Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Metaphors and Models

What is a business?  How can (or should) an expert business practitioner relay his or her knowledge to another interested party?  Trying to understand these questions leads down a path of debating the merits and demerits of understanding through metaphors, and understanding through models.  This eventually ends up with a discussion of roots in philosophy of science.

During the Seiad project in 1977, Ian Simmonds and I had many discussions about understanding business, filling up the whiteboard in his office at the Watson Research Center.1 My studies into business strategy reflected the two primary foundations:  microeconomics  — Michael Porter is a leading proponent of this approach — and organization theory  — with roots in the research of the Tavistock Institute, and the sociotechnical systems thinking from Fred Emery and Eric Trist.  Add onto that my personal bent towards decision support systems — Peter Keen‘s research while at CISR at the Sloan School at MIT was highly influential — and a strategic view of marketing that can be described as Market-Driven Strategy, as described by George Day.  These all represent models of business.

Ian — as I recall, starting from a side discussion with Doug McDavid — brought up an alternative approach to businesses, with the book: Images of Organization, by Gareth Morgan.  I had a visceral response to this work, because it prescribed the use of metaphors to describe business.  The problem that I’ve found with metaphors is that they relay an initial — and possibly superficial — portrayal of business.  The layman gets an initial comprehension about the subject, but then starts going off the rails as the metaphor becomes overused.  As an example, Stafford Beer wrote books on the Brain of the Firm, and The Heart of Enterprise, that build off models from biological systems.  For a information systems analyst who doesn’t understand that a business is a social system — as would be described by Russell Ackoff — what assumptions would be built into the computer system that he or she was instrumental in developing?

The essential challenge, as Ian and I dug deeper forward, was:  how to we develop a description of business — in our case, it was an industry reference model for consumer goods distribution and retailing.  Doug McDavid had created a more general model in his article on "A standard for business architecture description" in IBM Systems Journal in 1999.  Could we get industry people to buy into a more specific version of this type of modeling?

In real life, despite our information-systems-based interests, business people don’t really care for these types of models.  Sure, they have their own mental models — as Peter Senge describes — but they’re not really interested in hearing a novice regurgitating rigourous depictions of them.  Analysts working towards information systems deconstruct meaning, often drawing lots of charts with bubbles and arrows between them.  These aren’t how the experts understand their worlds.  It’s how someone who doesn’t understand their worlds tries to express a second-hand understanding.

The interesting statistic — it’s written up by Gerry Zaltman in How Customers Think — is that humans speak at a rate of just under 6 metaphors per minute.2 This statistic has at least two implications:

  • charts with bubbles and arrows between them are unlikely to capture the richness of the understanding of content; and
  • the transmission of knowledge from a practitioner deep in the domain to another practitioner in the same domain (at the same or a shallower depth) isn’t probably going to be the same as to an "objective observer" who doesn’t share the same practices (and pool of metaphors).

Thus, no analyst — save for one who may also be cross-trained as a practitioner in the domain — is ever going to be able to replicate the knowledge of an expert.  The analyst may get close to an understanding … but then what about the views and opinions of second (or third) expert who doesn’t quite see things the same way?

I guess that’s why analysis for information systems becomes an exercise in abstraction.  Alternative paths to understand what practitioners really do include Pierre Bourdieu‘s theory of practice, and disclosing new worlds as described by Charles Spinosa, Fernando Flores and Hubert Dreyfus.


1 The depth of the discussions reflected our backgrounds.  I spent 8 years in university in the formal study of business:  an undergraduate degree in commerce at the University of Toronto, a master’s degree from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and two years in the doctoral program in the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration at the University of British Columbia, before I joined IBM Canada in the headquarters finance and planning function..  In my studies, I had minored in computer science and had concentrations on Management Information Systems throughout that time.  My childhood included a rich training in business in my father’s furniture and appliance store in Gravenhurst (northern Ontario), and my career path in IBM had led me through the retail and distribution solutions units in IBM.  Ian had studied math at the University of Cambridge, worked in France on the Esprit project, spent some time in IBM’s Toronto Lab, and was settling into the Watson Research Center, on projects related to Insurance Application Architecture.  He had done with research with Haim Kilov, with a particular focus on what has become known as Kilov-Ross Information Modeling.  In some respects, the challenge could have been described as as a typical "system analysis" question.  In reality, because the Seiad project involved IBM Research, we were motivated to develop a deeper understanding of business and information systems, rather than a rushing to a quick-and-dirty answer.

2 I first heard the statistic of "5.8 metaphors per minute" from Jay Ogilvy at a talk at the IBM Advanced Business Institute, on October 14, 1998. In How Customers Think, Gerry Zaltman cites the statistic with a footnote to Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr, "Categorization and Metaphor Understanding", Psychological Review 99, no. 3, (1992).

1 Comment

  • Perhaps in addition to looking at understanding through metaphors and model, we ahould also be looking at symbols.

    Paper in progress…for submission to ISSS 2006

    Working title: “Back to the Future: Towards Visual Communication Systems as an Organizational Process”

    Images, Text, and Actions >>>>Which is the better time saver?

