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.09.019

Type of research

Basic Research(Describe, Explain)

Predictive Research Design Research Development Use

Descriptive Science

Applied Science

Engineering / Management


B. Comparing Ideal-Typical Modes of Engaging in Research (Summary)*

* Derived from slide 15 + speakers notes of Lee, A. S. (2000). Systems Thinking, Design Science and Paradigms: Heading Three Lessons from the Past to Resolve Three Dilemmas in the Present to Direct a Trajectory for Future Research in the Information Systems Field. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM), Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 1-28. (At the time Lee was the editor of the pre-eminent journal in the management sub-discipline of Management Information Systems – MIS Quarterly)

† Theory and artefacts are both credentialed knowledge - but the process of credentialing is different

The Activity Tendency The Purpose Output Examples

Descriptive Science Inquiry

Describing and explaining the bio-physical and social

Theoretical The description / explanation / theory is true

Theory† & Evidence

• Physics• Chemistry• Biology• Ecology• Economics• Psychology

Design Science Inquiry

Building and evaluating something new

Applied The built artefact is effective

Artefacts† & Evidence

• Engineering• Medicine• Architecture• Law• Information

Systems


B. Relationship of Descriptive Science and Design Research…a Causal Loop Diagram*

“Discovery”

“Justification”

…of Theories

“Build”

“Evaluate”

…Artefacts

Provides “truths” Guide generation,

construction and evaluation of

designs

Phenomena inContext

DescriptiveScience

Research

DesignScience

Research

Provides “value & utility” Phenomena

are created through the use of artefacts.

Informs creation of theories via observation

of phenomena

Tends to be disciplinaryi.e. Theoretical / Experimental

Tends to be Trans-, Inter- or Multi-disciplinaryi.e. Applied / Action Research

* Summary of Causal Loop Diagramming (CLD) technique: www.pegasuscom.com/cld.html For many examples the application of CLD to organizations and organizational change see Senge P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (1999). The dance of change: the challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations (1st ed.). Toronto: Currency/Doubleday


B. Design of the Business Model Ontology

Natural and Social Science Theoretical

Knowledge

Formal Science Theoretical Knowledge

Abduction*,Induction &Deduction

Analysis & Synthesis

* Informed guessing…Charles Sanders Pierce would call the guessing "abductive logic" (See Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.

1. Build“What should this strongly

sustainable business model ontology consist of?”

Description & Validation

Analysis & Synthesis

“Is the strongly sustainable business model ontology useful?”

2. Evaluate

Business Model Ontology Design

Artefact

Knowledge from Existent Businesses

(Formal, Tacit)

Representation of Existent Businesses

Business Models Using Ontology


B. Challenge #2 with Designing An Ontology

1. How do we understandunderstand the problem domain of the design…

2. How do we undertakeundertake design (build / evaluate)…

When the designed artefact* describes a system with emergent properties?

(Remember: design isn’t inherently systemic in its approach or result!)

* i.e. the ontology or business models described using the ontology


C. Systems in the Domain of the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology – 1/2

• The domain of the ontology– Organizations and their contexts have a holonic* relationship– Sustainability: an emergent property of this holon*

• Organizations are “multi-minded purposeful systems”† embedded in economic, social and environmental systems

• Significant variability on the use of systems approaches between the disciplines within the domain

* “holon”, i.e. parts of a system that are also systems, which I understand was first described by Arthur Koestler in his work “The Ghost in the Machine”† Ackoff, R. L. (1972). In Emery F. E. (Ed.), On purposeful systems suggested the purposeful systems model for human organizations. One of Ackoff’s PhD students proposed an extension, that organizations were multi-minded purposeful systems, i.e. organizations exist because they are socially constructed by the stakeholders of the organization (the multiple minds) who see value in the organizations purpose, see: Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking :managing chaos and complexity : a platform for designing business architecture (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Boston, MA, U.S.A: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,.


