The Future of Management Research following Herbert Simon, thus enabling Evidence-Based Management...

The Future of Management Research following Herbert Simon,thus enabling Evidence-Based Management

London, October 10, 2012

Joan van Aken

Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences PAGE 210 October 2012

the birth of academic management research

Business education has been transformed on the basis of the Research-Based Model

Herbert Simon (1991): … we perceived American business education as a wasteland of vocationalism, that needed to be transformed into science- based professionalism, as medicine and engineering had been transformed …

This transformation was very successful, but it did not use the model of medicine and engineering, thus creating the relevance problem of management research


a possible future

A possible (desirable) future of management research: design science research as part of main stream research

An interactive session ……

Background of the interacting partners


positioning: relevance and design

This presentation draws on - the continuing relevance discussion (all AoM Presidents since Don Hambrick (1994), the impact of the RBM) - actionable knowledge (AMLE, 2012) Evidence-Based Management (Rousseau, 2012) - Simon (1969) the sciences of the artificial; design - Schön (1983) the reflective practitioner: the high ground of theory, the swamp of practice

Key themes: relevance, design and the desire to link the high ground and the swamp


storyline

The relevance-for-practice issue Research paradigms: explanatory and design science Research relevance through research-informed practice Design Science Research: developing

solution-oriented input for research-informed practice The fundamental methodological problem of DSR in

the social world: human agency Objective and systematic experiential social learning The future: DSR as part of the main stream


five conversations

#1 research relevance for professional practice

#2 research paradigms

#3 research-informed practice (evidence-based practice)

#4 design science research

#5 the future of management research


research relevance (1)

The RBM: the codified, generic knowledge one shares with students should be research-based

In a Professional School one trains future professionals (not researchers)

So research in a Professional School should produce knowledge relevant for professional practice



The core competence of university trained professionals: knowledge-intensive field problem-solving

Core process: designing solutions and acting on these designs

Research outcomes are relevant to the extent that they are important for this design process



Remarks- relevance for practice: not yes/no, but a continuum from very little to very large - research can have substantive relevance or methodological (like informing how to analyse, how to design or how to set op a logical argumentation)

- research results can be immediately relevant or after further development



Descriptive and explanatory knowledge (diagnostic knowledge) typically plays an important role in designing effective solutions

However, an often even greater role can be played by generic alternative solutions(like generic treatments or constructions, a main focus of

research in medicine and engineering)

This solution orientation is the defining difference between the research model of physics and of engineering/medicine


conversation #1: relevance

Should relevance for practice be an important criterion in management research by business schools?

Is the importance of research input in solution design at field problem-solving a sound way of assessing its relevance?


research paradigms (1)

Research paradigms play a key role in the relevance discussion

Research paradigm, following Lakatos(1991): combination of research questions asked, research methodologies allowed (including what is

accepted as evidence) and research products pursued



One can distinguish (van Aken, 2004, 2005) - the explanatory research model (e.g. physics and sociology)

- the design science research model (e.g. medicine and engineering)

Explanatory research: aims at understanding the world that is

Design science research: aims at developing knowledge to create the world that can be



Explanatory research - driven by pure knowledge problems (knowledge as an end) - mission: to understand, a quest for truth - students are trained to become researchers by researchers - iconic research product: the causal model

Design science research - driven by field problems (knowledge as a means) - mission: to improve the human condition - students are trained to become professionals largely by professionals - iconic research product: the design proposition


the design proposition

The generic design proposition follows the basic pragmatic logic: if you want to solve this type of problem-in-context, you may use this generic solution/intervention (which will produce the desired outcome through this mechanism)

The design proposition puts the solution/intervention in context

A design proposition is not prescriptive (in management research the term prescriptive or normative

is a legacy from the time of the one best way of organizing)


conversation #2: research paradigms

Can the distinction between the paradigm of the design sciences (engineering, medicine)

and the one of the explanatory sciences (physics, sociology) be relevant for the discussion on the future of academic management research?


research-informed practice (1)

The core competence of university trained professionals: knowledge-intensive field problem-solving (working effectively in the swamp)

(This concerns both dealing with problems and seizing opportunities)

Core process in field problem-solving: designing solutions (including their implementation) and acting on these designs



Basic steps problem-solving project (van Aken, 2012): - Fuzzy Front End - Project definition with problem defintion - Analysis (context and dignosis) - Design (solution and change plan) - Change (and learning to perform) - Evaluation and learning

Not a phase-model, but a step-model (with explorations and iterations)

Designing: sketching, outline design, detail designs Core process:

designing in synthesis-evaluation iterations



Designing involves abduction, i.e. a creative jump (a design cannot logically be derived from the input; a solution cannot be derived from the problem analysis)

Professional designing is characterized by a careful collection of the input to the design process: - problem definition - model of present system - context analysis and problem diagnosis - design specifications - generic input



Types of generic input to the design process - descriptions of the industry and of the type of organization in question - explanatory knowledge on the causes of the type of problem and on the factors influencing outcomes (the past; science of the averages; variance models)

- design knowledge on alternative generic solutions (the future; process models on how to realize desired outcomes;

science of the particular, developed through case-studies)



Examples of generic alternative solutions (developed by PhD-DSR-studies)

- how to create an effective virtual team- how to find overseas partners for cooperative arrangements (for SMEs)- how to involve end users in product innovation- how to promote intrapreneuring - how to deal with setbacks (CMOREs) in radical innovation

This can be really interesting, intellectually rewarding research …..


evidence-based management?