    http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/wava/worth/sthree.html

    Also see Margaret Mead’s thoughts on anthropology of the visual…

    Under writing, i will discuss the barriers of language, the time consumption of translation, etc. I might also go into the processes used for organization and communication by the “primitive.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • daviding: “Pre-announcing April 30 Dialogic Drinks session I'm leading …” April 23, 2024
      Pre-announcing April 30 Dialogic Drinks session I'm leading on "#Yinyang and Daojia into #SystemsThinking through Changes", online 18:30 Singapore, 11:30 London, 6:30am Toronto. Repeating May 2, 8:00pm ET. Official #EQLab notifications https://www.eqlab.co/newsletter-signup
    • daviding: “Diachrony (or diachronic shifts) resurrects a word from 1857…” April 10, 2024
      Diachrony (or diachronic shifts) resurrects a word from 1857, better expressing *changes through time*. A social practice publication in 1998 contrasts synchronic with diachronic. https://ingbrief.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/diachronic-diachrony/
    • daviding: “Web video introduction of 15 minutes for 1-hour Lunch and Le…” March 22, 2024
      Web video introduction of 15 minutes for 1-hour Lunch and Learn #CentreForSocialInnovationToronto on "Systems Changes Dialogues for Social Innovation" invites practitioners for upcoming monthly meetings. Evocative animated images, details deferred to conversations with mentors. https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/systems-changes-dialogues-csi/#SystemsThinking
    • daviding: “Web video of slides from "From Unfreezing-Refreezing, to Sys…” March 21, 2024
      Web video of slides from "From Unfreezing-Refreezing, to Systems Changes Learning" for Dialogic Drinks of #EQLab represents only 1/5 of the time compared to peer-led discussions. Concise hosting called for brevity, and richer presentations. https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/from-unfreezing-refreezing-eq-lab/ #SystemsThinking
    • daviding: “Hosting multiple Dialogic Drinks on "From Unfreezing-Refreez…” March 8, 2024
      Hosting multiple Dialogic Drinks on "From Unfreezing-Refreezing, to Systems Changes Learning" online, March 12 (Europe), March 14 (Americas), March 15 (Australia). #Leadership meets #SystemsThinking . Short presentations, longer discussions https://www.eqlab.co/from-unfreezing-refreezing-to-systems-changes-learning-david-ing
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • The Nature and Application of the Daodejing | Ames and Hall (2003)
      Ames and Hall (2003) provide some tips for those studyng the DaoDeJing.
    • Diachronic, diachrony
      Finding proper words to express system(s) change(s) can be a challenge. One alternative could be diachrony. The Oxford English dictionary provides two definitions for diachronic, the first one most generally related to time. (The second is linguistic method) diachronic ADJECTIVE Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “diachronic (adj.), sense 1,” July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3691792233. For completeness, prochronic relates “to […]
    • Introduction, “Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, volume 2”, edited by F. E. Emery (1981)
      The selection of readings in the “Introduction” to Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, volume 2, Penguin (1981), edited by Fred E. Emery, reflects a turn from 1969 when a general systems theory was more fully entertained, towards an urgency towards changes in the world that were present in 1981. Systems thinking was again emphasized in contrast […]
    • Introduction, “Systems Thinking: Selected Readings”, edited by F. E. Emery (1969)
      In reviewing the original introduction for Systems Thinking: Selected Readings in the 1969 Penguin paperback, there’s a few threads that I only recognize, many years later. The tables of contents (disambiguating various editions) were previously listed as 1969, 1981 Emery, System Thinking: Selected Readings. — begin paste — Introduction In the selection of papers for this […]
    • Concerns with the way systems thinking is used in evaluation | Michael C. Jackson, OBE | 2023-02-27
      In a recording of the debate between Michael Quinn Patton and Michael C. Jackson on “Systems Concepts in Evaluation”, Patton referenced four concepts published in the “Principles for effective use of systems thinking in evaluation” (2018) by the Systems in Evaluation Topical Interest Group (SETIG) of the American Evaluation Society. The four concepts are: (i) […]
    • Quality Criteria for Action Research | Herr, Anderson (2015)
      How might the quality of an action research initiative be evaluated? — begin paste — We have linked our five validity criteria (outcome, process, democratic, catalytic, and dialogic) to the goals of action research. Most traditions of action research agree on the following goals: (a) the generation of new knowledge, (b) the achievement of action-oriented […]
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

  • RSS on Media Queue

    • What to Do When It’s Too Late | David L. Hawk | 2024
      David L. Hawk (American management theorist, architect, and systems scientist) has been hosting a weekly television show broadcast on Bold Brave Tv from the New York area on Wednesdays 6pm ET, remotely from his home in Iowa. Live, callers can join…Read more ›
    • 2021/06/17 Keekok Lee | Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 2
      Following the first day lecture on Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 1 for the Global University for Sustainability, Keekok Lee continued on a second day on some topics: * Anatomy as structure; physiology as function (and process); * Process ontology, and thing ontology; * Qi ju as qi-in-concentrating mode, and qi san as qi-in-dissipsating mode; and […]
    • 2021/06/16 Keekok Lee | Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 1
      The philosophy of science underlying Classical Chinese Medicine, in this lecture by Keekok Lee, provides insights into ways in which systems change may be approached, in a process ontology in contrast to the thing ontology underlying Western BioMedicine. Read more ›
    • 2021/02/02 To Understand This Era, You Need to Think in Systems | Zeynep Tufekci with Ezra Klein | New York Times
      In conversation, @zeynep with @ezraklein reveal authentic #SystemsThinking in (i) appreciating that “science” is constructed by human collectives, (ii) the west orients towards individual outcomes rather than population levels; and (iii) there’s an over-emphasis on problems of the moment, and…Read more ›
    • 2019/04/09 Art as a discipline of inquiry | Tim Ingold (web video)
      In the question-answer period after the lecture, #TimIngold proposes art as a discipline of inquiry, rather than ethnography. This refers to his thinking On Human Correspondence. — begin paste — [75m26s question] I am curious to know what art, or…Read more ›
    • 2019/10/16 | “Bubbles, Golden Ages, and Tech Revolutions” | Carlota Perez
      How might our society show value for the long term, over the short term? Could we think about taxation over time, asks @carlotaprzperez in an interview: 92% for 1 day; 80% within 1 month; 50%-60% tax for 1 year; zero tax for 10 years.Read more ›
  • 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