Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Currently Viewing Posts Tagged language action

Offerings as Commitments and Context: Service Systems from a Language Action Perspective

As I’ve been doing research into service systems, I’ve reached my own conclusions about two blind spots in the current literature.

  • 1. There continues to be a lot of debates about the distinctions (and non-distinctions) between services and products. From a systems perspective, I’m satisfied that the most important features are sufficiently covered by a definition of offerings initially conceived by Richard Normann, and further developed by Rafael Ramirez and Johan Wallin. Features are expressed in three dimensions of physical content, service and infrastructure content, and people (relationship) content.
  • 2. Descriptions of service systems often follow mechanistic frames for function, structure and process that are helpful for understanding physical aspects of a system, but are less helpful for understanding the social contexts of collaboration. Conversations for action — also known as the language action perspective initiated by Fernando Flores and Terry Winograd — are an alternative way to model some aspects of human-to-human interaction, coming from the field of computer science. Language action is well known to reserachers in computer-supported cooperative work — actually famous or infamous, depending on your point of view — but less well known in by business researchers. The social perspective is inescapable in this perspective, because only human beings can make commitments. (Try blaming a machine for an error, and see if it cares!)

Since a service system is a social system, combining the above models of offerings and conversations for action is helpful in recognizing the types of obligations made about products, services, and (people) relationships.

As I was doing research on offerings for my dissertation, it occurred to me that there are at least four types of commitments: (a) a commitment to produce a product, (b) a commitment to follow a process, (c) a commitment to provide a capability, or (d) a commitment contribute towards a relationship.

Commitments, and their failure to come to fruition, occur in the context of other commitments, language (without directly associated action) and action (without directly associated language).

I included these ideas in a review of my dissertation work with friends / fellow researchers in Iowa in February. The reception was a bit frosty, because the style of my dissertation is inductive (i.e. facts to theory), and this new model is deductive (i.e. theory to facts). My friends were helpful in suggesting that I remove this new model from my dissertation. I already have more than enough content for the thesis, and working in these ideas would only produce more dissonance. It’s good to have constructive criticism like this!

In the spring, I decided that I needed to write some papers for conferences. For the UK Systems Society meeting in Oxford, I developed the ideas as a paper, and then with an accompanying presentation. To my surprise, at the conference at the beginning of September, the paper was awarded Best Student Paper for UKSS 2008.1

See the paper and presentation at http://coevolving.com/commons/2008_Systemist_v30_n2_p154_Ing_Offerings-Language-Action .

As I’ve been doing research into service systems, I’ve reached my own conclusions about two blind spots in the current literature.

  • 1. There continues to be a lot of debates about the distinctions (and non-distinctions) between services and products. From a systems perspective, I’m satisfied that the most important features are sufficiently covered by a definition of offerings initially conceived by Richard Normann, and further developed by Rafael Ramirez and Johan Wallin. Features are expressed in three dimensions of physical content, service and infrastructure content, and people (relationship) content.
  • 2. Descriptions of service systems often follow mechanistic frames for function, structure and process that are helpful for understanding physical aspects of a system, but are less helpful for understanding the social contexts of collaboration. Conversations for action — also known as the language action perspective initiated by Fernando Flores and Terry Winograd — are an alternative way to model some aspects of human-to-human interaction, coming from the field of computer science. Language action is well known to reserachers in computer-supported cooperative work — actually famous or infamous, depending on your point of view — but less well known in by business researchers. The social perspective is inescapable in this perspective, because only human beings can make commitments. (Try blaming a machine for an error, and see if it cares!)

Since a service system is a social system, combining the above models of offerings and conversations for action is helpful in recognizing the types of obligations made about products, services, and (people) relationships.

As I was doing research on offerings for my dissertation, it occurred to me that there are at least four types of commitments: (a) a commitment to produce a product, (b) a commitment to follow a process, (c) a commitment to provide a capability, or (d) a commitment contribute towards a relationship.

Commitments, and their failure to come to fruition, occur in the context of other commitments, language (without directly associated action) and action (without directly associated language).

I included these ideas in a review of my dissertation work with friends / fellow researchers in Iowa in February. The reception was a bit frosty, because the style of my dissertation is inductive (i.e. facts to theory), and this new model is deductive (i.e. theory to facts). My friends were helpful in suggesting that I remove this new model from my dissertation. I already have more than enough content for the thesis, and working in these ideas would only produce more dissonance. It’s good to have constructive criticism like this!

In the spring, I decided that I needed to write some papers for conferences. For the UK Systems Society meeting in Oxford, I developed the ideas as a paper, and then with an accompanying presentation. To my surprise, at the conference at the beginning of September, the paper was awarded Best Student Paper for UKSS 2008.1

See the paper and presentation at http://coevolving.com/commons/2008_Systemist_v30_n2_p154_Ing_Offerings-Language-Action .

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • New status by daviding August 18, 2019
      Web video of Systems Changes: Learning from the Christopher Alexander Legacy, extending #patternlanguage especially Eishin School and Multi-Service Centers methods-in-practice. For #SystemsThinking Ontario, up the learning curve on ongoing research. http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/systems-changes-learning-from-the-christopher-alexander-legacy-st-on-2019-02-11/
    • New status by daviding August 16, 2019
      Web video of presentation of Evolving Pattern language towards an Affordance Language, 2018, on week visiting#RaphaelArar and #JimSpohrer at Almaden. Insider's history of science and prospects http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/evolving-pattern-language-towards-an-affordance-language-almaden-2018-05-09/#systemsthinking #patternlanguage
    • New status by daviding August 12, 2019
      Web videos of keynote presentation "Innovation Learning for Sustainability: What's smarter for urban systems" for 2018 International Conference on Smart Cities and Design (SCUD) in Wuhan. http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/innovation-learning-for-sustainability-scud-2018-04-21/
    • New status by daviding August 11, 2019
      Web videos of lecture "Architecting for Wicked Messes: Towards an affordance language for service systems" #OCADU_SFI 2018, two sessions for @redesign and #JeremyBowes. One slide set, two slightly different talks on my research to that point. http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/architecting-for-wicked-messes/ #systemsthinking #patternlanguage
    • New status by daviding August 9, 2019
      Extreme weather conditions could lead to disruption in regional food supplies, says an IPCC report published in August 2018.> It is projected that for every degree of global warming, the world's yield of wheat will fall six per cent, corn by 7.4 per cent, and rice and soybeans both by a little more than three […]
  • RSS on IngBrief

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2019/07 Moments July 2019
      Busy month of living every day of the summer to the fullest, visiting family and friends, enjoying the local sights of the city.
    • 2019/06 Moments June 2019
      Summer arrived in Toronto, with the month ending in travel to BC and Oregon.
    • 2019/05 Moments May 2019
      Family time, empty nest, short trip to conference nearby, friends at home.
    • 2019/04 Moments April 2019
      End of a 23-day visit in Shanghai, readjusting to Eastern Time with the many lecture, meetup, friends and family distractions of Toronto.
    • 2019/03 Moments March 2019
      Month of intensive lectures and research meetings, in Toronto and then in Shanghai, with social breaks on local excursions to clear minds.
    • 2019/02 Moments February 2019
      Reduced exercise outside with a cold and snowy February, with excursions out of the house to warm places with family, friends and colleagues.
  • 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