=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2383/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=Productization of Business Models by Adding Situational Knowledge
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2383/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2383
|authors=Anders W. Tell
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/Tell19
}}
==Productization of Business Models by Adding Situational Knowledge==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2383/paper4.pdf
Productization of Business Models by Adding
Situational Knowledge
Anders W. Tell, Stockholm University, anderswt@dsv.su.se
Abstract. Enterprise models are artifacts and tools that can be used in various
kinds of discussions about work and work in an enterprise. This paper introduce
a work oriented approach to modelling that treats enterprise models as
information products that can be created by experts or professional modelers. The
work oriented approach includes analysis of situations, work and work practices.
By adding situational and work oriented knowledge, experiences can be
leveraged from practices such as product development, design, jobs-to-be-done
and business model canvas analysis. The explicit addition of situational
knowledge can improve relevance, effectiveness and other qualities of the use of
enterprise models and other information products.
Keywords. Enterprise modeling, enterprise architecture, situational knowledge,
product design, design thinking, design science research, jobs to be done theory
1 Introduction
Enterprise and business models are artifacts and tools that can be used in various kinds
of discussions about work and in actual work in an enterprise. As such, an enterprise
model has been designed by someone with a purpose and a target audience in mind,
and a focus on a particular aspect of the enterprise, e.g. processes, business rules,
concepts/information, vision/goals, and actors {Stirna:2018tu}. A specific enterprise
model has usually been designed by researchers and method developers using a
scientific or practical method, where the model kind satisfies identified requirements.
This paper introduce a work oriented approach to modelling that treats an
enterprise model as an information product developed similarly to a product that
serves an information need or satisfies a want. By treating an enterprise model as an
information product it becomes possible to incorporate knowledge and experiences
from fields such as product development, design and innovation [1], which has a strong
focus on aspects such as usefulness and long term viability.
In particular, when treating enterprise models as products, the development process
does not stop when the product has been evaluated to satisfy initial requirements.
Analogous to product development, the life cycle of a product goes through a journey
with several segments.
After the product has been developed, Problem-Solution Fit is evaluated, followed
by a decision to continue, modify the product, do a pivot or discontinue the
development. The next stage typically involves an evaluation of the Product-Market
Fit by asking questions such as, do the users actually use the product and pay for it? If
not, then pivot, modify, or discontinue. The journey does not generally stop here.
Subsequent stages often involve growth hacking and evaluation of long term Business
Model - Evolution Fit and subsequently Production - Quality Fit.
There are practical reasons for these stages. In today’s information age, product ideas
are found in abundance and they are shared rapidly across the globe. The saying goes
that in Silicon valley the graveyard is full of good products that customers don’t want
to use and pay for, so surviving products need to travel through a longer journey in
order to be proven viable.
A supplied product push out features and possible benefits in use, at the same time
customers pull in what they desire and what they consider as useful. For a viable
situation to occur the product-push and customer-pull must meet and fit over time.
As a consequence, for an information product it is not sufficient that the model
developer claims that the purpose and focus are relevant and valuable for a particular
person in work they do with others. The intended user is part of the fit evaluation and
determines if the information product is of value to them in their own work situations.
2 Work oriented approach
2.1 Adding situational knowledge
In the work oriented approach one important piece of knowledge is added in order to
explicitly shift enterprise modeling into product development. Here the situation where
the enterprise model or rather the information product is intended to be or is actually
used is explicitly identified and analysed. This situational knowledge includes
knowledge about work, work practices and use-requirements, and can be used to
tailor, frame, constrain, contextualise, configure, or regulate the development and use
of information products [2]. The term ‘Work-to-be-Done’ is used to refer to work that
is being done, analogous to jobs-to-be-done theory [3] (see the following section).
The characterisation of a (work) situation includes the following aspects:
• General Situational aspects: facts, conditions, circumstances, and events that
affect someone or something at a particular time and in a particular place [4].
• Work aspects [5] [2] [6] [7]:
o feeling, thinking, hearing, speaking, seeing, sensing,
o doings, actual work being conducted, tasks, practices, routines, value
activities,
o ways of working and thinking, tools, deliverables, work products
o questions asked, decisions made,
o information needs,
o objectives, results, outcomes,
o professions, organisational jobs or positions.