C. Systems Approach to the Process of Design – 2/2

• When solving a problem* related to systems a systemic approach is more effective– Design isn’t inherently systemic! †

• This is new!– Systems scientists and heavy users of design science, have

only recently started to use this approach• e.g. Information Systems scientists, Designers

• Social scientists (e.g. Management, Organization, etc.) are– Starting to complement natural science research with design

science research– But, only a small subset primarily take a systemic approach to

their research

* i.e. When designing (building and evaluating) the ontology to enable to it represent any strongly sustainable business how can this be done systemically? † “Design thinking does not adhere to a specific a world-view. This is a significant difference from systems thinking” page 9 Pourdenhnad, J., Wexler, E. R., & Wilson, D. V. (2011). Systems & Design Thinking: A Conceptual Framework for their Integration. All Together Now: Working Across Disciplines, Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Systems Scientists, Hull, United Kingdom. 1-15.


C. How To Do Systemic Design• Now we’ve linked systems to both the content and the process of designing

a business model ontology…• …How we operationalize this in a research project given the poor state of

theoretical knowledge?

• For Prepare– Setting Objectives

• For Build suggest three aspects are key1. Iteration2. Setting Boundaries3. Identifying the World-Views

• For Evaluate suggest a diversity of triangulated 1. Approaches2. Comparator Knowledge Sources

• Plus the relationship of Business Models to systemic design

This is my big piece of “abduction” (i.e. guessing) about how to design my research design using

systems thinking…what do you think?


C. How to do Systemic Design – Prepare: Setting ObjectivesSetting Objectives

• Critical to help minimize bias during evaluation* and hence gain as much feedback to improve the artefact as possible– State research purpose / question and expected user

of the ontology– State exclusions / limitations– State design principles– Surface designer and user context for build and

evaluate activities • Expectations, Desirability, Importance†

– Develop specifications of the desired utility (completeness, quality, beauty) of the solution to the research problem

* Al-debei, M. M. (2010). The Design and Engineering of Innovative Mobile Data Services: An Ontological Framework Founded on Business Model Thinking. (PhD, Brunel University). , 1-288. † Ledington, P. W. J., & Ledington, J. (1999). The problem of comparison in soft systems methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 329-339. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199907/08)16:4<329::AID-SRES250>3.0.CO;2-C


C. How to do Systemic Design – Build – 1/3: Iteration is KeyIteration is Key

Iteratively inquire into the fundamental building blocks of the system*, i.e: examine the system being studied from the perspective of each of the fundamental building blocks of any system:

1.1. FunctionFunction = Why does it† exist (purpose / goals / outcomes / results)

2.2. StructureStructure = How is it organized (components, their inter-relationships)

3.3. ProcessProcess = What happens to it over time (sequence, know-how to produce outcome and meet goals)

4.4. ContextContext = What is its relationship to containing whole (its environment)

F

u

n

c

tio

n

P

r

o

c

e

s

s S t r u c t u r e

C o n t e x t

11

11* Iterative Process of Enquiry for Understanding Complex Systems adapted from Figure 5.5/p112 Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking :managing chaos and complexity : a platform for designing business architecture (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Boston, MA, U.S.A: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann† It = the system being studied‡ CATWOE test from Soft Systems Methodology is applicable to help determine “sufficient”

F

u

n

c

tio

n

P

ro

c

e

s

s

S t r u c t u r e

C o n t e x t

22 Function

Process

S t r u c t u r e

C o n t e x t

33

= Start of an iteration of inquiry; After each iteration, pause, synthesize the information into a cohesive image (concept) of the whole system under study= Iteration is stopped once a sufficiently detailed cohesive image or concept of the whole system under study and its context (environment) is known.‡


C. How to do Systemic Design – Build – 2/3: Bounding the System Under Study (Unit of Analysis)Bounding the System Under Study (Unit of Analysis)

• Setting a boundary* for the system to be described by the ontology – the business model of a focal firm