In management rather research-informed practice than evidence-based practice (like in medicine): - not evidence on known interventions (in management the interventions have to be context-specific designed)

- nor practice based on codified knowledge (medicine, engineering and law can be regarded as knowledge-driven, management rather as knowledge-supported)


conversation #3: research-informed practice

Can research-informed practice be a valuable addition to traditional, more experience and intuition-based practice?

What should be done to realize this?


maybe …..

1. Create awareness

2. Provide access to the literature

3. Give courses in systematic review (light)

4. Give courses in research-informed problem-solving


the design proposition (1)

A major objective of DSR is to develop alternative generic solutions/interventions for types of field problems

These can be formulated in terms of design propositions:

“if you want to solve this type of problem-in-context, you may use this generic solution/intervention (which will produce the desired outcome through this mechanism)”


the design proposition (2)

Prison problem C – locked door, bars, guards I – no escapes O – physical constraining of movements M

Theft in car park C – introduction CCTV I – less theft O – deterrence, allocation of personnel, less careless behaviour of parkers M

Virtual team C – FtF kick-off meeting I – effective team O – collective insight and collective commitment M

Desire to promote intrapreneurship C – gaming I – insight and commitment O – experiential learning M

Cranfield Seminar

27

the methodological problem of DSR (1)

The basic scientific claim of a design proposition is that the proposed solution/intervention will indeed produce in the given context the desired outcome

So the question is how to establish this claim: one has to predict the outcomes of interventions

Cranfield Seminar

28


In the material world this demand for prediction does not pose specific methodological problems,

because in this world there are universal, invariant, individual behaviour determining mechanisms

A machine, developed, produced and tested in Helsinki will also work next year in Barcelona



Because of human agency no universal, invariant and individual behaviour determining mechanisms

This makes the prediction of the outcome of interventions in the social world difficult

However, there are patterns and regularities in human behaviour


research as experiential learning (1)

Prediction of the behaviour of others is an almost universal human competence (without this competence intentional social behaviour would be almost impossible, as can be seen with autism)

This competence is developed by personal experiential social learning

The basic research strategy for DSR is experiential learning; more precisely objective and systematic experiential social learning through series of case-studies



Experiential learning is the basis for crafts and trade schools, including the business school of the past; this is not what we want

Research as experiential learning is to produce valid, objective generic knowledge

It involves rigorous case studies, using methods like controlled observations, triangulation, rich descriptions, careful cross-case analyses, member checks, beta testing, etc.



In DSR one works alternately in the ‘practice stream’ and the ‘knowledge stream’

In the practice stream (the swamp) one develops specific solutions for (series of comparable) specific field problems, interacting with stakeholders and other practitioners (e.g. collaborative research)

In the knowledge stream (the high ground) one develops generic solution oriented knowledge by generalizing across cases, interacting with other researchers


DSR-projects (1)

Every DSR-project starts with an explanatory part; the more there is already known, the larger the design science part of the project

The design science part typically develops a process model to realize a desired direct outcome (science of the particular)

Where available, explanatory research outcomes link this direct outcome with the desired final outcome (science of the averages)


DSR-projects (2)

Explanatory research may be complementary to design science research: - explanatory large N research (science of the averages,

not context-specific variance models) determines the factors/interventions producing desired final outcomes - these factors/interventions become desired direct outcomes (e.g. factors influencing job satisfaction)

- design science research (small n research, science of

the particular, process models) determines how to realize these direct outcomes in the swamp of practice

For instance DSR develops a system for decreasing innovation throughput times, explanatory research shows that this is good for market share


conversation #4: DSR

DSR is based on the paradigm of medicine and engineering.Its defining characteristic is its objective to develop generic solutions for field problems

Can this paradigm also be used in management research?

Would this have added value?


conclusions

Relevance for practice should be an important issue in (future) management research

Relevance means importance in designing solutions (and change plans) for field problems

Next to descriptive/explanatory knowledge one also needs well tested and understood generic solutions

A key research strategy to develop these is objectified and systematized experiential social learning (working alternating in the practice and the knowledge stream)

(Supervising student field problem solving projects is an exciting way to master this type of research)


conversation #5

“In the future design science research will belong to the main stream of academic management research” (thus using both the classical research paradigm of most social sciences an the one of medicine and engineering)

Is this desirable? Is this possible? Should we do something to realize it?

The Future of Management Research following Herbert Simon, thus enabling Evidence-Based Management...

Documents

Transcript of The Future of Management Research following Herbert Simon, thus enabling Evidence-Based Management...