Evidence collection in Case Studies

The following  discussion agenda is on evidence collection in Case Study as a Research Method:

1. Sources of evidence
• Documentation, Archival Records, Interviews, Direct Observation, Participant-observation, Physical artifacts
2. Principles of data collection
• Use multiple sources of evidence
• Create a case study data base
• Maintain a chain of evidence

Reference
Yin, R.K. (1989) "Chapter 4: Conducting Case Studies" Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications

3 models of value network: a brief note

Based on my study, there are three models of value network:

Model 1: This model of value network is related to the works of Verna Allee. This model mainly focuses on services and intangibles in enterprises at the inter-organizational levels. The model is claimed to be based on living systems theory. Representative references include:

1. Allee, V. (2002) "A Value Network Approach for Modeling and Measuring Intangibles" a paper presented at Transparent Enterprise, Madrid, November
2. Allee, V. (2000) "Reconfigure the Value Network" Journal of Business Strategy, 21(4), July-Aug.
3. Related videos:
• Verna Allee on Business Process Networks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGMxJW-4nL0
• Value Networks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC7W8cMiVFo
• Productivity breakthrough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2b6H6VuhlM

Model 2: This model is related to the works of Michael Porter. In this case, a value system is a system of value chains. The main references are:

1. Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, Free Press
2. Barlow, A. and Li, F. (2005) "Online value network linkages: integration, information sharing and flexibility" Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 4, pp. 100-112.

Model 3: "This model is related to the works of J.L. Mariotti. This model mainly belongs to the Supply Chain Management and Logistics Management literature. The main references are:

1. Mariotti, J.L. (2002) The Value Network, Executive Excellence 19(7), pg. 18.
2. Peltoniemi, M. (2004) "Cluster, Value Network and Business Ecosystem: Knowledge and Innovation Approach" a paper presented at the Conference "Organisations, Innovation and Complexity: New Perspectives on the Knowledge Economy", University of Manchester, 9-10, Sept., NEXSUS, The Complexity Society and CRIC Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition.

All these three models examine (or are capable of dealing with) information flows and intangibles at the inter-organizational/ business network level. In my view, there should be more intellectual efforts to compare these three models of value network as well as cross-fertilization of ideas among these three models. Otherwise, when people talk about "value network", it is not clear which model is referred to.

Benchmarking - an introductory discussion agenda

The following introductory discussion agenda is on Benchmarking:

1. Nature and reasons for benchmarking:
• A more efficient and faster way to make improvements
2. Steps involved  in a benchmarking process
3. Common types of benchmarking
• Cooperative benchmarking, Collaborative benchmarking, Internal benchmarking

Reference
Boxwell, Jr., R.J. (1994) Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill.

e-procurement - an introductory discussion agenda

The following introductory discussion agenda is on e-procurement:

1. Types of procurement
• Procurement for direct materials and indirect materials
• Indirect procurement: Operating Resource Management and Maintenance, Repair and Operations
• Toward total procurement information systems
2. The need for strategic focus of e-procurement projects
3. The business case for e-procurement: process efficiencies, compliance, and leverage

Reference
Neef, D. (2001) e-Procurement: From Strategy to Implementation, Prentice Hall

Management Consulting - an introductory agenda

The following discussion agenda is on an introduction to Management Consulting:

1. The nature of Management Consulting
• Management Consulting and roles of managers
• The client-consultant interaction
• Management consultants' responsibilities
2. Types of clients involved
3. Modes of consulting
• The expert mode, the doctor-patient mode, the process consulting mode
4. How consulting creates value to clients

Reference
Wickham, P. (2004) Management Consulting: Delivering an Effective Project, Prentice Hall

The main concerns of contemporary Operational Research

7 main concerns are identified with Operational Research (OR), based on Ackoff  and Sasieni's (1968) definition of Operational Research, see Figure 1:

Concern 1: What kinds of technology are (and should be) provided by OR practitioners?

Concern 2: What is (and should be) scientific method and science for the OR profession?

Concern 3: What kinds of purposes and human interests are OR to (and should) serve?

Concern 4: How can OR be interdisciplinary?

Concern 5: What is (and should be) the model of implied relationship between science and technology endorsed by the OR practitioners?

Concern 6: what forms, images and theories of organisation are (and should be) upheld by the OR practitioners?

Concern 7: What are the implications of taking on a total systems view?