• Need to consider the boundary from the perspective of the systems context– Economic – Monetary– Social – Stakeholders, legal, (‘personhood’

and ‘ownership’), informational– Environmental – Material and energy flows

* Inspired by Ackoff and Ulrich – see http://www.wulrich.com/boundary_critique.html

http://www.wulrich.com/boundary_critique.html


C. How to do Systemic Design – Build – 3/3: Identifying the World-View to Underpin the NormativeIdentifying the World-View to Underpin the Normative

1. Since design involves designers making choices it is inherently normative based on the designers world-view…must attempt to:

A. Surface the assumptions behind the designer’s world-view and making them explicit

B. Explicitly connect those assumptions to existing theory whenever possible

2. Since purpose of the ontology is shared communication must get stakeholders (who have multiple world-views) involved in build/evaluate

* Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing could be applicable – Mason and Mitroff – see Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum pages 226-229. This approach helps with involving stakeholders and helping those individuals understand their different (fundamental) assumption differences.


C. How to do Systemic Design – Evaluate: Diversity of Triangulated ApproachesDiversity of Triangulated Approaches & Comparator & Comparator

Knowledge SourcesKnowledge SourcesA. A Range of techniques to undertake evaluation

• Evaluation is fundamentally a comparison between knowledge sources and the designed artefact

B. Need to evaluate utility by comparison of1. Generalized knowledge of the problem against the ontology (constructs, models

and example instantiations) 2. Specific knowledge of firms against instantiations of the ontology (business

models of the same firms)

C. Need to ensure a range of world-views are involved in the evaluation to confirm conflicting prescriptive models are “available” designers when their use the ontology to describe their business models.

D. Use Expectation, Desirability, Importance frameworks established during build to surface context for evaluation in designers and users to support the “interpretation of the [evaluation] results”†

† Ledington, P. W. J., & Ledington, J. (1999). The problem of comparison in soft systems methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 329-339. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199907/08)16:4<329::AID-SRES250>3.0.CO;2-C





Business Models

Operating Firms (i.e. Instantiations

of Business Models)


…may be described in a standardized way

using…

...describes the logic of……may be

described in a standardized

way using a…

Methodology (build/evaluate Process)

Artefact(Output from the

build/evaluate process)

“Third Generation”

Systems Thinking Design Science Method

Iteration involving multiple stakeholders with multiple value-systems / world-views in the

build and evaluation of the ontology

Iteration involving multiple stakeholders in the business model design; the more inclusive the set of stakeholders, and the dialog (not negotiation) the more likely differences in views will be dissolved and the business model will be sustainable

Iteration involving multiple stakeholders in the firms decisions ; the more inclusive the set of stakeholders,

and the dialog (not negotiation) the more likely differences in views will be dissolved and the firm

will be sustainable

Systems thinking frames: i.e. using the idea of research as an designed inquiring system

C. Systemic Design of the Business Model Ontology and Business Models Building and

Evaluating this ontology is the scope of thesis

Ontology in Use

Ontology Build / Evaluate







Business Models

Operating Firms (i.e. Instantiations

of Business Models)


…may be described in a standardized way

using…

...describes the logic of……may be

described in a standardized

way using a…

Methodology (build/evaluate Process)

Artefact(Output from the

build/evaluate process)

C. Systemic Design of the Business Model Ontology and Business Models Building and

Evaluating this ontology is the scope of thesis

34

1

25

6

7

Building and Evaluating the SSBMO can be

thought of as a a soft design science project – but

one which takes the “modelled” world as its

“reality”

Building and Evaluating a business model using the

SSBMO can be thought of as a “conventional” soft design science project –

trying to bring about change in the real-world of high

stakes and uncertainties a-la Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993)

Ontology in Use

Ontology Build / Evaluate



34

1

25

6

7

Evaluation of Utility of SSBMO is Based on Comparison of These Knowledge Sources

C. Knowledge Sources for Systemic Evaluation of the Business Model Ontology

SSBMOConstructs &

Model

“Strongly Sustainable”

Ontology (K0-SS)

Conflicting Prescriptive Models of Reality(i.e. Sources of Construct Definitions and Models / Relationships

“Profit-First”BMO(K0-PF)

Practical Knowledge About “Reality”

(e.g. Comparator Knowledge Sources)

Used as “Sources of Truth” to Build Ontology

Captured in Descriptions of

Reality

Evaluation Uses Knowledge Sources to Answer Question “How Well Artefact Solves Problem?” – what is its Utility?

