Applying an Exploratory-Sequential Mixed Methods Research Design to Theorize, Build and Evaluate the Instantiation of an Enterprise-Wide Business Management Ontological Framework,

Applying an Exploratory-Sequential Mixed Methods Research Design

Applying an Exploratory-Sequential QualitativeConnecting to Quantitative Mixed Methods Research

Design to Theorize, Build and Evaluate theInstantiation of an Enterprise-Wide Business

Management Ontological Framework, in a Customer-Focused Business Environment

By

Ernest M Greene

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Management

Colorado Technical University

17 December 2010

Page 1 of 216


Page 2 of 216


Ernest M. Greene

Has been approved

17 December 2010

APPROVED:

Faculty Mentor and Chair: Dr. Cynthia Calongne

Committee Member (Reader): Dr. Emad Rahim

Committee Member (Reader): Dr. Steve Fitzgerald

ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:

__________________________________________Dr. Cynthia Calongne, Chair

__________________________________________ Dr. Emad Rahim

__________________________________________Dr. Steve Fitzgerald

Page 3 of 216


Abstract

This dissertation aims to explore the use of a pragmatic

worldview, along with a mixed method exploratory- sequential:

qualitative connecting to quantitative research design (MMRD) to

accomplish three research goals: First, to employ a MMRD and

design-science research framework (DSRF) consisting of: 1)

theorize; 2) build; and 3) evaluative research activities to produce

the: 1) constructs; 2) models; and 3) methods necessary to instantiate

an enterprise-wide business model ontological framework (BMOF).

Second, to use qualitative open, axial and selective coding and

grounded theory research activities to collect, sort, simple and

analyze the instantiated BMOF’s utility and concepts of

operations for supporting the firm’s structure, strategy and

technology alignment activities. Third, to utilize qualitative

and quantitative Lean Six Sigma evaluative process improvement

activities to identify and assess the causal relationships

between the firm’s structure, strategy and technology elements as

they recursively interact with each other to support the firm’s

timely delivery of quality products and services via its

Page 4 of 216


customer-focused value delivery system. The insights emerging

from the study’s draw on relational and causal reasoning to

assess the BMOF’s long-term utility for supporting the firm’s

execution of its business logic for generating profit and

delivering value to its customers and shareholders. Summarized,

the research goal of this study is to instantiate an initial BMOF

capability that can be deployed within the organization’s

enterprise management system to continuously improve business

management processes that increase the firm’s competitive

advantage by enhancing the timely delivery of quality products

and services in a customer-focused business environment.

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my extended circle of

family, friends and co-workers; all of whom have given me their

fullest encouragement and support in both undertaking and

completing this long and difficult academic and professional

journey. Additionally, I dedicate this dissertation to all the

program and business management practitioner-researchers out

there who, day-in and day-out, perform critical academic and

Page 5 of 216


professional (work-based) research activities that improve,

revolutionize and advance program and business management

theories, processes and best practices across the both the

program management and business management disciplines.

Page 6 of 216


Acknowledgments

To begin, I express my sincere appreciation to my doctorial

committee: (1) Faculty Mentor and Chair: Dr. Cynthia Calongne;

(2) Committee Member: Dr. Steven Fitzgerald and (3) Committee

Member: Dr. Emad Rahim; all of whom have mentored and encouraged

me to be diligent, pragmatic and resilient in conducting quality

mixed methods research while completing the requirements for this

Doctor of Management Degree. I am especially indebted to Dr.

Calongne for her timely prompting and insightful advice on how I

should scope my dissertation’s topic around a relevant and

defensible real world program and business management issue.

Second, I would like to acknowledge the following members of the

Lockheed Martin (LM) 21 Lean Six Sigma organization for their

professional advice and assistance during the performance of my

Lean Six Sigma process improvement activities: (1) Michael Joyce,

(2) Dennis Viera, (3) Kelly Moriarty, (4) Tracy Desmond, (5) John

Pretty, and (6) Tim Salerno. Specifically, working for the LM 21

Lean Six Sigma Corporate Program, which Mike Joyce and Dennis

Viera lead, was one of the most important and formative

Page 7 of 216


experiences in my professional career. Mike and Dennis, I extend

a special thank you to the both of you for your confidence,

support and mentorship during my three-year assignment with the

LM 21 Program. Finally, my warmest and sincerest acknowledgement

goes to my wonderful and supportive wife, Elke. Over the course

of our 30-year marriage, and most especially during this trying

four-year period, her unwavering love and encouragement provided

me with the necessary emotional energy, motivation and time to

complete this twenty-seven-year personal, professional and

academic journey.

