framework

You are here

Definition

Mental constructs, conceptual frameworks, etc. are a necessary tool....scaffolding for us to build our understanding and gain new knowledge. For example, Descartes' separation of body and mind still haunts the science of Man, and questions whether such as science is possible. Darwin's theory of evolution makes human beings an integral part of the natural world and suggests a way of resolving the Cartesian conundrum: the human mind is as much a part of the natural world as is the human body. (Malik, 2000, pp 27).

Introduction to Frameworks --
Frameworks shape our thinking. A perception, emotion, belief, or action may seem natural, not because it is rooted in our biology, but because we live in a particular epistemological framework that fashions our very way of thinking and we cannot imagine it to be otherwise. We should be wary of mistaking an epistemological framework (which shows how we know things) for an ontological framework (which determines how things are). (Malik, 2000, pp 45).

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and belief, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Ontology is part of the metaphysics branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being. Within metaphysics, ontology is the investigation into what categories of things are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another, a systematic account of Existence. An explicit formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that holds among them. The hierarchical structuring of knowledge about things by subcategorising them according to their essential (or at least relevant and/or cognitive) qualities.

Pervasiveness of frameworks - Human observers do not simply perceive the world as it is but impose an intuitive structure. For example, the human observer imposes concepts of time and space on things, though time and space are not intrinsic properties of the world but were created in the mind of the human observer. Kant's view is that phenomena are interpretations of things as they are perceived by humans observers, as opposed to their true existence. Empirical knowledge both conveys information that shapes perceptions and the perceptions shape the understanding of the information received to understand the phenomenon.

Human reason -- is the source of the intuitive structures imposed on the world.

Frameworks, a two edged sword -- frameworks are essential to building up knowledge in a field of study. Without the themes, patterns, and structure of a framework, data would overwhelm us and would not be organized into usable information. At the same time, frameworks serve as a filter to exclude some information while shaping the interpretation of other information. Thus is a framework is wrong, evidence in conflict with the framework is either not perceived or is bent to fit, however uncomfortably, into the wrong framework. Therefore it is important to understand the framework one is applying, in order to know its effect as a lens upon your interpretation of phenomena. Also, one must be on their guard to either update or replace their framework when it no longer effectively serves their purpose or no longer can be viewed as reflecting reality.

Management implications -- Frameworks have varying scopes and purposes, thus implications. For example, the worldview framework has a very broad scope and a profound influence on frameworks within its scope, whether those frameworks are scientific, spiritual, or management oriented. Management programs are often based on suspect frameworks. For example, the notion of command and control as a management program base on the belief system, or framework, that the best way to manage an organization is to have the many align their behaviors to the few. Knowledge management has its basis in the belief in mental models from cognitive psychology, which are not proven to exist, and have evidence that they do not exist, yet this belief brings management to commit millions upon millions of dollars to managing knowledge.

 

Criteria for Effective Frameworks --
Frameworks are essential to building up knowledge in a field of study. Without the themes, patterns, and structure of a framework, data would overwhelm us and would not be organized into usable information. At the same time, frameworks serve as a filter to exclude some information while shaping the interpretation of other information. Thus is a framework is wrong, evidence in conflict with the framework is either not perceived or is bent to fit, however uncomfortably, into the wrong framework. Therefore it is important to understand the framework one is applying, in order to know its effect as a lens upon your interpretation of phenomena. Also, one must be on their guard to either update or replace their framework when it no longer effectively serves their purpose or no longer can be viewed as reflecting reality.

Frameworks identify the relevant variables and the questions which the user must answer in order to develop conclusions tailored to a particular industry and company. In this sense, frameworks can be seen almost as expert systems. The theory embodied in frameworks is contained in the choice of included variables, the way variables are organized, the interactions among the variables, and the way in which alternative patterns of variables and company choices affect outcomes.

A worthy framework is ultimately a beneficial technology - the effective application of human knowledge to work. Does the framework advance knowledge --knowledge applied to work -- work performance, and enable the production of greater value?

  • First, there is the test of integrity and honesty. Is the framework logically complete, logically sound, and intellectually honest? Does it fully encompass the phenomena at hand? Is it both logical and complete enough to eliminate the professorial ""hand waving"" when explaining how the parts relate to one another or any aspect of the framework to the real world?
  • Second, the test of the worthiness of this new framework is - does it take our understanding of the phenomena dramatically forward?
  • Does it serve as a catalyst to divining new possibilities in regard to the phenomena?
  • Is it cool? Does it attract attention? Is it salable on this basis. Picture a person newly introduced to the framework explaining to an uninitiated colleague - what does this scene look like?
  • Does it help people to make sense of what they already know? Can you reframe, classify, or help make sense of ideas, authors, dominant discourse, etc. with the framework? Use familiar terminology wherever possible to in order to provide familiar mental links. If possible, avoid developing a new set of terminology. It is hard for people to learn a new ""language"" and to be continually translating it to terms and ideas they understand already. Only develop/introduce new terminology when absolutely necessary?
  • Does the framework put everything in a box. Make it clear what is inside and outside the framework. Make sure it stands on its own. Don't have ambiguous linkages or require the understanding of assumptions from outside the framework.
  • Does it inspire? Besides being cool, easily grasped, complete, worthy, etc., does it cause the receiver of the framework want to learn more about it and begin applying it in their pursuits?
  • Finally, is it pragmatic? Does one who applies the framework find it makes them better at what they do? Can they go farther, faster, etc.? Can it be practicably applied, such as to produce higher value economic offerings. If the new framework does all these things, it makes the exercise of ""terminology adjustment"" worthwhile.