Truths About “Reality” (e.g. Descriptive Science Knowledge of Key Theoretical Frames)

Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Organization (Innovation, Strategy, OM/IS)

(K0)

SociologyEconomicsManagement

Ecological Sociology Ecological Economics

Ecological Management

Range of World-Views(K#)

Practical Knowledge of Operating Firms

Practical Knowledge of Problem Solving

(i.e. instantiations of SSBMO)

CATWOE Framework

(K1)

B-Labs Impact Assessment

(K2)

Timberland (K3)

TimberlandBusiness Model

(K3-BM)

Operating Firms

(K5)

Business Models

(K4)

Experts Knowledge about

Case Study Firms

(K6-E, K6-D)

Knowledge about

Case Study Firms’ Business

Model(K6-BM)

Public Sources about


Today’s Discussion

• Have I appropriately applied the right parts of information systems knowledge on how to build ontologies to the appropriate elements of my research design?– Is yes – why?– If not – what’s missing and why?


Agenda

• Introduction A. OntologyB. DesignC. Systems• Discussion

D. Thesis Research Design E. Conclusion

• Appendix

Today

FYI Only

Here


D. Putting it all together…

• Now need to assemble a research design for the build and evaluation of the strongly sustainable business model ontology which– Systemically…– Designs (builds/evaluates)…– An Ontology…– That can describe strongly sustainable business models

• What does this look like?


D. Research Problem

• “In entrepreneurship [unlike in car design] we still rely on real-life crash tests [through the instantiation of new business models] which leads to costly failures”*

• Hence, there would be value in increasing the quality (reliability, consistency, effectiveness) of strongly sustainable business models and the efficiency of business model designers who create them

* Osterwalder, A. (2011). The new business models: designing and testing great businesses. Lift 11, Geneva, Switzerland. 1-87. slide 19 [minute 3.00-3.30] (http://liftconference.com/lift11/program/talk/alex-osterwalder-new-business-models and http://www.slideshare.net/Alex.Osterwalder/lift11-presentation


D. Research Purpose / Question / User

To explore, using design* and systems methodologies whether a pragmatic descriptive tool can be built to improve the application of

the science of design† to strongly sustainable business models

By asking

Is it possible to design a useful normative ontology of a business model that can be used to describe a firm’s strongly sustainable business

model design?

For

Business model designers to increase the quality (reliability, consistency, effectiveness) of their designs while simultaneously

– reducing the risk that their designs will fail when instantiated as operating firms, and

– increasing the efficiency of the process of creating their designs

* Design as a scientific research method cf. † the science of how to do design


D. Setting Objectives (1/3)

• Exclusions / Limitations1. Not capturing business model state (i.e. processes over

time)2. Process / method / considerations related to

– Use of the SSBMO to design business models– Use of designed business models to launch operating firms

3. Only commercial entities are formally in scope

• Design Principles1. Smallest number of changes / increases in elaboration to

Osterwalder’s “profit-first” ontology to enable SSBMO to represent a range of business from “Profit-First” to “Strongly-Sustainable”


D. Setting Objectives (2/3)• Surface designer and user context for build and

evaluate activities– Complete the following table prior to starting

evaluation *

* Ledington, P. W. J., & Ledington, J. (1999). The problem of comparison in soft systems methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(4), 329-339. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199907/08)16:4<329::AID-SRES250>3.0.CO;2-C


