Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Currently Viewing Posts in design

Redesigning Our Theories of Theories of Change, Peter H Jones + Ryan J A Murphy (ST-ON 2020/11/19)

While the term “theory of change” is often used by funders expecting an outcome of systems change for their investment, is there really a theory there?

The November 2020 Systems Thinking Ontario session was an opportunity for Peter H. Jones (OCADU) and Ryan J. A. Murphy (Memorial U. of Newfoundland) to extend talks that they had given over a few days for the Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD9) Symposium.

The talks covered some early research and conversation on deepening the understanding of “theories of change”.  After our usual round of self-introductions by meeting attendees, the core content starts in the web video recording after 12m45s.

The video file is also viewable and downloadable at the Internet Archive,

Video H.264 MP4
November 9
(1h56m)
[20201109_ST-ON_Jones_Murphy_TheoriesOfTheoriesOfChange.m4v]
(FHD 203kbps 276MB) [on archive.org]

The digital audio was extracted from the video, and transcoded to MP3.

Audio
November 9
(1h56m)
[20201109_ST-ON_Jones_Murphy_TheoriesOfTheoriesOfChange.mp3]
(40MB) [on archive.org]

Here is the original abstract from the Systems Thinking Ontario November 9, 2020, session.

— begin paste —

Redesigning Our Theories of Theories of Change

Peter Jones presents a customized talk from the RSD9 plenary session for ST ON. Ryan Murphy joins with a full presentation of his RSD9 talk.

We often use the model of “theories of change” to argue for the process by which envisioned change programs might achieve their goals. Essentially these are the working theories by which we explain the logic of system change outcomes, and we often include quasi-systemic logic models to communicate them.… Read more (in a new tab)

While the term “theory of change” is often used by funders expecting an outcome of systems change for their investment, is there really a theory there?

The November 2020 Systems Thinking Ontario session was an opportunity for Peter H. Jones (OCADU) and Ryan J. A. Murphy (Memorial U. of Newfoundland) to extend talks that they had given over a few days for the Relating Systems Thinking and Design (RSD9) Symposium.

The talks covered some early research and conversation on deepening the understanding of “theories of change”.  After our usual round of self-introductions by meeting attendees, the core content starts in the web video recording after 12m45s.

The video file is also viewable and downloadable at the Internet Archive,

Video H.264 MP4
November 9
(1h56m)
[20201109_ST-ON_Jones_Murphy_TheoriesOfTheoriesOfChange.m4v]
(FHD 203kbps 276MB) [on archive.org]

The digital audio was extracted from the video, and transcoded to MP3.

Audio
November 9
(1h56m)
[20201109_ST-ON_Jones_Murphy_TheoriesOfTheoriesOfChange.mp3]
(40MB) [on archive.org]

Here is the original abstract from the Systems Thinking Ontario November 9, 2020, session.

— begin paste —

Redesigning Our Theories of Theories of Change

Peter Jones presents a customized talk from the RSD9 plenary session for ST ON. Ryan Murphy joins with a full presentation of his RSD9 talk.

We often use the model of “theories of change” to argue for the process by which envisioned change programs might achieve their goals. Essentially these are the working theories by which we explain the logic of system change outcomes, and we often include quasi-systemic logic models to communicate them.… Read more (in a new tab)

Reordering Our Priorities Through Systems Changes Learning (RSD9, 2020/10/14)

For the first of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, Zaid Khan led a session for the Relating Systems Thinking and Design RSD9 Symposium.  Our team had developed a set of reference slides for the three workshops, from which content that would most resonate with the audience could be selected.  RSD attracts designers across practitioner and academic communities, with leadership formalized in 2018 as the Systemic Design Association.

Zaid introduced this workshop with a caution as work-in-progress, as 2 years into a 10-year journey.  We orient towards developing practical systems methods well-founded in theoretical depth, better tested in applications with willing participants.  We all learn together.

The flow for the workshops were short orientations on out progress to date, with two breakout sessions for discussions.  In the web video , the plenary discussions are included, and breakout conversations edited out.

The video file is available on the Internet Archive, for those who prefer a downloadable option.