• Use-requirements: requirements on the use of participating entities in the
situation, such as information products.
In the “A Method for Situating Capability Viewpoints” paper [2], a method is
introduced that can be used to tailor and adapt existing models to fit with work people
do with others. This method is based on situational method engineering [8] and can be
generalised to work involving other aspects than capabilities
This situational knowledge provides a key source for the formulation of information
needs and use-requirements for information products. Importantly, it serves as an
explicit source and anchor for the formulation of purpose.
The situational knowledge provides a sound base for the validation of user needs
and requirements in their work when answering questions, taking actions and making
decisions.
The following figure 1 provides an illustration of the key elements of the
productization.
Figure 1: Illustration of the work oriented approach to enterprise modelling
2.2 Jobs-to-Be-Done theory and practices
The work oriented approach is analogous to the contemporary Jobs-to-be-Done theory
[3] and practices as described in the HBR article “Know Your Customers’ “Jobs to Be
Done”, by Clayton M. Christensen [9]. Here a jobs-to-be-done is characterised by:
A. “Job is shorthand for what an individual really seeks to accomplish in a given
circumstance”
B. The circumstances are more important than customer characteristics, product
attributes, new technologies, or trends.
C. Good innovations solve problems that formerly had only inadequate solutions—
or no solution.
D. Jobs are never simply about function—they have powerful social and emotional
dimensions.”
The jobs-to-be-done theory and practices have made a significant inroad into the
innovation, design and product development fields. There they significantly
complement or rather extends traditional practices of stakeholder and persona
analysis by adding situational knowledge as a key driver and source for artifact
requirements, use of artifacts and products.
The work oriented approach adopts the general ideas behind the jobs-to-be-done
theory and practices.
2.3 Producer vs. Consumer roles
In the work oriented approach both the roles of producer and consumer are recognised
as relevant. Together with the explicit inclusion of work-to-be-done the differences
between information needs and information products can be in analysed analogously to
product development, sales and marketing.
When the producer is different from the consumer it becomes important to examine
both roles and their work-to-be-done in order to understand if an information product
fit with the information needs. Furthermore, when the producer also creates the
information product for own information needs or as part own work flow a question
becomes relevant, does the information product satisfy both roles and their information
needs?
In sales and marketing, the features and the expected customer values of a product
are to a degree self-reported. Such statements and claims are put to the test when
Product-Market Fit is evaluated. Analogous to this situation, the fit between
information needs and information product should be evaluated both by the consumer
and producer. It is not sufficient that a producer self-report that the information product
is useful and of great value. In the work oriented approach a Work Quality Model is
used as a basis for evaluations.
The Work oriented approach with its Work-do-be-Done provides a sound, detailed
and relevant base for formulating information needs and the evaluation of fit. The
formulated information needs are more granular and relevant than what basic
knowledge about stakeholder and purpose provides.
3 Demonstrations
This section provides two examples of how to add situational knowledge and business
thinking to enrich existing frameworks and theories.
3.1 Zachman Framework and Ontology
In the first example the Zachman Framework [10] is enriched by adding situational
knowledge to the rows.
The Zachman Framework, or the Zachman Enterprise Ontology, is part of the
enterprise architecture heritage. It was invented in the late 1980th by John Zachman [4]
and address information systems architecture (ISA).
The ontology consists mainly of a matrix that organise architecturally relevant
knowledge. The matrix is a classification ontology and claims to represent anything in
an enterprise. A cell in the matrix represents the semantical intersection of a column
and row. The columns represent linguistic interrogatives (when, why, who, where, how,
what). i.e. different ways to describe the world. The rows represent different audiences
and perspectives on an ISA [4].
Figure 2: Illustration of the Zachman Framework v3.
The Zachman Framework and its rows, columns, and cells are open to criticisms
regarding its population. This critism can be addressed by transforming the framework
using the work oriented approach.
The language interrogatives are problematic since they are polysynomous and
flexible. The what-how does not provide unambiguous semantic definitional power and
pragmatic aid for practitioners [11]. Secondly, the interrogatives are defined at the
highest and general level of an ontology, which are at a distance from the daily and
domain specific languages used by practitioners. Thus, creating problems when
selecting what goes into the cells. Thirdly, it can be argued that the chosen
interrogatives are not sufficient. This can be illustrated by the omission of ‘With’, or
‘With Whom’. The relevance of the ‘With’ comes from the importance of business
aspects such as relationships, value exchanges, collaborations, partners, learning
spaces, culture, etc.