Reference
Ho, J.K.K. (1996) "Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks" Ph.D. thesis, July, Faulty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong

The underlying perspectives of Information Systems Design Methodologies

The following article is an updated version based on  Ho (1996):


There are a number of ways to classify Information Systems Design (ISD) Methodologies: Connor (1985) classifies conventional ISD, e.g. Information Engineering, Structured Analysis and Jackson System Development (JSD) approaches, amongst others, in terms of how effective they are in coping with the time and cost constraints, the ease of comprehension by users, and the level of complexity of the design requirements of a system. Hirschheim (1985) discerns the differences between analytical or "hard mathematical" approaches used in many conventional ISD and those approaches based on social or human perspectives. Examples of approaches based on social perspectives include Pava's (1983) Sociotechnical Systems Design Methodologies, and Checkland's (1981) Soft Systems Methodology (Also see Wilson, 1984 and Stowell, 1995). Hirschheim's classification emphasises the differences between the objective and subjective approaches of the social sciences. The differences between the two approaches have been discussed by Burrell and Morgan (1979) in terms of ontology, epistemology, human nature, and assumptions about the nature of society. From a Multi-perspective, Systems-based perspective, the main ISD approaches and concepts can be grouped according to three perspectives:

The unitary perspective: ISD concepts that are based on the unitary perspective are principally concerned with the engineering process of ISD; however the logical ISD specifications can be translated into their physical counterparts (e.g. Connor, 1985; Crowe, 1993), and how to make use of various Information Technology levers to redesign superior business processes, see Davenport and Short (1990) and Hammer and Champy (1993).

The pluralist perspective: ISD based on the pluralist perspective are participatory, intersubjective and rather idealistic in approach. Instead of concentrating on how Information Technology (IT) is to transform organizational structures and processes, relatively more attention is spent on (a) the "cultural analysis to understand the organizational consequence of IT (Robey and Azevedo, 1994) and (b) the interpretative nature of understanding and the situatedness of the users of the IT/ISD tools (Westrup, 1994). Representative ISD approaches are the Soft Systems Methodology of Checkland (1981) and the Interpretative Data Modelling approach of Lewis (1993), see Stowell (1995).

The critical perspective: ISD based on the critical perspective pay special attention to achieve social and ethical acceptability, both in the process and end-product of ISD, see Butera, Martino and Kohler (1990) for a discussion on the psychosocial problems arising from the employment of IT. They are also concerned with the issue  and essence of power as well as how this influences the setting-up of conditions in which "genuine" participation and consensus of ISD can take place, see Mingers (1992) and Jackson (1991). ISD methodologies based on this perspective cannot as yet be regarded as mature. One example is that of Probert (1993) who grounds his Information Systems Methodology on Foucault's "genealogical" method and "Interpretive analytics" of Dreyfus and Rabinov (1982).




References
Butera, F., Martino, V.D. and Kohler, E. (Editors) (1990) Technological Development and the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: Options for the Future, Kogan Page Ltd., London
Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley
Connor, D. (1985) Information System Specification and Design Road Map, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Crowe, M.K. (1993) "Engineering Systems", pp. 25-31, in Stowell, F.A., West, D. and Howell, J.G. (editors) Systems Science: Addressing Global Issues, Plenum Press
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990) "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign", pp. 11-27, Sloan Management Review, Summer
Dreyfus, H.L. and Rabinov, P. (1986) "What is Maturity? Habermas and foucault on 'What is Enlightenment?" in Couzens-Hoy, D. (Editors) Foucault: A Critical Reader, Blackwell, Oxford
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business
Hirsccheim, R.A. (1985) Office Automation: A Social and Organizational Perspective, Wiley
Ho, J.K.K. (1996) "Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks" Ph.D. thesis, July, Faulty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong
Jackson, M.C. (1991) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, Plenum Press, New York
Lewis, P.J. (1993) "Towards an interpretive form of data analyis for the Soft Systems Methodology", pp. 391-396, in Stowell, F.A., West, D. and Howell, J.G. (editors) Systems Science: Addressing Global Issues, Plenum Press
Mingers, J. (1992) "Recent Developments in Critical Management Science", pp. 1-10, J. Opl. Res. Soc. 43(1).
Probert, S.K. (1993) "Interpretive Analytics and Critical Information Systems: A Framework for analysis" pp. 427-432, in Stowell, F.A., West, D., Holwell, J.G. (Editors) Systems Science: Addressing Global Issues, Plenum Press
Roby, D. and Azevendo, A. (1994) "Cultural Analysis of the Organizational Consequences of Information Technology", pp. 23-37, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(1) Jan-Mar., Pergamon
Stowell, F.A. (Editor)  (1995) Information Systems Provision: The contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, Information Systems, Management and Strategy Series, McGraw-Hill, London
Westrup, C. (1994) "Practical Understanding: Hermeneutics and Teaching the Management of Information systems Development using a case study", pp. 39-58, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 4(1) Jan-March, Pergamon

Three types of Pluralism in Systems Thinking

The following article is an updated version on the topic of Pluralsim from Ho (1996) and Ho, Partington and Sculli (1994) :


There are three types of pluralism (re: Figure 1):

Normative pluralism: it adopts the position that each perspective yields a specialized set of knowledge which serves a particular interest of mankind. The critical perspective plays a pivotal role in the entire scheme to ensure that knowledge gained from the various perspectives is properly employed as it is, similar to Critical Theory (see Kellner, 1989), interested in topics of freedom, happiness and justice. In other words, the critical perspective validates the knowledge gained from the pluralist perspective and it, in turn, does the same for the unitary perspective.