Video H.264 MP4
October 14
(58m52s)
[20201014_RSD9_SystemsChanges.m4v]
(HD 1022kbps 512MB) [on the Internet Archive]

The digital audio has been transcoded to MP3 for those who prefer to just listen.

Audio
October 14
(58m52s)
[20201014_RSD9_SystemsChanges.mp3]
(54MB)

Here is the original description for the session.

— begin paste —

The idea of “systems change” has risen in popularity over the past few years. To make this more than just another buzzword, how might we approach it?

Read more (in a new tab)

For the first of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, Zaid Khan led a session for the Relating Systems Thinking and Design RSD9 Symposium.  Our team had developed a set of reference slides for the three workshops, from which content that would most resonate with the audience could be selected.  RSD attracts designers across practitioner and academic communities, with leadership formalized in 2018 as the Systemic Design Association.

Zaid introduced this workshop with a caution as work-in-progress, as 2 years into a 10-year journey.  We orient towards developing practical systems methods well-founded in theoretical depth, better tested in applications with willing participants.  We all learn together.

The flow for the workshops were short orientations on out progress to date, with two breakout sessions for discussions.  In the web video , the plenary discussions are included, and breakout conversations edited out.

The video file is available on the Internet Archive, for those who prefer a downloadable option.

Video H.264 MP4
October 14
(58m52s)
[20201014_RSD9_SystemsChanges.m4v]
(HD 1022kbps 512MB) [on the Internet Archive]

The digital audio has been transcoded to MP3 for those who prefer to just listen.

Audio
October 14
(58m52s)
[20201014_RSD9_SystemsChanges.mp3]
(54MB)

Here is the original description for the session.

— begin paste —

The idea of “systems change” has risen in popularity over the past few years. To make this more than just another buzzword, how might we approach it?

Read more (in a new tab)

Strategic Communications + The Brand Stack, Zaid Khan + David Akermanis (ST-ON 2020/09/14)

Two Major Research Projects (MRPs) — they might be called master’s theses elsewhere — by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis reflect the Systemic Design agenda within the OCADU program on Strategic Foresight and Innovation (SFI).    To graduate, all SFI students complete an MRP.  With many subjects and techniques covered during SFI studies, only a few exercise Systemic Design at their core.

The September session of Systems Thinking Ontario came shortly after the defence of the two MRPs in August.  As we had suspended convening in person during 2020, our monthly meeting was conducted online.  This afforded recordings to be shared more widely.

The video file is also available on the Internet Archive, for those who prefer a downloadable option.

Video H.264 MP4
September 14
(1h27m)
[20200914_ST-ON_Khan_Akermanis.mp4]
(FHD 785kbps 293MB) [on archive.org]

The digital audio originally in M4A format has also been transcoded to MP3.

Audio
September 14
(1h27m)
[20200914_ST-ON_Khan_Akermanis.m4a]
(43MB)
20200914_ST-ON_Khan_Akermanis.mp3]
(38MB)

Here is the original description for the Systems Thinking Ontario September 14, 2020, session.

— begin paste —

Strategic Communications + The Brand Stack

A Major Research Project at OCADU is roughly equivalent to a Master’s Degree thesis (with some administrative differences). To start off the new academic year, we will have fresh presentations following the successful defences in the Strategic Foresight & Innovation Program at OCADU over the last month, by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis.

(1) A Systems-Oriented Approach to Strategic Communications — Zaid Khan

Systemic Design has emerged as both a theory and a practice that integrates design thinking and systems thinking to help designers cope with complex social systems.… Read more (in a new tab)

Two Major Research Projects (MRPs) — they might be called master’s theses elsewhere — by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis reflect the Systemic Design agenda within the OCADU program on Strategic Foresight and Innovation (SFI).    To graduate, all SFI students complete an MRP.  With many subjects and techniques covered during SFI studies, only a few exercise Systemic Design at their core.

The September session of Systems Thinking Ontario came shortly after the defence of the two MRPs in August.  As we had suspended convening in person during 2020, our monthly meeting was conducted online.  This afforded recordings to be shared more widely.