D. Setting Objectives (2/3)• Specifications of the desired utility (completeness,

quality, beauty) of the solution to the research problem

Research Objective Aspect of Utility

SSBMO Metric

Positive Negative

RO0. (Unstated) Minimize bias in Evaluation

Context High expectation Low expectation

Context High desirability Low desirability

Context High importance Low importance

RO1. Increasing the quality of strongly sustainable business models:

RO1a. Reliability Completeness Completeness Incompleteness

Completeness Level of detail satisfactory To much or too little detail

Quality Comprehensibility Incomprehensible

Quality Real-world likeness to artefact Unrepresentative of real-world

RO1b. Consistency Quality Internally consistent Internally inconsistent

RO1c. Effectiveness Generic Useful, has utility, to intended user Not useful or produces adverse or unwanted effects

Beauty Elegance Inelegant

RO2. Efficiency of business model designers

Completeness Completeness Incompleteness

Quality Comprehensibility Incomprehensible

Quality Easy to use Hard to use


Inspired by 1) Holmström, J., & Romme, A. G. L. (2011). Exploring The Future of Operations Management: Toward an Innovation Mindset Among Practitioners and Researchers . Retrieved 9/27, 2011, from http://wpcarey.asu.edu/JOM/upload/Essay_15_Holstrom-Romme_JOM_forum.docx and 2) the systems thinking idea that understanding the context for something being studied as important as the study of the thing itself: Morley, D. (1997, 2010). Thinking, Learning and Acting Environmentally. Unpublished manuscript.* Usually known as Environmental Sociology – but for consistency using the broader term, even if much of the work in the field would not fit this labelling – my attempt is to be aligned with an ecological view of sociological knowledge† After Herbert A. Simon’s ideas: anything artificial is created from a conception made by a human, hence the process of creating an artefact is inherently normative – based on the designers / builder’s world view. ‡ After the ideas of Charles Blattberg, William James, Charles Sanders Peirce; § After the ideas of Allen, Tainter and HeokstraNote: Largely ignores the life sciences disciplines – physiology, psychology; computer science is included within “information”

Innovation

OM / IS

Strategy

Organization

Ecological§ Management

• Stakeholder Theory• (Natural) Resource Based View• Organization as Multi-minded

Purposeful System• Actor Network Theory

Ecological Economics

Ecological Sociology*

• Complexity• Reflexive Modernization

• (Heavily) modified capitalism1.Controlling throughput of

matter and energy (biosphere)2.Distributional equity

(households)3.Allocative efficiency via the

market (firms)

Physics, Chemistry, Biology

Epistemological Bias: Realist. Key Frame: The Sciences of the “Artificial”†

• Systems• Information• Design • 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

• Chaos

Disciplinary: Key Theoretical Frames• Inquiring purposeful systems• (assumed value of ) Modeling • (assume value of ) Abduction

Ph

iloso

ph

ical

Bia

s: C

ritic

al P

ragm

atis

m‡

• Beyond pluralism §

ResearchPurpose: Exploration of a Problem to Make a Difference in the World

D. Research Conceptual Framework: Summary

Problem Domain

Axiological Bias: Applied

• Osterwalder Business Model Ontology

• Business Model Research• Business Process Research


D. Research Conceptual Framework: Perspectives 1/2

Adapted from Essays into Environmental Studies - Being Some Interpretations and Amplifications of the FES Curriculum Model * FESKIT Foray 5 Contexts of Environmental Studies - Implications of the 'Program Quadrants'. (1987). Unpublished manuscript.