Comprehensive pluralism: it emphasises the need to be comprehensive and free from domination from a particular perspective in  the process of inquiry. Conceptual models constructed  by the parties concerned should incorporate all the elements and variables originated from different perspectives into grand theories that guide reflection and actions in the problematic situation. Creativity is ensured by constructing and confronting a number of grand theories that organize the various elements differently; resourcefulness in the approach of organizational intervention is achieved as the full range of systems methodologies are employed at the same time. The organizational intervention can thus be done in a resourceful and creative way. This kind of pluralism underlines Francescato's (1992) approach of organizational change.

Pragmatic pluralism: it stresses the need to be efficient in conducting inquiries by paying attention to what the parties involved perceived to be important and relevant. It considers creativity, comprehensiveness, and feasibility as equally important criteria of performance. By recognizing that there are dominant and supporting metaphors in the Total Systems Intervention process, Flood and Jackson (1991) lend support to this kind of pluralism.

The existence of the three types of pluralism points to the in-built tension of pluralism.





Reference
Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991) Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley
Francescato, D. (1992) "A Multidimensional Perspective of Organizational Change", pp. 129-146, Systems Practice 5(2) April, Plenum Press
Ho, J.K.K. (1996) "Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks" Ph.D. thesis, July, Faulty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong
Ho, J.K.K., Partington, E.C. and Sculli, D. (1994) "A Meta-framework for Information Systems Design". pp. 592-597, The Conference Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting, Western Decisions Sciences Institute, Maui, Hawaii
Kellner, D. (1989) Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

The notion of system complexity - an update

The following article is an updated version on the topic of System Complexity from Ho (1996):


The concept of system complexity is a recurring theme in the field of Systems Science and is closely related to the idea of systems. A recent example is Dash and Murthy’s (1994) review of System Dynamic in terms of the concept of complexity. The issue of relationship between complexity and system can be quite complicated when examined from different onto-epistemological viewpoint, see Flood (1990), Flood’s (1990) insightful work has not been taken up in the discussion here, but should be borne in mind future investigation.

A system is used to be considered as being made up of elements and the linkages between entities. For a set of events to be usefully viewed as a system, Ackoff (1981) requires: (a) the behavior of each element of the system has an effect on the behavior of the whole; (b) the behavior of the elements and their effects on the whole are interdependent; and (c) however subgroups of the elements are formed, each has an effect on the behavior of the whole and none has an independent effect on it. These systems can be studied effectively with a few systems-based methods of inquiry, namely, expansionism, synthesis, producer-product relationship, and teleology, see Ackoff (1981). Schoderbek et al. (1985) further clarify the concept of system complexity by defining it as that property of system resulting from the interaction of four main determinants: the number of system elements, their attributes, and the number of interactions among the elements, and the degree of organization of the elements.

When applied to problem-solving and decision-making, the above concept of system complexity is also known as classical or type I complexity, see Ledington (1988). Type I complexity is regarded as insufficient since it is incapable of considering complexity arising from the cultural, human behavioral (or soft) dimension of the problem situation. Therefore, an enhanced model of complexity (type II) is required, which also considers the people dimension. In this respect, Jackson and Keys (1984) propose  a classification scheme  for types (ideal types) of problem contexts (as systems) along the two dimensions of systems and of the relationship of the parties (people) involved is illuminating for further discussion in this type of complexity. The first dimension of systems of their scheme is in line with the classical view and the work of Ackoff (1981) and Schoderbek et al. (1985) while the second dimension deals with the human interactions. They called the framework "a System of Systems Methodologies (SYSM)", since it aims at classifying the various systems-based problem-solving methodologies in terms of their relative strengths and weaknesses in dealing with various idealised types of problem-context. In a similar vein, Flood and Carson (1988) suggest that the two major components of complexity are system and people.  The system component is further broken down into a number of parts and a number of relations, while the people component  involves the sub-elements of interests, capabilities, and notions/ perceptions. Figure 1 is an attempt to make the inter-relationship between the elements in the complexity model of Flood and Carson (1998) more explicit see Ho and Sculli (1995).

