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

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, 2011 Antony Upward

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 Ontology Design Systems Discussion Thesis Research Design Conclusion Appendix Today FYI Only

Working Definition of Sustainability Sustainability – an emergent property of the systems of systems comprising the environment, society and the economy “The possibility that human and other life will flourish on this planet forever” † “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)

A. Business Model Ontology Concept- ualization #3 Concept- ualization #2 Ontology #2 Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology Strongly Sustainable 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 (Described using SSBMO) Business Model #3 (Described using SSBMO) 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* Design research is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge related to designs [of useful things] and the design activity † * 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. 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 Theoretical Tendency Theory † & Evidence Output Physics Chemistry Biology Ecology Economics Psychology The description / explanation / theory is true Describing and explaining the bio-physical and social Descriptive Science Inquiry Examples The Purpose The Activity Engineering Medicine Architecture Law Information Systems Artefacts † & Evidence The built artefact is effective Applied Building and evaluating something new Design Science Inquiry

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 in Context Descriptive Science Research Design Science Research Provides “value & utility” Phenomena are created through the use of artefacts. Informs creation of theories via observation of phenomena Tends to be disciplinary i.e. Theoretical / Experimental Tends to be Trans-, Inter- or Multi-disciplinary i.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 How do we understand the problem domain of the design… How do we undertake 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 s uggested 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 key Iteration Setting Boundaries Identifying the World-Views For Evaluate suggest a diversity of triangulated Approaches 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 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 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: Function = Why does it † exist (purpose / goals / outcomes / results) Structure = How is it organized (components, their inter-relationships) Process = What happens to it over time (sequence, know-how to produce outcome and meet goals) Context = What is its relationship to containing whole (its environment) 1 1 * 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” 2 3 = 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. ‡ F u n c t i o n P r o c e s s S t r u c t u r e C o n t e x t F u n c t i o n P r o c e s s S t r u c t u r e C o n t e x t F u n c t i o n P r o c e s s S t r u c t u r e C o n t e x t

C. How to do Systemic Design – Build – 2/3: 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

C. How to do Systemic Design – Build – 3/3: Identifying the World-View to Underpin the Normative Since design involves designers making choices it is inherently normative based on the designers world-view…must attempt to: Surface the assumptions behind the designer’s world-view and making them explicit Explicitly connect those assumptions to existing theory whenever possible 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 Approaches & Comparator Knowledge Sources A Range of techniques to undertake evaluation Evaluation is fundamentally a comparison between knowledge sources and the designed artefact Need to evaluate utility by comparison of Generalized knowledge of the problem against the ontology (constructs, models and example instantiations) Specific knowledge of firms against instantiations of the ontology (business models of the same firms) 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. 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

C. Systemic Design of the Business Model Ontology and Business Models Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology Strongly Sustainable Business Models Operating Firms (i.e. Instantiations of Business Models) … is a tool to help describe… … 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 Building and Evaluating this ontology is the scope of thesis Ontology in Use Ontology Build / Evaluate Models (representations, descriptions, etc.) Social Constructions (agreements, relationships, money, power, etc.)

C. Systemic Design of the Business Model Ontology and Business Models Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology Strongly Sustainable Business Models Operating Firms (i.e. Instantiations of Business Models) … is a tool to help describe… … 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) Building and Evaluating this ontology is the scope of thesis 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 Models (representations, descriptions, etc.) Social Constructions (agreements, relationships, money, power, etc.) Ontological World 3 4 Modelled World 1 2 5 6 7 Modelled World 3 4 "Real" World 1 2 5 6 7

C. Knowledge Sources for Systemic Evaluation of the Business Model Ontology Evaluation of Utility of SSBMO is Based on Comparison of These Knowledge Sources SSBMO Constructs & 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) Sociology Economics Management 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) Timberland Business 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 Ontology Design Systems Discussion Thesis Research Design 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 / Limitations Not capturing business model state (i.e. processes over time) Process / method / considerations related to Use of the SSBMO to design business models Use of designed business models to launch operating firms Only commercial entities are formally in scope Design Principles 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 Hard to use Easy to use Quality Incomprehensible Comprehensibility Quality Incompleteness Completeness Completeness RO2. Efficiency of business model designers Inelegant Elegance Beauty Not useful or produces adverse or unwanted effects Useful, has utility, to intended user Generic RO1c. Effectiveness Internally inconsistent Internally consistent Quality RO1b. Consistency Unrepresentative of real-world Real-world likeness to artefact Quality Incomprehensible Comprehensibility Quality To much or too little detail Level of detail satisfactory Completeness Incompleteness Completeness Completeness RO1a. Reliability RO1. Increasing the quality of strongly sustainable business models: Low importance High importance Context Low desirability High desirability Context Low expectation High expectation Context RO0. (Unstated) Minimize bias in Evaluation Negative Positive SSBMO Metric Aspect of Utility Research Objective

D. Research Conceptual Framework: Summary 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 Heokstra Note: Largely ignores the life sciences disciplines – physiology, psychology; computer science is included within “information” Innovation OM / IS 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 capitalism Controlling throughput of matter and energy (biosphere) Distributional equity (households) Allocative efficiency via the market (firms) Physics, Chemistry, Biology Epistemological Bias: Realist . Key Frame: The Sciences of the “Artificial” † Systems Information Design 2 nd Law of Thermodynamics Chaos Disciplinary: Key Theoretical Frames Inquiring purposeful systems (assumed value of ) Modeling (assume value of ) Abduction Philosophical Bias: Critical Pragmatism ‡ Beyond pluralism § Research Purpose: Exploration of a Problem to Make a Difference in the World Problem Domain Axiological Bias: Applied Osterwalder Business Model Ontology Business Model Research Business Process Research Strategy

