Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Value-creating systems and business models: systems thinking inside

On my quest for management research based on systems theory, I’ve generally been disappointed since the systems foundations are rarely apparent from a superficial reading. Typically, when I read management research, I get a queasy feeling inside, because a lot of the content written is anti-systemic.

In contrast, when I read Johan Wallin‘s 2006 book, Business Orchestration: Strategic Leadership in the Era of Digital Convergence, I felt strangely comfortable. I attribute this to the lineage from which Wallin has come, so that there is “systems thinking inside”. Wallin completed his dissertation in 2000 in association with Rafael Ramirez. Ramirez is a graduate of the Social Systems Science (S3) program1 at the University of Pennsylvania, and now a professor at Oxford. In addition, Wallin worked closely with Richard Normann, immersing him in the Value Constellation model. I suspect that the average reader would be oblivious to the fine distinctions that systems theory makes. For management researchers, however, such foundations enable a strong scientific foundation, rather than simplified metaphors that break down under scrutiny.

This book is not targeted at academics, and includes many examples (e.g. Nokia, IBM, Toyota) that make the content easily digestable. For my research interests, however, I’m intrigued that Wallin has provided very specific definitions … with which I’m comfortable. I’m not necessarily a believer in objective definitions for business jargon, but they’re sometimes necessary to move forward. Thus, I’ll highlight some common business terms that everyone uses … and few define well.

As a foundation, Wallin starts outside the field of management. Values take us out beyond the traditional domain of business, into the more general field of sociology.

Values are generalized, relatively enduring and consistent priorities of how an actor wants to live. [p. 10]

This definition refers to a 1992 paper by Hans L. Zetterberg presented at the American Sociological Association, but there’s a web-friendly reprint of Zetterberg’s “The study of values” as a 1997 publication. Zetterberg associates with the economic sociology community (e.g. Richard Swedberg), that reflects being-in-the-world in addition to introspection.

Back into the domain of business, Wallin’s value constellation heritage dissolves the academic distinctions between products and services.

An offering is a limited set of focused human activity intended to generate positive customer value and exchange value for the provider of the offering. [p. 10]

This definition refers back to Wallin’s dissertation in 2000. There’s a subtle inclusion of both customer value (mostly related to use value) and exchange value. There’s a helpful illustration on offerings that doesn’t appear in the book, but is on the Synocus web site.

Framework, from synocus.com

Businesses create value. In The Democratic Corporation, Russell Ackoff — a prominent systems thinker in management — points out that companies both create wealth and redistribute wealth (in contrast to governments that only have the function of redistributing wealth). Wallin defines:

Value creation is the process of co-producing offerings (i.e. products and services) in a mutually beneficial seller/buyer relationship. This relationship may include other contractors such as subcontractors and the buyer’s customers. In this relationship, the parties behave in a symbiotic manner leading to activities that generate positive values for them.

The actors brought together to interact in this process of co-producing value form a value constellation. [pp. 15-16, editorial paragraphing added]

Coproduction is a systems concept that I’ve read in foundational works both by West Churchman, and his student Russell Ackoff. This definition provided by Wallin has a economic sociology sense that works in business, and doesn’t trample the spirit of system theory. There’s a diagram in the article that has been generalized on the Synocus web site.

Value Creating Systems, from Synocus

(There’s a slightly different definition for “value-creating system” on the Synocus web site, if those specific words are desired for citation).

One of the most popular terms in management is business model. Wallin builds his definition on value-creation.

The business model defines the value-creation priorities of an actor in respect to the utilization of both internal and external resources. It defines how the actor relates with stakeholders, such as actual and potential customers, employees, unions, suppliers, competitors, and other internal groups. It takes account of situations where the actor’s activities may

(a) affect the business environment and its own business in ways that create conflicting interests, or impose risks on the actor; or

(b) develop new, previously unpredicted ways of creating value.