A more serious critique is that interrogativs are general and all encompassing. They
ask questions at the level of a high-level-ontology with a focus on anything that exists
or has existed or will exist [12, 13]. As such the interrogatives does not provide a
sufficiently detailed criteria that identify and select only architectural elements [14].
The rows represent different audiences, however it can be argued that the 6
audiences do not sufficiently match modern organisations. Secondly, the Zachman
Framework is static and the rows cannot be changed and reorganised. Thirdly, the
selection of audiences represents an idealistic stratification of the work people do in an
organisation. It is unclear if this particular ideal stratification is usable in an actual
organisation. An example of organisational mismatch can be found by looking at the
how-cells for each audience and asking the question, is it not the case that everybody
in an enterprise are interested in who does what with whom?
The problems for the cells are inherited from the problems of the rows and columns,
thus generating questions about the relevance of the content of the cells. As will be
described the work-oriented approach can be applied to transform the framework,
thereby alleviating some of the shortcomings.
Adding situational knowledge
Situational knowledge and business thinking can be added to the Zachman framework
by transforming it into a Work-Question matrix in the following way.
• The interrogatives columns are generalised to represent a set of interrelated
inquiries or questions, grouped in themes.
• The audience rows are generalised to represent a chosen selection of Interested
parties and work they do. For each audience the audience is replaced with an
Interested Party and their work-to-be-done. In the figure 3 the original Zachman
audiences are kept a reference, although other selections of perspectives are
possible depending on an actual organisation.
• The difference between producers and consumers are introduced by adding a
Producer role with its own work-to-be-done. The Interested Parties are treated as
consumers.
These adjustment enables enriched and analogous reasoning about consumption,
relevance, quality, production and fit between information needs and information
products.
By directly linking the cells to interested parties work, the relevance and intention
to use [15] is likely to be higher than using a theoretical stratification. The work-to-be-
done encourages a dialog between the producer and the consumers with actual work-
oriented information needs as a basis for the content and structure of the information
product.
One important possibility is to choose the Interested parties and their work along an
actual work flow where each work adds somethings of value. The columns offer a
possibility to address traceability and cohesion across actual work perspectives with
respect to a specific question.
Figure 3: Illustration of Work-Question generalisation of the Zachman Framework
The architectural critique can be addressed by posing questions that are central to a
specific architectural approach and style, such as: What are the fundamental entities?
[14] What are the most important (salient) to people in work they do with others? How
do people and things fit, act, and evolve together across socially and technically
constructed and natural boundaries? What are the means for peoples shared
orientations? How do we know what we know?
3.2 Enriching the e3Value ontology
The second example illustrates enrichment of the e3Value ontology [16], which
provides means to model exchange of values such as when actors trade goods and
services for money. The e3Value ontology can be aligned with the work oriented
approach in a few steps.
• The information product is viewed as a specific Value Object.
• Introduction of work-to-be-done to the e3Value ontology that represents a
context wherein Value Activities are performed.
• The information needs are derived from both the work-to-be-done and the
Value Activity.
The e3Value ontology already provides support for both the consumer (requester)
and producers (offerer) roles in value exchanges. In the figure 4 the double line
represents 3 (three) omitted intermediary concepts from the e3Value ontology. The
concepts of Value Interface, Value Offering, and Value Port have been omitted for
brevity.
The alignment with the work oriented approach creates a bridge between Jobs-to-
be-done theory and enables the e3Value to be used as a tool for identification and
analysis of work practices [5] .
Figure 4: Illustration of the enrichment of e3Value with work-to-be-done.
4 Discussion
The inclusion of situational (work) knowledge has the potential to increase the value of
information products and artifacts such as enterprise models by improving relevance,
intention to use and by providing a better fit between information needs, information
products in actual use.
This is achieved through being explicit about jobs and work being done, questions
asked, decisions being made and other information needs relevant to an interested party.
Furthermore, the fit is improved due to that the linkage between information product
and use is established at a later time than when the information product was designed
by researchers or methods developers. Information product developers are typically
aware of general usage situations, although actual (work) situations may be different
from later and more specific and local situations.