Figure 1 presents a view of the complexity as a subjective concept - it exists in the mind of the decision maker, who in turn is conditioned by the external environment in which he finds himself. More than just a subjective concept, system complexity is an intersubjective concept as the complexity of a problematic situation is perceived by different stakeholders. The most satisfactory viewpoint on the concept of system complexity, in my view, is that of Midgley (1992) who identifies three aspects of complexity as related to the object relations, subjectivity, value and ethics, and these three aspects  were themselves inter-related. such a view of system complexity of Midgley (1992) is supportive of the Critical Systems Thinking and compatible withe the Multi-Perspective, Systems-based perspective.

The relativistic view of complexity is demonstrated in Figure 1. This figure makes it clear that, for some decision makers, a problematic situation is considered as simple and manageable, while the same problematic situation can be perceived in quite dissimilar terms and appears complex to another group of decision makers. System complexity arises in a Cybernetics sense (Ashby, 1973), because the problematical situation (as a system) appears to have a higher variety than the decision maker can absorb or control. Figure 2 further elucidates this point.

There is an additional complexity arising from the interaction of multiple decision makers themselves as a decision-making unit and this needs to be managed. This point is more relevant to the discussion of group decision support systems design (which pays more attention to the process of team process support), than to traditional DSS (which stresses the process of task), or organizational DSS design (which focuses more on the process of process standards/ best practice), see Nunamaker et al. (1992). On this topic, Rodriguez-Ulloa (1988) gives a good discussion on how the problem-solving personnel can become yet another problem component in the system.



Reference
Ackoff, R.L. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley, New York
Ashby, W.R. (1973) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall Ltd and University paperbacks
Dash, D.P. and Murthy, P.N. (1994) "Boundary Judgement in System Dynamics Modelling: An Investigation Through The Science of complexity: Research Note" pp. 464-475, Systems Practice 7(4), August, Plenum Press
Flood, R.L. (1990) Liberating Systems Theory, Plenum, New York
Flood, R.L. and Carson, E.R. (1988) Dealing with Complexity: An introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, Plenum Press
Ho, J.K.K. (1996) "Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks" Ph.D. thesis, July, Faulty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong
Ho, J.K.K. and Sculli, D. (1995) "System Complexity and the Design of Decision Support Systems", Systems Practice, pp. 505-516, 8(5), Plenum Press
Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. (1984) "Towards A Systems of Systems Methodologies", J. Opl. Res. Soc. 35(6), pp. 473-486
Ledington, P. (1988) "Designing Conversation: A Reflection upon Ulrich's Research Program: Research Note" pp. 319-321,  Systems Practice 1(3), September, Plenumn Press
Midgley, G. (1992) "Pluralism and the Legitimation of Systems Science", pp. 147-172, Systems Practice 5(2) Plenum Press, New York
Nunamaker, J.F., et al. (1992) "Organizational Decision Support Systems" Chapter 5, pp. 137-166 in Stohr, A. and Konsynski, B.R. (editors) Information Systems and Decision Processes, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, Washington
Rodriguez-Ulloa, R.A. (1988) "The Problem-Solving System: Another Problem-Content System", pp. 243-257, Systems Practice 1(3), September, Plenum Press
Schoderbek, P.P., Schoderbek, C.G., and Kefalas, A.G. (1985) Management Systems: Conceptual Considerations, Business Publications, Texas

Subjective vs Objective Research Philosophy

The main differences between objective and subjective research philosophies are as follows:


Nature of reality (ontology): subjective: perceived reality vs objective: reality out there
Nature of knowledge (epistemology): subjective: tacit; experience-based vs objective: explicit and codified
Human nature: subjective: free will vs objective: deterministic


Other aspects: view on social contradiction..

Reflective report in Dissertation report: the questions

The following questions are the main ones to be addressed in the Reflection Report of a typical Dissertation report for Business Management (or related management discipline) students:

Q1. What happened? Outline how you went about your project addressing the reasons for your topic choice, how you set about collecting the data, analyzing it and reaching conclusions.
Q2. What things happened? What unexpected experiences did you encounter? How did you feel?
Q3. Reflections: What were the main good things and main bad things about the experience of preparing a dissertation?
Q4. Lessons: What do you feel you have learnt from the experience of planning, carrying out and writing up your project? How would you do things differently in the future?



The reflective report is around 1,000 words and is provided in the Appendix of the Dissertation Report.

Consumer behaviour resources

The following resources are on Consumer Behaviour:

1. A reference: Hawkins, N.Q. (2002) Consumer Behaviour: Implications for Marketing Strategy, McGraw-Hill.
2. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Wiley (re: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1479-1838)