A framework that meets these criteria a beneficial technology.


Comparative application of theory, frameworks, and practice in strategy (generalized from Burgelman, 2002, p 7-8) --
Frameworks, or conceptual frameworks, help to bridge the gap between pure theory and pure practice. It is difficult to apply pure theory, such as theory of strategy making, to the practice of strategy making directly - that is where frameworks come in which are consistent with the theories but lend themselves to practice.

  • theory -- theories are general, abstract, nonexperiential, and represented by mathematical & statistical models
  • frameworks -- frameworks are specific, substantive, suggestive, and represented by boxes-and-arrows charts
  • practice -- practice is particular, concrete, experiential, and reflected in narratives

The boxes-and-arrow charts of conceptual frameworks serve as a middleground between the mathematical and statistical models of theory and the narratives of practice.

Conceptual frameworks provide organizing concepts in a body of knowledge and provide a capability to zoom down into that body of knowledge with successive levels and dimensions of organization and information.

Frameworks provide a template for understanding, diagnosis, and design.

A framework is not a model, but a lens.

Models are inevitably a simplified subset or simplification of the phenomena they are modeling - whereas conceptual frameworks can be all encompassing of the phenomena, providing a full overview, and frameworks within the framework that reveal further depth and detail of the phenomena, providing for a more detailed understanding, diagnosis, and design.

 

Frameworks vs. models (Heracleous, 2003, p 33-34) --

  • Models -- Models test relationships between a limited set of variables; their findings are sensitive to the models' assumptions and different models may be difficult if not impossible to integrate in a general framework. Models are useful in teasing out interrelationships between a limited set of variables, but they downplay the complexity of actual situations and thus their potential usefulness for practice can be seriously compromised.
  • Frameworks -- Frameworks incorporate several key variables within a particular organization or pattern, and portray their potential interactions, based on both theory and practice.

The use of models and frameworks is not necessarily contradictory: ""Models should challenge the variables included in frameworks and assertions about their link to outcomes. Frameworks, in turn, should challenge models by highlighting omitted variables, the diversity of competitive situations, the range of actual strategic choices, and the extent to which important parameters are not fixed but continually in flux"" (Porter, Michael E., (1991), Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy, Strategic Management Journal, 12: 95-117, p98).

 

Models and frameworks - Approaches to strategy theory building (Porter, 1991) --

There is a fundamental question about the approach to theory building that will most advance knowledge and practice -- either the ""model"" approach or the ""frameworks"" approach.

Model approach -- The model approach takes on the task of developing a theory of strategy be creating a wide range of situation-specific but rigorous (mathematical) models of limited complexity. Each model abstracts the complexity of competition to isolate a few key variables whose interactions are examined in depth. The normative significance of each model depends on the fit between its assumptions and reality. No one model embodies or even approaches embodying all the variables of interest, and hence the applicability of any model's findings are almost inevitably restricted to a small subgroup of firms or industries whose characteristics fit the model's assumptions. Models provide clear conclusions, but it is well known that they are highly sensitive to the assumptions underlying them and to the concept of equilibrium that is employed. Another problem with this approach is that it is hard to integrate many models into a general framework for approaching any situation, or even making the findings of the various models consistent. While few economists (researchers) would assert that this body of research in and of itself provides detailed advice for companies, these models, at their best, provide insights into complex situations that are hard to understand without them, which can inform the analysis of a particular company's situation.

Framework approach -- Given the goal of informing practice, the style of research in the strategy field, including Porter's, has involved a very different approach (than model building). To make progress, it was necessary to go beyond the broad principles i the early work and provide more structured and precise tools for understanding a firm's competitive environment and its relative position. Instead of models, the approach was to build frameworks. A framework, such as the competitive forces approach to analyzing industry structure, encompasses many variables and seeks to capture much of the complexity of actual competition. Frameworks identify the relevant variables and the questions which the user must answer in order to develop conclusions tailored to a particular industry and company. In this sense, frameworks can be seen almost as expert systems. The theory embodied in frameworks is contained in the choice of included variables, the way variables are organized, the interacitons among the variables, and the way in which alternative patterns of variables and company choices affect outcomes.

In frameworks, the equilibrium concept is imprecise. Porter's frameworks, for example, embody the notion of optimization, but no equilibrium in the normal sense of the word. Instead there is a continually evolving environment in which a perpetual competitive interaction between rivals takes place. In addition, all the interactions among the many variables in the frameworks cannot be rigorously drawn. The frameworks, however, seek to help the analyst to better think through the problem by understanding the firm and its environment and defining and selecting among the strategic alternatives available, no matter what the industry and starting position.

Complementary approaches --
These two approaches to theory building are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they should create a constructive tension with each other. Models are particularly valuable in ensuring logical consistency and exploring the subtle interactions involving a limited number of variables. Models should challenge the variables included in frameworks and assertions about their link to outcomes. Frameworks, in turn, should challenge models by highlighting omitted variables, the diversity of competitive situations, the range of actual strategy choices, and the extent to which the important parameters are not fixed but continually in flux. The need to inform practice has demanded that strategy researchers pursue the building of frameworks rather than restrict research to only theories that can be formally modeled. As long as the building of frameworks is based on in-depth empirical research, it has the potential to not only inform practice but to push the development of more rigorous theory.