Pur

pose

of

K

now

ledg

e

Cognitive Approach

PROFESSIONS DISCIPLINES

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

Towards Intervention

Towards Observation

Tow

ards

Pra

ctic

alit

yT

owards A

bstractionInclusivity

Selectivity

Spec

ific

atio

nG

eneralization

Practi

cal

Doing

Incremental

Particularness

Conce

ptual

Imag

ining

Holistic

Comprehensiveness

OntologyDesign

(Build/Evaluate)(Thesis)

A. Praxis

Intervention

C. Theory

Intervention

D. Theory

Observation

B. Praxis

Observation


D. Research Conceptual Framework: Perspectives 2/2

Adapted Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L

High

LowHigh

Systems Uncertainties

Dec

isio

n S

take

s

AppliedAppliedScienceScience

ProfessionalProfessionalConsultancyConsultancy

Post-NormalPost-NormalScienceScience

DescriptiveDescriptiveScienceScience

ExternalFunctions

Technical Methodological

SimplePurposes

Ethical

ConflictingPurposes

OntologyDevelopment

(Thesis)

OntologyUse

(Consulting)


Adapted from Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Fig.2 p.80 and from March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2

People• Executives, Entrepreneurs,

Investors, Business Architects, Consultants

Organizations• Strategy, operations and

innovation planning and decision making groups

Technology• Communication support• Generative (Abduction)

support• Evaluative (Decision

Making) support

Environment Research

D. Build• Strongly

Sustainable Business Model Ontology artefact:

1. Constructs2. Model3. Method4. Instantiation

E. EvaluateE1: ComparativeE2: Third-PartyE3: Case Study

Philosophical• Critical pragmatism

Epistemological• Systems• Information• Design

Disciplinary Frames*• Natural science• Ecological: sociology,

economics & management• Organization (Innovation,

Strategy, OM/IS)

Methods• Data collection, analysis

design and evaluation techniques

Tools / Techniques / Formalisms

• Literature Review• Entity Relationship

Modelling• Interviews

Knowledge Base

IterativeDesign

Process (D1-4)as

sess refine

Relevance Rigor

P1. Problem P2. Applicable

Knowledge

C1. Application to solve problem

C2. Additions to knowledge base

Quality (reliability, consistency, effectiveness) and efficiency of creation of strongly sustainable business models

D. Research Method – Systems Design Science 1/2


D. Research Method – Systems Design Science 2/2

P. Understand the problem – Prepare / literature review

Q. Build an artefact which designer believes might be useful– Use latest academically legitimated theory /

knowledge

E. Evaluate its usefulness in the real world– i.e. to some extent make a change in the world by

deploying the design in a existing situation and gather feedback

F. Communicate results


Bu

D. il

d

Eva

E. l

uate

Co

mmu

C. ni

cate

D1: First Iteration of Build

D2: Second Iteration of Build

D3: Third Iteration of Build D4: Forth Iteration of Build

Finalize Write-up: Design & Case Study

E1: Comparative Analysis

E2a: 3rd Party Review: Informal Events

E3: Formal Evaluation: Case Study

Today: Develop Detailed Evaluation Research Design

Write-up Lit. Review, Design, E1, E2, E3 & Research Design

May

27

2011

July

12

July

16

Nov 30

Feb 28

May

31

2012

Original Proposal

Revised Proposal

Design Working Papers #1..n

Research Logs and Reflection Diary / Logs

Possible Articles for Publication & Other Communication

11 22 33 44

E2b: 3rd Party Review: Expert Interviews

Literature ReviewP p

P. r a

e r- e

D. Overall Process of Inquiry


D. Build Research Activities

• In final thesis will summarize build research activities– Application of how to do prepare and build

design science activities in a systemic manner – see slides 21 thru 24 for the summary of the principles applied to the design of the research design for these activities.


D. Build Research Activities and Outputs – Summary


D. Evaluation Research Activities – 1/3: Comparative Analysis (E1)Comparative Analysis (E1)

TechniquesStatic Analysis

Simulation

MetricsContext, (Generic) Utility, Completeness, & Quality

Comparative Analysis Activities

Uses These Knowledge Sources

SSBMOConstructs &

Model


Ontology (K0-SS)


Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Organization

(Innovation, Strategy, OM/IS)(K0)

Sociology EconomicsManagement


Ecological Mgt


Practical Knowledge of

Operating Firms


(i.e. instantiation of SSBMO)

CATWOE Framework

(K1)