The video file is also available on the Internet Archive, for those who prefer a downloadable option.

Video H.264 MP4
September 14
(1h27m)
[20200914_ST-ON_Khan_Akermanis.mp4]
(FHD 785kbps 293MB) [on archive.org]

The digital audio originally in M4A format has also been transcoded to MP3.

Audio
September 14
(1h27m)
[20200914_ST-ON_Khan_Akermanis.m4a]
(43MB)
20200914_ST-ON_Khan_Akermanis.mp3]
(38MB)

Here is the original description for the Systems Thinking Ontario September 14, 2020, session.

— begin paste —

Strategic Communications + The Brand Stack

A Major Research Project at OCADU is roughly equivalent to a Master’s Degree thesis (with some administrative differences). To start off the new academic year, we will have fresh presentations following the successful defences in the Strategic Foresight & Innovation Program at OCADU over the last month, by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis.

(1) A Systems-Oriented Approach to Strategic Communications — Zaid Khan

Systemic Design has emerged as both a theory and a practice that integrates design thinking and systems thinking to help designers cope with complex social systems.… Read more (in a new tab)

Systemic design agendas in education and design research

Research can take some time to wend through reflection, reviews and revisions.  An article coauthored with Susu Nousala and Peter Jones took about 2 years to formal publication.

While a working paper can be more open-ended, a scientific publication seeks greater closure.  From the conclusion, here’s a paragraph that wasn’t in our original 2016-2017 writing.

The RSD5 DesignX workshop provided for continuity and discourse building between members of various design programmes, practices and allegiances. It was a not intended as a venue for specifically articulating and defining the design research agendas linking DesignX with systemic design studies or with these agendas. Further development of these enquiries through other workshops and discourses will extend the continuity of the discussion and evolve something of a common language, if not a corpus, to better fulfil the potential of design research agendas in systemic design.

The RSD5 workshop held in Toronto October 2016 resulted in a rich body of conversations amongst participants that is only partially reflected in this summary.

Read more (in a new tab)

Research can take some time to wend through reflection, reviews and revisions.  An article coauthored with Susu Nousala and Peter Jones took about 2 years to formal publication.

While a working paper can be more open-ended, a scientific publication seeks greater closure.  From the conclusion, here’s a paragraph that wasn’t in our original 2016-2017 writing.

The RSD5 DesignX workshop provided for continuity and discourse building between members of various design programmes, practices and allegiances. It was a not intended as a venue for specifically articulating and defining the design research agendas linking DesignX with systemic design studies or with these agendas. Further development of these enquiries through other workshops and discourses will extend the continuity of the discussion and evolve something of a common language, if not a corpus, to better fulfil the potential of design research agendas in systemic design.

The RSD5 workshop held in Toronto October 2016 resulted in a rich body of conversations amongst participants that is only partially reflected in this summary.

Read more (in a new tab)

The impacts of platforms

Concerns in the larger research body of research on platforms often leads to a subset looking into the impacts of the platform economy.  Let’s try some more digests responding to questions.

  • A. Is a shift to platforms considered as disruptive innovation?
  • B. Do network effects lead to a platform economy of “winner take all”?
  • C. With digital platforms based in information systems, what are the opportunities for knowledge effects?
  • D. What is the logic of participation on a platform?
  • E. Should platform capitalism be seen as positive or negative?
  • F. As an alternative to platform capitalism, should platform cooperativism be considered?
  • G. In the larger context of the sharing economy, how might platform initiatives be categorized?

The rise of the platform economy may be described either by the metaphor of “We Don’t Know Who Discovered Water, But We Know It Wasn’t a Fish” or the fable of the “Boiling Frog“.

A. Is a shift to platforms considered as disruptive innovation?

In a clarification about definition of disruptive innovationClayton Christensen doesn’t see Uber as disrupting the taxi business, because (i) the innovation doesn’t original on a low-end or new-market foothold; and (ii) the innovation doesn’t catch up with mainstream customers until quality catches up to their standards.  With disruptive innovation seen as a process, Uber is categorized by Christensen as as an outlier to the taxi business, offering a better quality service in the regulated taxi industry.… Read more (in a new tab)

Concerns in the larger research body of research on platforms often leads to a subset looking into the impacts of the platform economy.  Let’s try some more digests responding to questions.

