CREATING NEW BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE Björn Bjerke e-mail: bjorn.bjerke@ts.mah.se

CREATING NEW BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE

Björn Bjerkee-mail: bjorn.bjerke@ts.mah.se

TECHNIQUES

METHODS

METHODOLOGY

THERE ARE NO GENERALLY GOOD METHODS!

WHAT IS A GOOD METHOD DEPENDS!

ON WHAT?

ON THE PROBLEM?

THE PROBLEM METHODS

YES AS WELL AS NO!

THERE IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES US ALL HUMAN, I.E.,OUR ULTIMATE IDEAS AND PRESUMPTIONS IN

LIFE:

WHAT IS REALITY ALL ABOUT?

HOW DO WE LEARN THINGS?

WHAT IS THE IDEA WITH CREATING NEW KNOWLEDGE?

WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, BEAUTIFUL AND UGLY?

EVERYBODY (INCL. CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE) HAVE SUCH ULTIMATE IDEAS AND PRESUMPTIONS. HOWEVER – IMPORTANT! – THEY CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY OR LOGICALLY TESTED OR PROVED!

ULTIMATEPRESUMPTIONS

THE PROBLEM

METHODS

BUT IS THIS NOT A VICIOUS CIRCLE – EVERYTHING SEEMS TO DEPEND ON EVERYTHING ELSE!

NO, BECAUSE THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS ARE CHANGING AT DIFFERENT SPEED, SOMETIMES SLOWER, SOMETIMES FASTER – SOMETIMES NOT AT ALL!

SO – IN PRACTICE

ULTIMATEPRESUMPTIONS

THE PROBLEM

METHODS

ULTIMATE

PRESUMPTIONS

PARADIGM------------------•CONCEPTION OF REALITY•CONCEPTION OF SCIENCE•SCIENTIFIC IDEALS•ETHICS/ AESTHETICS

METHODOLOGICAL

APPROACH

OPERATIVEPARADIGM------------------•METHODICAL PROCEDURES•METHODICS

STUDY

AREA

THEORYOF

SCIENCE

METHODO-LOGY

IT STARTED WITH

THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH

RESULT A +2

RESULT B +1

RESULT C +3

6

THE WHOLE

+

+

=

SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:

REALITY AND MODELS

EXPLANATIONS, CAUSAL RELATIONS AND HYPOTHESES

DEDUCTION, INDUCTION AND VERIFICATION

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

CETERIS PARIBUS

A

B

C

D

A

B

CY Y

CAUSES CAUSES

EFFECT EFFECT

PICTURE 1 PICTURE 2

PICTURE 1 EXPLAINS MORE THAN PICTURE 2

Z W

X Y X Y

Z = BACKGROUND W = INTERVENING

VARIABLE VARIABLE

IND

UC

TIO

N DEDUCTION

VER

IFIC

ATIO

N

FACTS FACTS

THEORIES PREDICTIONS

THEORETICAL WORLD

EMPIRICAL WORLD

IT CONTINUED WITH

THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

DOUBTS ABOUTPOSSIBILITIES

OF THEANALYTICALAPPROACH

INTER-DISCIPLINARY

INTERESTS

PROBLEM-ORIENTEDSCIENCES

THE SYSTEMS

APPROACH

RESULT A +2

RESULT C +3

RESULT B +16

THE WHOLE

SYNERGY!

SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:

SYSTEMOPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMSSYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTSYSTEMS MODELS AND REAL SYSTEMSMAGNIFYING LEVELSYSTEMS STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS PROCESSESSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION AND SYSTEMS THEORY

A

D

Y

B

C

A

Y

B

C

PICTURE A PICTURE B

PICTURE A EXPLAINS MORE THAN PICTURE B, BUT NOT IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT:

C

B

A

Y

P

P1

P2

P3

PA

PB

PC

P

ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS ALTERNATIVE PRODUCERS MULTIFINALITY EQUIFINALITY

TODAY THE PICTURE IS MORECOMPLICATED

MEANING A

MEANING B MEANING C

STRUCTUREOF

MEANING

THEWHOLE

=

THE ACTORS APPROACH

REALITY CONSISTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROVINCES OF MEANING, WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS OVERLAPPING EACH OTHER:

THE BOOK OF LAW

THEJUDGE

THE OWNEROF THE

PRINTER SHOP

THETHIEF

A SET OF A PROFITABLE ETHICAL BUSINESS A THREAT RULES

ACTOR 1FINITE

PROVINCE OFMEANING

ACTOR 1FINITE

PROVINCE OFMEANING

SOMEWHATMODIFIED

ACTOR 2FINITE

PROVINCE OFMEANING

ACTOR 2FINITE

PROVINCE OFMEANING

SOMEWHATMODIFIED

INTER-PRETATION

INTER-PRETATION

MEETS ANOTHERINTERPRETATION

INTER-PRETATION

INTER-PRETATION

MEETS ANOTHERINTERPRETATION

ETC

DIA

GN

OS

IS

ACTS AND CHANGES

AN UNDER-STANDING OF INDIVIDUALACTORS’ FINITEPROVINCESOF MEANING

AND THEIRCHANGES

IN ORDER TOUNDERSTAND

ISNECESSARY

SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:

INTENTIONALITYDIALOGUEDIALECTICSACTORSOBSERVERSDIAGNOSISLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

A SUMMARY SO FAR:

THEANALYTICALAPPROACH

THESYSTEMS

APPROACH

THEACTORS

APPROACH

PREREQUISITES •EXISTING ANALYTICAL THEORY•VERIFIED/FALSIFIEDHYPOTHESES

•EXISTING SYSTEMS THEORY•ANALOGIES (HOMOLOGIES)

•METATHEORIES•CONSTITUTIONAL FACTORS•GENERAL PRE-UNDERSTANDING•INTERACTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERSTANDING

EXPLAINING/UNDERSTANDING

CAUSALITY FINALITY DIALECTICS

RESULTS •PURE CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONS•LOGICAL MODELS•REPRESENTATIVE CASES

•PARTLY UNIQUE CASES•CLASSIFICATION MECHANISMS•TYPICAL CASES

•DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGES•IDEAL-TYPIFIED LANGUAGES•EMANICIPATORY INTERACTIVE ACTION

METHODICAL PROCEDURESTHE WAY IN WHICH TECHNIQUES ARE ADAPTED TO SUIT A GIVEN METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

A. SOME COMMON GROUPS OF TECHNIQUES 1. TECHNIQUES FOR SELECTING UNITS TO STUDY ANALYTICAL APPROACH

* SELECTED UNITS SHOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEMS APPROACH * SELECTED UNITS SHOULD BE VERSATILE AND/OR INTERESTING ACTORS APPROACH * SELECTED UNITS COULD BE RECOMMENDED, PROBLEM-ORIENTED

AND/OR INSIGHTFUL

2. TECHNIQUES FOR COLLECTING DATA IN PRINCIPLE * SECONDARY DATA * PRIMARY DATA THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATIONS, INTERVIEWS

AND/OR EXPERIMENTS ANALYTICAL APPROACH * USES THEM ALL SYSTEMS APPROACH * USES SECONDARY DATA (WHEN AVAILABLE) AND (PERSONAL)

INTERVIEWS EXTENSIVELY * DOES NOT CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS ACTORS APPROACH * COLLECTS AS MUCH DATA AS POSSIBLE IN A DIALOGICAL SITUATION

3. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

IN PRINCIPLE

EXISTING SCALES: * NOMINAL SCALES * ORDINAL SCALES * INTERVAL SCALES * QUOTA SCALES

RELIABILITY: CONSISTENT RESULTS

VALIDITY: TRUE RESULTS (CONT.)

(CONT.)

ANALYTICAL APPROACH• THE MORE EXACT RESULTS, THE BETTER• RELIABILITY AS WELL AS VALIDITY SHOULD ALWAYS BE CHECKED, IF

POSSIBLE; SEVERAL TECHNIQUES FOR DOING SO AVAILABLESYSTEMS APPROACH• A MORE PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO MEASUREMENT• RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY COULD BE IMPROVED BY:

- LOOKING AT SYSTEMS FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSPECTIVE- TALKING TO MORE PEOPLE- CHECKING PRIMARY DATA AGAINST SECONDARY ONES

ACTORS APPROACH• MEANING CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED• RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY OBJECTIVE SENSE

B. SOME SPECIFIC GROUPS OF TECHNIQUES

FOR ANALYTICAL APPROACH• SAMPLING• VALIDATION

FOR SYSTEMS APPROACH• HISTORICAL STUDIES• CASE STUDIES

FOR ACTORS APPROACH• DIALOGUES• LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENTS

METHODICSPLANNING AND CONDUCTING STUDIES AT LARGETHE ANALYTICAL APPROACH

PLANNING THE STUDY

DESIGNING METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA

COLLECTING DATA

CONTROLLING CAUSALITY

CODING AND ARRANGING DATA

REPORTING

FORMULATING THE PROBLEM

THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

FORMULATINGPOSSIBLEFINALITY

RELATIONS

PLANNINGTHE

CONTINUATION

DESIGNINGMETHODS FOR

COLLECTING DATA

COLLECTINGDATA

REPORTING

CONTROLLINGFINALITY

CODING ANDARRANGING

DATA

ARE YOUSATISFIED

AS A CREATOROF KNOW-

LEDGE?