B-Labs Impact Assessment

(K2)

Timberland (K3)


(K3-BM)



D. Evaluation Research Activities – 2/3: 33rdrd Party Review (E2) Party Review (E2)

TechniquesObservation (Interview,

Indirect Case Study)

MetricsContext, (Generic) Utility, Completeness, Quality &

Beauty

3rd Party Review Activities Uses

These Knowledge Sources

SSBMOConstructs &

Model


Ontology (K0-SS)






Ecological Mgt



Operating Firms


(i.e. instantiation of SSBMO)

Timberland (K3)


(K3-BM)


Operating Firms

(K5)

Business Models

(K4)

Experts Knowledge about


D. Evaluation Research Activities – 2/3: Case Study (E3)Case Study (E3)

TechniquesStatic Analysis,

Observation (Direct Case Study)

MetricsContext, (Generic) Utility, Completeness, Quality &

Beauty

Case Study Activities Uses

These Knowledge Sources

SSBMOConstructs &

Model


Ontology (K0-SS)






Ecological Mgt



Operating Firms


(i.e. instantiations of SSBMO)

CATWOE Framework

(K1)

Case Study Firms

(K6-E, K6-D)

Knowledge about

Case Study Firms’ Business

Model(K6-BM)

D. Evaluate Research Activities and Outputs – Summary


D. Possible Research Contributions

1. A comprehensive review and integration of the literature associated with evaluation of designed artefacts in ontology engineering, design science and soft systems methodology

2. A novel approach to the process of creating the research design for the evaluation of an MIS ontology, integrating ontology engineering, design science and soft systems methodology

3. A novel approach to undertaking the evaluation of an MIS ontology, integrating ontology engineering, design science and soft systems methodology

4. A novel ontology which captures the key concepts that organization’s should consider when attempting to be strongly sustainable

5. A novel tool which practitioners can use to more efficiently and effectively design organizations strongly sustainable business models

6. An exemplar of the use and further development of aspects of soft design science methodology (i.e. “Third Generation” Systems Thinking Design Science Method)


D. Further Research Possibilities

• What problem(s) did the final build/evaluate iteration not resolve?

• What are problem(s) which the further development of a strongly sustainable business model ontology could solve?

• Includes questions of generalizability

• What methodological approaches could be used to continue its development?

• What testable hypotheses concerning its descriptive, explanatory and / or predictive powers might be proposed?


E. Conclusions

• This approach is not typical…– Probably leading or even bleeding edge– But believe it is required to make faster progress on designing

futures which are more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes

• But there are applied scholars in a range of disciplines using a similar approach– mostly in Europe

• Osterwalder• Bullinger• Baskerville• Gharajedaghi (Ackoff)• Ing

• This is giving me the confidence to proceed

• Lee• Pourdenhnad (Ackoff)• March• Hevner


Appendix


B. Comparing Ideal-Typical Modes of Engaging in Research (Detail)*

* Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Organization Research and Organizational Learning: Towards a Design Science, Paper 55. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC), Barcelona, Spain. 1-19.


* Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Organization Research and Organizational Learning: Towards a Design Science, Paper 55. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC), Barcelona, Spain. 1-19.

B. Comparing Ideal-Typical

Modes of Engaging in

Organizational Learning & Knowledge

Management Research*


B. Design Science Research: Output vs. Activities

Green shaded area is the scope of my thesis research project. Note in this case instantiation is an instantiation of the ontology, i.e. a business model, and not an instantiation of the business model, i.e. an operational business

Adapted from the seminal article by March and Smith March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2 ,p.255 and updated to include an additional design output commonly accepted by design science researchers {{345 Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. (. (2009). Design Research in Information Systems. Retrieved 2010/10/18, 2010, from http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems p.6

?

http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems




B. Design Science Research Cycle

From Baskerville, R. L., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9:1-9:11. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1555619.1555631

Iteration, either in a single research

project or over longer periods of

time

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1555619.1555631


B. Design Science Research Cycle

From Kuechler, W. & Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 489-489-504. doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.40


People• Roles• Capabilities• Characteristics

Organizations• Strategies• Structure & Culture• Processes

Technology• Infrastructure• Applications• Communications

Architecture• Development Capabilities

Environment

2a Develop / Build• Theories• Artefacts

2b. Justify / Evaluate• Analytical• Case Study• Experimental• Field Study• Simulation

Research

Foundations (What)• Theories• Frameworks• Instruments• Constructs• Models• Methods• Instantiations• Etc.