  • A. Is a shift to platforms considered as disruptive innovation?
  • B. Do network effects lead to a platform economy of “winner take all”?
  • C. With digital platforms based in information systems, what are the opportunities for knowledge effects?
  • D. What is the logic of participation on a platform?
  • E. Should platform capitalism be seen as positive or negative?
  • F. As an alternative to platform capitalism, should platform cooperativism be considered?
  • G. In the larger context of the sharing economy, how might platform initiatives be categorized?

The rise of the platform economy may be described either by the metaphor of “We Don’t Know Who Discovered Water, But We Know It Wasn’t a Fish” or the fable of the “Boiling Frog“.

A. Is a shift to platforms considered as disruptive innovation?

In a clarification about definition of disruptive innovationClayton Christensen doesn’t see Uber as disrupting the taxi business, because (i) the innovation doesn’t original on a low-end or new-market foothold; and (ii) the innovation doesn’t catch up with mainstream customers until quality catches up to their standards.  With disruptive innovation seen as a process, Uber is categorized by Christensen as as an outlier to the taxi business, offering a better quality service in the regulated taxi industry.… Read more (in a new tab)

Platforms, an emerging appreciation

The term “platform” is now popular in a variety of contexts.  What do “platforms” mean, and what research might guide our appreciation?

Let’s outline some questions:

  • A. What came before the rise of platforms?
  • B. What types of platforms are there?
  • C. Why take a platform approach?
  • D. How do platforms manifest?
  • E. Why might a platform not be viable?
  • F. How are digital and non-digital platforms different?
  • G. What don’t researchers know about digital platforms?
  • H. What are the economic consequences of the platform economy?

The articles cited below are not exhaustive, but they may give a sense of the ballpark.

A. What came before the rise of platforms?

The industrial age was typified by descriptions of “supply chains” and “value chains”, which otherwise may be called “pipelines”. Marshall Van Alstyne, Geoffrey G. Parker, and Sangeet Paul Choudary write:

… platforms differ from the conventional “pipeline” businesses that have dominated industry for decades. Pipeline businesses create value by controlling a linear series of activities — the classic value-chain model. Inputs at one end of the chain (say, materials from suppliers) undergo a series of steps that transform them into an output that’s worth more: the finished product. [….]

The move from pipeline to platform involves three key shifts:

1. From resource control to resource orchestration. The resource-based view of competition holds that firms gain advantage by controlling scarce and valuable — ideally, inimitable — assets.

Read more (in a new tab)

The term “platform” is now popular in a variety of contexts.  What do “platforms” mean, and what research might guide our appreciation?

Let’s outline some questions:

  • A. What came before the rise of platforms?
  • B. What types of platforms are there?
  • C. Why take a platform approach?
  • D. How do platforms manifest?
  • E. Why might a platform not be viable?
  • F. How are digital and non-digital platforms different?
  • G. What don’t researchers know about digital platforms?
  • H. What are the economic consequences of the platform economy?

The articles cited below are not exhaustive, but they may give a sense of the ballpark.

A. What came before the rise of platforms?

The industrial age was typified by descriptions of “supply chains” and “value chains”, which otherwise may be called “pipelines”. Marshall Van Alstyne, Geoffrey G. Parker, and Sangeet Paul Choudary write:

… platforms differ from the conventional “pipeline” businesses that have dominated industry for decades. Pipeline businesses create value by controlling a linear series of activities — the classic value-chain model. Inputs at one end of the chain (say, materials from suppliers) undergo a series of steps that transform them into an output that’s worth more: the finished product. [….]

The move from pipeline to platform involves three key shifts:

1. From resource control to resource orchestration. The resource-based view of competition holds that firms gain advantage by controlling scarce and valuable — ideally, inimitable — assets.

Read more (in a new tab)
  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

  • RSS on IngBrief

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

  • RSS on Media Queue

  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal