TEEM-8 Jan Dietz & Jan Hoogervorst - The β-theory v2 page 1 EE Framework of Theories 1. IntroductionEE Framework of Theories In the discussion of the τ-theory [TEEM-2], we have noticed that human beings make artefacts for the sake of THEORY CLASS INSPIRATIONAL SOURCES EE-THEORY getting desired affordances, called functions, next to using the affordances that they perceive in the (natural or artificial) things that surround them. In this memorandum, we elaborate the design of artefacts, by introducing THEORY CLASS GENERIC GOAL FUNDAMENTALS and discussing the β-theory (β is pronounced as BETA, standing for Binding Essence, Technology, and Architec- Ideological W.E. Deming, P. Drucker σ-theory devising and choosing things R. Likert, D. McGregor, D. Katz & ture). It is a theory about the design of systems (as defined by the τ-theory [TEEM-2]), of any category, which Ideological social devotion F5, F6, F7 to make R.L. Kahn, J.M. Burns also provides clear, precise and coherent definitions of common terms such as “development”, “requirements”, devising and choosing things -> employee empowerment, ethical, political, etc. ideas “specifications”,to make “architecture”, “design”, “engineering”,knowledgeable and management “implementation”. By “Essenceethical,” ispolitical, understood etc. ideas both the functional essence and the constructional essence of a system. Func- Technological C. Alexander, H. Simon, β-theory tional essence is defined as the collective services (affordances) that the system provides to some group of stake- designing and implementing L. von Bertalanffy, P. Checkland, ν-theory Technological organizational concinnity holders, notably its users or using system. The constructional essence of a system is definedF3, F4 by the π-theory for things E.W. Dijkstra, M.D. McIlroy designing and implementing -> constructional unity and integration analysis and synthesis technical systemsthings [TEEM-7], and by the ψ-theory for social systems, notably organisations [TEEM-5]. By “Technologyanalysis” is understood and synthesis the applicable means for implementing the system, starting from its implementation Ontological J. Austin, J. Searle, J. Habermas, ψ-theory model (sectionOntological 4). Example technologies forintellectual organisations manageability are ICT and human beings.F1, TheF2 most troublesome M. Bunge, P. Checkland, -theory understanding the nature of π term is “Architectureunderstanding”. Asthe wasnature pointed of out-> in understandinge.g. [Hoogervorst, complex Dietz, changes 2008] and [Dietz, Hoogervorst, 2011], B. Langefors, things things there seems to be no term in the field of organisation and ICT as vague and as ambiguous as this one. At the explanation and prediction J.R. Taylor, K.Z. Lewin explanation and prediction same time, it is probably the most frequent and most widely used term, not only in the practice of (re)designing Philosophical C.S. Peirce, C.W. Morris, -theory and (re)engineering business processes and information systems, but also in the scientific research concerning Philosophical φ theoretical foundations M. Bunge, L. Wittgenstein, δ-theory theoretical foundations these topics.epistemology, Right now, mathematics,we like to make crystal clear already that we will forcefully reject the prevalent current J.F. Sowa, P. Simons -theory epistemology, mathematics, τ meaning ofphenomenology, “architecture” logicas global design, or model, or blueprint, or the like. This notion exists already, under phenomenology, logic M. Heidegger, K.H. Marx the names mentioned, although it is rarely fully clear wether these names refer to the function or the construction perspective. At the same time, system designers in the field of organisation and ICT are in great need for help in properly ©2013 Jan L.G. Dietz: EE FoT - slide 1 ©2013 Jan L.G. Dietz: EE FoT - slide 2 using the design freedom that is left after all specific requirements are satisfied. In the fields of constructional building and industrial design, such guidance is called “architecture”. By means of architecture, these designers are enabled to express a personal or collective vision on the artefact, in such a way that the functionality of the artefact is emphasised and made apparent, as well as enriched by current cultural values. Therefore, we will ex- plore and elaborate this notion of architecture for the discipline of Enterprise Engineering, instead of joining the EE Framework of Theories current nonsensicalEE Framework parade of vagueness and of ambiguity. Theories This extended summary presents and discusses the main topics and achievements of the β-theory, including its relationship with the other enterprise engineering theories, as mentioned in the classification scheme in figure LEGEND means: is a basis of 1.1 (in this scheme, the main influences are from bottom to top). Ideological theories Technological theories Ideological Theories Technological Theories devising and choosing things to make designing and making things selecting the things to make designing and making things ethical, political, etc. ideas analysis and synthesis ethical, political, etc. ideas analysis