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. Purpose of Knowledge Cognitive Approach PROFESSIONS DISCIPLINES INTERVENTION OBSERVATION Towards Intervention Towards Observation Towards Practicality Towards Abstraction APPLICATION PRAXIS THEORIZING EXPLANATION Inclusivity Selectivity Specification Generalization SYNTHESIS IDEATION ACTION ANALYSIS Practical Doing Incremental Particularness Conceptual Imagining Holistic Comprehensiveness Ontology Design (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 Low High Systems Uncertainties Decision Stakes Applied Science Professional Consultancy Post-Normal Science Descriptive Science External Functions Technical Methodological Simple Purposes Ethical Conflicting Purposes Ontology Development (Thesis) Ontology Use (Consulting)

D. Research Method – Systems Design Science 1/2 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: Constructs Model Method Instantiation E. Evaluate E1: Comparative E2: Third-Party E3: 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 Iterative Design Process (D1-4) assess 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 2/2 Understand the problem Prepare / literature review Build an artefact which designer believes might be useful Use latest academically legitimated theory / knowledge 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 Communicate results

D. Overall Process of Inquiry B u D. i l d E v a E. l u a t e C o m m u C. n i c a t e 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: 3 rd 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 Original Proposal Revised Proposal Design Working Papers #1..n Research Logs and Reflection Diary / Logs Possible Articles for Publication & Other Communication E2b: 3 rd Party Review: Expert Interviews Literature Review P p P. r a e r - e May 27 2011 July 12 July 16 Nov 30 Feb 28 May 31 2012 1 2 3 4

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) Techniques Static Analysis Simulation Metrics Context, (Generic) Utility, Completeness, & Quality Comparative Analysis Activities Uses These Knowledge Sources SSBMO Constructs & Model “ Strongly Sustainable” Ontology (K0-SS) “ Profit-First” BMO (K0-PF) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Organization (Innovation, Strategy, OM/IS) (K0) Sociology Economics Management Ecological Sociology Ecological Economics Ecological Mgt Range of World-Views (K#) Practical Knowledge of Operating Firms Practical Knowledge of Problem Solving (i.e. instantiation of SSBMO) CATWOE Framework (K1) B-Labs Impact Assessment (K2) Timberland (K3) Timberland Business Model (K3-BM) Public Sources about

D. Evaluation Research Activities – 2/3: 3 rd Party Review (E2) Techniques Observation (Interview, Indirect Case Study) Metrics Context, (Generic) Utility, Completeness, Quality & Beauty 3 rd Party Review Activities Uses These Knowledge Sources SSBMO Constructs & Model “ Strongly Sustainable” Ontology (K0-SS) “ Profit-First” BMO (K0-PF) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Organization (Innovation, Strategy, OM/IS) (K0) Sociology Economics Management Ecological Sociology Ecological Economics Ecological Mgt Range of World-Views (K#) Practical Knowledge of Operating Firms Practical Knowledge of Problem Solving (i.e. instantiation of SSBMO) Timberland (K3) Timberland Business Model (K3-BM) Public Sources about Operating Firms (K5) Business Models (K4) Experts Knowledge about

D. Evaluation Research Activities – 2/3: Case Study (E3) Techniques Static Analysis, Observation (Direct Case Study) Metrics Context, (Generic) Utility, Completeness, Quality & Beauty Case Study Activities Uses These Knowledge Sources SSBMO Constructs & Model “ Strongly Sustainable” Ontology (K0-SS) “ Profit-First” BMO (K0-PF) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Organization (Innovation, Strategy, OM/IS) (K0) Sociology Economics Management Ecological Sociology Ecological Economics Ecological Mgt Range of World-Views (K#) Practical Knowledge of Operating Firms Practical Knowledge of Problem Solving (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 A comprehensive review and integration of the literature associated with evaluation of designed artefacts in ontology engineering, design science and soft systems methodology 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 A novel approach to undertaking the evaluation of an MIS ontology, integrating ontology engineering, design science and soft systems methodology A novel ontology which captures the key concepts that organization’s should consider when attempting to be strongly sustainable A novel tool which practitioners can use to more efficiently and effectively design organizations strongly sustainable business models 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

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.

B. Comparing Ideal-Typical Modes of Engaging in Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management Research* * 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. 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 ?

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

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

B. Framework for Conducting Information Systems Research 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 Iterative Design Process assess refine Relevance Rigor 1a. Problem 1b. 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

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

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

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+3 Prepare – Cycle n, n+2, n+4 Prepare Build – Cycle n, n+2, n+4 Build – Cycle n, n+2, n+4 Build Build Build – Cycle n+1, n+3 Evaluate – Cycle n Build – Cycle n+1, n+3 Simplifying / Flipping Design Thinking Real World 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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 Ontology Axiology Epistemology What exists? How do I know? What is valuable? Essentialist / Objective Anti-Foundationalist / Subjective Idealist Empiricists Realists A philosophically well situated researcher can describe this location, their philosophically aligned conceptual framework, for their research Theoretic: Knowledge for its own Sake Applied: Knowledge as a means to inform, transform, or enable change A research conceptual framework aligns the researcher’s belief system / world view, research paradigm, and methodology

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

In this document