YES

NO

FO

RM

ULA

TIN

G

TH

E P

RO

BLEM

OF

DETERMINING

THE TYPE

REAL

SYSTEM

SOME DIFFERENCES FROM THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH:

FORMULATING A PROBLEM IS MORE EXTENSIVE

RELATIONS BETWEEN CREATOR OF KNOWLEDGE AND REALITY ARE MUCH MORE INTENSIVE

FEEDBACKS ARE MORE FREQUENT

THE ACTORS APPROACH

METHODICS DIFFER WIDELY. COMMONLY INCLUDED PROCEDURES ARE:

PROBLEMATIZATIONDIALOGUES WITH LEADING ACTORSTRACING MEANING IN HISTORYSEARCHING FOR THE HISTORY OF MEANINGAN INTERPLAY OF ENGAGEMENT AND DISSOCIATIONDIAGNOSTICAL STOPSFREQUENT FEEDBACKS

WHAT ABOUT COMBINATIONS – SYNTHESES?

COMMON, BUT (STRICTLY SPEAKING) ALL METHODS CHANGE WITH THE CONTEXT

THREE COMMON TYPES:

ANALYTICAL METHODS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT

ACTORS METHODS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT

SYSTEMS METHODS IN AN ACTORS CONTEXT

DIFFERENT KINDS OF CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE:

THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPLAIN:LOOK FOR FACTUAL DATA (OBJECTIVE AND/OR SUBJECTIVE ONES) AND USE A PICTURING LANGUAGEWANT TO FIND CAUSAL PATTERNSBUILD MODELS

THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND:DENY THAT FACTUAL AND PICTURING DATA EXIST (AT LEAST IN THE HUMAN WORLD)WANT TO BRING MEANING TO THE OPEN AND USE A PERFORMATIVE LANGUAGEMAKE INTERPRETATIONS

MODELS = DELIBERATELY SIMPLIFIED PICTURES OF FACTUAL REALITY

INTERPRETATIONS = DELIBERATELY PROBLEMATIZED PICTURES OF SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED

REALITY

THOSE WHO TRY TO EXPLAIN NATURALLY TRY TO CONTRUCT MODELS – THOSE WHO TRY TO UNDERSTAND NATURALLY

TRY TO COME UP WITH INTERPRETATIONS

EXPLAINING KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE

THE ANALYTICALAPPROACH

THE SYSTEMS APPROACH

THE ACTORS APPROACH

EXPLANATIONS:REGULAR SEQUENCES (CAUSE-EFFECT-RELATIONS) OVER TIME OF SUBSTANTIATED PHENOMENA

MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL, LOGICAL AND CAUSAL CONNECTIONS

EX:

1. HE STARTED A NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE HE IS AN ENTREPRENEUR!

2. HE STARTED A NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO CHANGE HIS LIFE!

3. HE STARTED A NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO MAKE MORE MONEY!

THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF EXPLANATIONS:

EXPLANATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY ITSELF:

1. EXPLANATIONS BY CAUSE2. EXPLANATIONS BY PURPOSE

EXPLANATIONS OUTSIDE THE STUDY (IN THE SYSTEM?)

SOME PROBLEMS WITH EXPLANATORY CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE (LOOKED AT IT FROM AN UNDERSTANDER’S POINT OF VIEW):

1. DATA DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES; THEY HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE CREATOR OF KNOWLEDGE

2. HUMAN BEINGS (INCLUDING CREATORS OF KNOWLEDGE) ARE PART OF A CULTURE – EVEN CONSTITUTE A CULTURE

3. SUCH RESULTS JUST SCRATCH THE SURFACE

UNDERSTANDING:

IS ONLY VALID

WHEN STUDYING HUMAN BEINGS

FROM ONE HUMAN BEING TO ANOTHER

WHEN INTENTIONALITY IS ACCEPTED

EXPLAINING UNDERSTANDING

PICTURING

CIRCUMSTANTIAL WORLD

REACTING PEOPLE

TO SIMPLIFY A COMPLICATED REALITY (MODELS)

SPECIFIC GENERALIZATIONS

PERFORMATIVE

MEANINGFUL WORLD

ACTING PEOPLE

TO PROBLEMATIZE A SIMPLIFIED REALITY (INTERPRETATIONS)

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

TO EXPLAIN TO UNDERSTAND

STRUCTURES LANGUAGE

PROCESSES CULTURE

(LANGUAGE) (STRUCTURES)

(CULTURE) (PROCESSES)

TO CREATE KNOWLEDGE IN PRACTICE:

WHEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN:

TESTING HYPOTHESES

CONTRUCTING AND VALIDATING MODELS

BY ALWAYS ELIMINATING FACTUAL IRRELEVANT FACTS AMONG DATA AND RESULTS EXISTING

WHEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND:

DIG, DIG, DIG

APPROACHING THE TOPIC FROM MANY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS – LOOKING FOR ”THE COMMON DENOMINATOR”

EXTRACTING THE ACTORS’ OWN PICTURES OF REALITY

BY ALWAYS ADDING ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES OUTSIDE DATA AND RESULTS EXISTING

JUDGING THE QUALITY OF KNOWLEDGE CREATED:

• REPRESENTATIVITY

• USEFULNESS

• MEANINGFULNESS

EXPLAINING

UNDERSTANDING