and synthesis EE-theories: σ-theory EE-theories: β-theory, ν-theory EE-theories: σ-theory EE-theories: β-theory, ν-theory Ontological Theories understanding the nature of things and their use by us explanation and prediction Ontological theories EE-theories: φ-theory, τ-theory, δ-theory, π-theory, ψ-theory understanding the nature of things and their use by us explanation and prediction Philosophical Theories EE-theories: φ-theory, τ-theory, δ-theory, π-theory, ψ-theory philosophical foundations epistemology, mathematics, phenomenology, logic EE-theories: ω-theory Philosophical theories Figure 1.1 Classification scheme for enterprise engineering theories theoretical foundations epistemology, mathematics, phenomenology, logic The β-theory is a technological theory, which means that it concerns understanding the designing and making EE-theories: ω-theory of things. Next to being rooted in the τ-theory, the π-theory, and the ψ-theory, it also builds on [Alexander, 1960] and [Simon, 1996]. Several parts of the β-theory are extensively discussed in [Dietz, 2006], [Dietz, 2008], and ©2013 Jan L.G. Dietz: EE FoT - slide 3 ©2013 Jan L.G. Dietz: EE FoT - slide 4 [Hoogervorst, 2009], where it is still part of the (former) τ-theory. The β-theory is the main vehicle for properly addressing the full complexity in the (re)design, (re)engineering and (re)implementation of enterprises. The basic transaction pattern TEEM-8 Jan Dietz & Jan Hoogervorst - The β-theory v2 page 2 2. The Generic System Development Process From the ψ-theory [TEEM-5] we know that every product is produced in a transaction process between an initia- tor (the actor who orders the product) and an executor (the actor who is responsible for delivering the product to The complete transaction pattern the initiator). This process is represented in a comprised way by the organisational building block, as exhibited in Figure 2.1. Let us analyse the transaction process of a transaction Tn for the case that the product must be made initiator executor initiator executor toinitiator order, executorand that, in addition, it has to be developed from scratch. This holds a.o. for the production of most in- allow > quit formation systems, both enterprise information systems (EISs) and information systems that are embedded in de revoke < allow request cline technical systems. re re revoke fuse quest promise pro re mise < fuse Ak Tn An initiator executor initiator executor re ac allow fuse cept revoke revoke acceptance state statement Figure 2.1 Organisational building block allow re re > ject fuse stop During the proposition phase of a transaction of the kind Tn, the initiator (fulfilling actor role Ak) and the executor (fulfilling actor role An) come to agreement about the product to be developed. As we know from the τ- theory [TEEM-2], the product that is delivered by An is taken by Ak as the function (affordance) it has asked for. JD230 pictures! 15! Because the ©2011product Jan L.G. Dietz! doesn’t exist yet, the agreement is necessarily based on specifications of the needed func- tion. In accordance with the τ-theory, these specifications are for the largest part functional specifications, but they may also include constructional ones. Mostly, and certainly if information systems are concerned, the prod- uct is not meant to be a personal affordance for the initiator but it is intended to serve the needs of another sys- tem (an organisation in case of an EIS and a technical system in case of embedded software). This is illustrated by the generic system development process (GSDP) [Dietz, 2008], exhibited in Figure 2.2. In this figure, the object system could be the EIS to be developed, and the using system would then be the organisation that is go- ing to use the services that the EIS can provide, collectively called its functionality. The complete design process is divided into two, logically consecutive, phases: function design and construc- tion design. Function design consists of selecting a subset from the functional requirements (and the functional architecture, which will be discussed in Section 4) on which the customer (Ak) and the supplier (An) agree, and of transforming them into detailed and precise functional specifications. These constitute collectively a black- box model of the object system, referred to as the object system function in the GSDP. Note that the functional specifications exclusively regard the functions that the using system expects from the object system once it is installed and put intoThe operation. System The construction Development of the object system Process is largely indifferent (2) to the using system. By definition, functional specifications are expressed in ‘the language’ of the construction of the using system. To give an example, if the using system is a sales department, a possible affordance expression could be “daily turnover”. Although one may have an idea about how the product would look like, that is going to be perceived by the accounting people as the needed daily turnover, the specification of the function doesn’t tell anything about the construction of the product.