In the “Capabilities and Work Practices” [17] empirical study questions were asked
to participants in different work practices about their use and utility of the concept of
capability. The answers revealed differences in opinions between the enterprise
architect producers and the other consumer perspectives leading to the observation that
producers and consumers not always view the world with the same lenses.
The behind-the-curtain vs. in-front-of-the-curtain problem occurs when an
information product is developed by an expert behind-the-curtain, possibly for their
own use, is directed or advised by the expert to be used by business people in-front-of-
the-curtain. In this case, the expert expects the information product to be relevant to
and used by the user, but the user may perceive low relevance, understanding, and
interest in the use of the information product.
The productization of enterprise models creates a dynamic relation between
developers of information products and the users. The developers of enterprise
models and information products must be careful to supply a beneficial artifact and
establish to fit, and users become empowered to demand artifacts and products that
does the job for them.
The Work oriented approach empowers and encourages users of information
products by enabling them to specific about and take responsibility for their needs in
work they do with others. It becomes ok to say that an information product is not
understandable, cannot be used to solve a particular problem, cannot answer specific
questions or does not satisfy the information needs.
The situational (work) knowledge provides an base and anchor for work quality
models that can be used in validations where users participate directly without a
mediation through experts that may self-report success or fulfilment of requirements.
On a side note, the work oriented approach with its triple raise a question whether Design Thinking [1] and Design Science
Research [18] should explicitly include consideration of fit in their theories and
methods?
Both Design Thinking and Design Science Research involves the exploration of
both the problem and solution spaces in an iterative manner. However, the final
problem is typically not the same as the initial problem formulation with requirements.
Furthermore, an exploration can start with either a problem or a solution. This means
that the process is not strictly a feed-forward process from problem to solution, leading
to the question whether fit is a key consideration that needs to complement or even
supersede the specification and fulfilment of requirements?
The addition of situational and work-oriented knowledge has the potential to
increase the efficiency and value of enterprise models and other information products.
References
1. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L.: Design Thinking. Springer Science & Business Media
(2010).
2. Tell, A.W., Henkel, M., Perjons, E.: A Method for Situating Capability Viewpoints. In:
Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. pp. 278–293. Springer International
Publishing, Cham (2016).
3. Ulwick, A.W.: Jobs to Be Done. (2016).
4. Sowa, J.F., Zachman, J.A.: Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems
architecture. IBM systems Journal. 31, 1–27 (1992).
5. Adler, E., Pouliot, V.: International practices: introduction and framework. CAMBRIDGE
STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. 119, 3–35 (2011).
6. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User Acceptance of Information
Technology: Toward a Unified View. Mis Quarterly. 27, 425–478 (3AD).
7. Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Untangling the Web of Practices: Designing Information
Systems in Context. 1–33 (2017).
8. Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyte, J.: Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review.
Journal of Universal Computer Science. (2010).
9. Christensen, C.M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., Duncan, D.S.: Know Your Customers’ “Jobs to Be
Done, https://hbr.org/2016/09/know-your-customers-jobs-to-be-done.
10.Zachman, J.A.: About the Zachman Framework, https://www.zachman.com/about-the-
zachman-framework.
11.Ginzburg, J.: How to resolve how to. In: Bengson, J. and Moffet, M.A. (eds.) Knowing How:
Essays on knowledge, Mind, and Action. pp. 1–36. Oxford University Press (2011).
12.Smith, B., Grenon, P.: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/bfo.
13.Smith, B., Ceusters, W.: Ontological realism: A methodology for coordinated evolution of
scientific ontologies. Applied Ontology. 5, 139–188 (2010).
14.ISO/IEC, IEEE: ISO/IEC 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering — Architecture
description. (2011).
15.Ahmad, M.I.: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A Decade of
Validation and Development. 1–14 (2016).
16.Weigand, H.: The e3value Ontology for Value Networks: Current State and Future Directions.
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS. 30, 113–133 (2016).
17.Tell, A.W., Henkel, M.: Capabilities and Work Practices - A Case Study of the Practical Use
and Utility. In: World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies. pp. 1152–1162
(2018).
18.Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: An Introduction to Design Science. Springer (2014).