Methodologies (How)• Data Analysis

Techniques• Formalisms• Measures• Validation Criteria• Etc.

Knowledge Base

IterativeDesign Processas

sess refine

Relevance Rigor

1a. Problem1b. Applicable

Knowledge

3a. Application to solve problem

3b. Additions to knowledge base

Adapted from Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105, Fig.2 p.80 – puts both descriptive and design science in context

B. Framework for Conducting Information Systems Research


C. Comparing Design Science and Action Research*

From Baskerville, R. L., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9:1-9:11. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1555619.1555631 * Note: There are similar useful (i.e. helpful in understanding the position of design science) comparisons with grounded theory, and participative action research

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1555619.1555631


C. Comparing Design Science, Soft Systems Methodology and Action Research

Baskerville, R. L., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9:1-9:11. doi:http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.1145/1555619.1555631

http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.1145/1555619.1555631


C. Integrating Soft Systems Methodology & Design Science: A Proposed Approach

Adapted from Baskerville, R. L., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9:1-9:11. doi:http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.1145/1555619.1555631

Evaluate – Cycle n+1, n+3Evaluate – Cycle n+1, n+3Prepare – Cycle n, n+2, n+4Prepare – Cycle n, n+2, n+4

PreparePrepare

Build – Cycle n, Build – Cycle n, n+2, n+4n+2, n+4

Build – Cycle Build – Cycle n, n+2, n+4n, n+2, n+4

BuildBuild

BuildBuild

Build – Cycle n+1, Build – Cycle n+1, n+3n+3

Evaluate – Cycle nEvaluate – Cycle n

Build – Cycle n+1, Build – Cycle n+1, n+3n+3

Sim

plifying / Flipping 1

2

34

5

6

7

http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.1145/1555619.1555631


D. Elements of a Research Conceptual Framework

Durant-Law, G. (2005). The Philosophical Trinity, Soft Systems Methodology and Grounded Theory. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.durantlaw.info/sites/durantlaw.info/files/The%20Philosophical%20Trinity%20Soft%20Systems%20Methodology%20and%20Grounded%20Theory.pdf

OntologyOntology

AxiologyAxiologyEpistemologyEpistemology

What exists?

How do I know?

What is valuable?

a. Essentialist / Objective b. Anti-Foundationalist /

Subjective

a. Idealistb. Empiricistsc. Realists

A philosophically well A philosophically well situated researcher can situated researcher can describe this location, describe this location, their philosophically their philosophically aligned conceptual aligned conceptual framework, for their framework, for their

researchresearch

a. Theoretic: Knowledge for its own Sake

b. Applied: Knowledge as a means to inform, transform, or enable change

A research conceptual A research conceptual framework aligns the framework aligns the researcher’s belief researcher’s belief

system / world view, system / world view, research paradigm, research paradigm, and methodologyand methodology

http://www.durantlaw.info/sites/durantlaw.info/files/The%20Philosophical%20Trinity%20Soft%20Systems%20Methodology%20and%20Grounded%20Theory.pdf

http://www.durantlaw.info/sites/durantlaw.info/files/The%20Philosophical%20Trinity%20Soft%20Systems%20Methodology%20and%20Grounded%20Theory.pdf

design science, systems thinking and ontologies summary-upward a-v1.0

Business

new business models

sustainable business

study of ontology

theory of business models

design science approach

business organizations

design science exploration

mes thesis research