The business model is in itself subject to continual review as a response to actual and possible changes in perceived business conditions. [p. 12, editorial paragraphing added]

This definition references the 2000 book, Prime Movers: Define Your Business or Have Someone Define it Against You, that has Rafael Ramirez as the primary author and Johan Wallin as the second author. There’s a small difference between the definitions in the two books. The 2006 book refers to “an actor”, whereas the 2000 definition refers to “a firm”2. This debate between the individual and the organization is one that is deep in the management research founded on systems theory. (David Hawk and I debate this one all of the time!)

Despite these quibbles, it’s easy to make the linkage from this thinking to the seminar systems theory article in 1965, Emery & Trist’s “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments”.

With the synopsis above, I haven’t gotten out of the first chapter of Wallin’s 2006 book! The advance that was made between the 2006 work and the 2000 work is the inclusion of “Digital Convergence”. I happened to meet Johan Wallin when we were both participants in the U.C. Berkeley Innovation in Services Conference this past April, and found that his ideas on business orchestration are highly compatible with those of John Hagel and John Seely Brown on productive friction and creation nets. The advantage of meeting in person was that I was able to ascertain that this is a case of “great minds think alike”, rather than a lack of knowledge or conflict between the way these authors think.

Johan and I plan to get together the next time I’m in Finland, when we’ll piece together more fragments from our social networks.


1 I note that the Ph.D. in Social Systems Science was offered at the University of Pennsylvania only between 1975 and 1988. If you wanted to get this degree today, Penn wouldn’t give you one!
2The business model of a firm defines value-creation priorities in respect to the utilization of both internal and external resources. It defines how the firm relates with stakeholders, such as actual and potential customers, employees, unions, suppliers, competitors, and other interest groups. It takes account of situations where its activities may (a) affect the business environment and its own business in ways that could create conflicting interests or impose risks on the firm, or (b) develop new, previously unpredicted ways of creating value. The business model is in itself subject to continual review subject to actual and possible changes in perceived business conditions. [Ramirez & Wallin 2000, p. 77]


References

Johan Wallin, Business Orchestration: Strategic Leadership in the Era of Digital Convergence, John Wiley & Sons 2006 (Chichester, England)

Rafael Ramirez & Johan Wallin, Prime Movers: Define Your Business or Have Someone Define it Against You, John Wiley & Sons 2000 (Chichester, England)

4 Comments

  • David,

    Excellent. I’d also like to recommend Johan Wallin’s book — I fond the Robinon Cursoe Economics example at the stat of the book, a wonderfully simple example of how economies might be born, for pedagogical purposes that is, as value co-creation systems with more and more stakeholders being added to the mix.

    Also, recommend your readers get a copy of Richard Normann’s Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape — what he calls value creating systems, we call service-systems.

    The terms offering and value proposition are interestingly similar. That should be explored and taken apart some.

    Thanks for a great blog/essay!

    -Jim

    p.s. I’m glad Johan attended the Berkeley event, since I got to meet him for the first time as well. Very glad I ordered his book and read it! This is definitely some of the good stuff for systems thinkers, interested in people, businesses, and government agencies, all as interacting service-systems or value co-creation systems.

  • David and Jim,

    It is a great honor for me that you have taken your time to familiarize yourselves with my book. David is perfectly right, there is a systems perspective behind the book. I started my career as a Cobol programmer in the 1970s, and e.g. The Systems Approach by C. West Churchman has had great influence on my thinking.

    What the book tries to describe is the challenge of balancing efficiency and creativity. Most organizations are quite good at efficiency. However, in the fight for continuous innovation we need more creativity (see for example the Business Week, 11 June 2007, story about 3M). Here I think the notion of orchestration is a useful metafor. When orchestrating leaders are not totally in control, but they still can influence.

    A topic that now intrigues me is capabilities as properties of networks, or value constellations. Especially how to configure innovation capabilities in a network. The Toyota Aisin Seiki case (pp 60-63 in the book) is here interesting; especially what was the role of the systems architecture, and the centralized crisis management, and what was the impact of more sponteneaous self-organized behavior.

    The architectural perspective of a network, considering the role of operational processes, information flows, and social ties is a truly interesting systems issue!

    Thanks David for initiating this discussion!

    – Johan

    PS. I also enjoyed the discussions at Berkeley very much, and look forward to seeing you at some other conference soon!


Leave a Reply

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

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • daviding: “With the release of General Systems Yearbook 2023, a full-te…” November 25, 2023
      With the release of General Systems Yearbook 2023, a full-text, read-only version of "Appreciating Systems Changes via Multiparadigm Inquiry", SRBS v40 n5 is available for colleagues of the author on Article Sharehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/YEVWGPGURZ5IVE7AWQRM?target=10.1002/sres.2973 https://coevolving.com/commons/2023-09-appreciating-systems-changes-via-multiparadigm-inquiry-srbs #SystemsThinking
    • daviding: “Web video on #HistoricalSynthesis with #DrMichaelBonner and …” November 24, 2023
      Web video on #HistoricalSynthesis with #DrMichaelBonner and #ZaidKhan for #SystemsThinking Ontario. Learning about the present by sweeping in the past, including the rise and fall of the Second Persian Empire circa 7th century. https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/historical-synthesis/
    • daviding: “Think the first step in #SystemsThinking is defining the bou…” November 24, 2023
      Think the first step in #SystemsThinking is defining the boundary? If the systems sciences are an open system, then learning involves the sweeping-in process. Excerpt from #CWestChurchman (1982) _Thought and Wisdom_. https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/the-sweep-in-process-of-systems-science-churchman/
    • daviding: “For the @RSDSymposium in October, an "Explaining Systems Cha…” November 20, 2023
      For the @RSDSymposium in October, an "Explaining Systems Changes Learning: Methods & Translations", an in-person workshop was conducted in Toronto. Interested in joining in our rhythm of triweekly meetings? Slides at https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/explaining-systems-changes-learning-rsd12/ #SystemsThinking #SystemsChange
    • daviding: “Web video of #JudithRosen on Anticipatory Systems, Evolutio…” November 11, 2023
      Web video of #JudithRosen on Anticipatory Systems, Evolution, and Extinction Cascades, extending mathematical biologist #RobertRosen at #SystemsThinking Ontariohttps://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/anticipatory-systems-evolution-extinction-cascades-rosen/
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • 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 […]
    • Western Union and the canton of Ticino, Switzerland
      After 90 minutes on phone and online chat with WesternUnion, the existence of the canton of Ticino in Switzerland is denied, so I can’t send money from Canada. TicinoTurismo should be unhappy. The IT developers at Western Union should be dissatisfied that customer support agents aren’t sending them legitimate bug reports I initially tried the […]
    • Aesthetics | Encyclopaedia Britannica | 15 edition
      Stephen C. Pepper was a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, on the entry for Aesthetics.
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2023/11 Moments November 2023
      Dayliight hours getting shorter encouraged more indoor events, unanticipated cracked furnace block led to replacement of air conditioner with heat pump, too.
    • 2023/10 Moments October 2023
      Left Seoul for 8 days in Ho Chi Minh City, and then 7 days in Taipei. Extended family time with sightseeing, almost completely offline from work.
    • 2023/09 Moments September 2023
      Toronto International Film Festival, and the first stop of a 3-week trip to Asia starting with Seoul, Korea
    • 2023/08 Moments August 2023
      Catching up with family and friends, locally in Toronto, west to Iowa, and east to Nova Scotia
    • 2023/07 Moments July 2023
      Busy with family visits and celebrations in first half of month. Return to quiet time in second half of month.
    • 2023/06 Moments June 2023
      Enjoyed early summer in Toronto with multiple festivals, and made a quick trip to Vancouver to visit family
  • RSS on Media Queue

    • 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 ›
    • 2020/07/13 “Making Growing Thinking” |Tim Ingold (web video)
      For the @ArchFoundation, #TimIngold distinguishes outcome-oriented making from process-oriented growing, revisiting #MartinHeidegger “Building Dwelling Thinking”. Organisms are made; artefacts grow. The distinction seems obvious, until you stop to ask what assumptions it contains, about the inside and outside of things…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