Page 8 of 216


Table of Contents

ABSTRACT.......................................................3

DEDICATION.....................................................4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................5

1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.................................10

1.1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................10

1.1.1. Rationale for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in the Management Discipline.................10

1.1.2. Professional background................................................................................................................. 12

1.1.3. Motivation for Conducting this Research.......................................................................................13

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT......................................................14

1.2.1. BMOF’s Practitioner-Researcher Hypothesis..................................................................................14

1.3. EXPLORATORY-SEQUENTIAL MIXED METHODS RESEARCH QUESTION.......................15

1.3.1. Mixed Methods Purpose Statement................................................................................................15

1.4. OPERATIONAL RELEVANCE OF COMBINING MMRD WITH DSRF..........................16

1.5. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY.................................................18

1.6. PROFESSIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.....................................19

1.7. PRIOR WORK............................................................20

1.8. CONTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE...............................................21

1.9. STRUCTURE OF THIS DISSERTATION...........................................23

10. ASSUMPTIONS, DEPENDENCIES, LIMITATIONS......................................24

10.1. Assumptions:..................................................................................................................................... 24

Page 9 of 216


10.2. Dependencies..................................................................................................................................... 25

10.3 Limitations.......................................................................................................................................... 26

1.11. NATURE OF THE STUDY...................................................27

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................28

2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................28

2.1 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF MODERN AND POSTMODERN STRUCTURATION THEORY................30

2.1.1 Anthony Giddens’ Structuration Theory’s Impact on My Research Proposal...............................31

2.2 MODERN AND POSTMODERN STRUCTURATION THEORY..................................32

2.2.1 Macro vs. Micro Structuration Theory.............................................................................................34

2.2.2. Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective of Post-modern Structuration Theory...................................40

2.2.2.1. Barley’s Early Evolution of Theory of Structuration in ICT Field................................................41

2.2.2.2. Review of the Impact of Giddens Structuration Theory on IT....................................................42

2.2.2.3. A Postmodern Perspective of Structuration Theory in the Information Communication

Technology (ICT) Field................................................................................................................................ 43

2.3. CUSTOMER-FOCUSED VALUE DELIVERY SYSTEM IN A LITERARY CONTEXT..................45

2.4. WHY FOCUS ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR SERVICES AND LM 21 OPERATING EXCELLENCE?......50

2.4.1 Lean and Six Sigma for Services Overview......................................................................................50

2.4.2. LM21 Lean Six Sigma Operating Excellence Overview..................................................................52

2.4.3. Why I leveraged Kaplan’s and Norton’s BSC Perspectives?..........................................................54

2.4.4. Why focus on Alexander Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology?.................................59

2.6 SUMMARY................................................................62

2.6.1 Related Research “Way Forward”.....................................................................................................62

2.6.2 Insights Gained................................................................................................................................. 62

Page 10 of 216


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.......................................64

3.1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................64

3.2. PURPOSE STATEMENT......................................................65

3.3. PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER HYPOTHESIS........................................65

3.4. OVERVIEW OF THE EXPLORATORY-SEQUENTIAL MMRD METHODOLOGY......................65

3.5. DEVELOPING THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY........................................68

3.5.1. Rationale for Integration of the MMRD with the DSRF.................................................................68

3.5.2. Rationale for Integration of the MMRD with the DSRF.................................................................69

3.5.3. Utilizing Grounded Theory to gain Theoretical Sensitivity............................................................73

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS................................75

4.1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................75

4.2. MMRD AND DSRF METHODOLOGY..............................................76

4.3. THE RESEARCH CONTEXT...................................................76

4.4. PHASE ONE (QUAL): THEORETICAL GT DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES. . .77

4.4.1. Stage One: Data Sampling:............................................................................................................. 77

4.4.2. Stage One: Data Sampling and Coding Overview.........................................................................79

4.4.3. Open Coding..................................................................................................................................... 87

4.4.4. Axial Coding...................................................................................................................................... 88

4.4.5. Selective Coding................................................................................................................................ 92

4. 4.6. GT Data Analysis of the BOMF’s Elements and Sub-elements......................................................93

4. 4.7. CFBM’s Structure, Strategy and Technology Elements Operational Relevance..........................94

4. 4.8. CFBM’s Structure, Strategy and Technology Elements Recursive Interplay................................95

4.5 PHASE ONE (QUAL) BUILD RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.................................98

Page 11 of 216


4.5.1 Stage one Open Coding and Content Data Analysis to Build the BMOF’s Executive Level

Constructs................................................................................................................................................... 98

4.5.2. Stage One: Theoretical Sorting and GT Data Analysis Activities to Build the BMOF’s Functional

Constructs................................................................................................................................................. 105

4.5.3. Phase Two: Formative Evaluative Research Activities to Build the BMOF’s Program Level

Constructs................................................................................................................................................. 111

4.5.4. Stage Three: LSS Process Improvement Framework (LSS PIF) Overview...................................112

4.6. STAGE THREE (QUAN): CASE STUDY BMOF FINANCIAL PLANNING SYSTEM (FPS) VALUE STREAM

MAPPING SUMMARY EVALUATION FROM A CAUSAL ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE.................118

4.7. CONTRIBUTIONS.........................................................135

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS.......................................137

5.1: NEW RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS..............................................137

5.2. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY....................................................138

5.4. METHODOLOGY REVIEW....................................................138

5.5. RESEARCH QUESTION.....................................................140

5.6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH......................................140

5.7. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................142

REFERENCES...................................................144

Page 12 of 216


1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

1.1.1. Rationale for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in the

Management Discipline

Over the past 10 years, academic literature and professional

journals have increasingly stressed the need for a rich diversity

of qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches to

perform meaningful research in the business management discipline

(Curral and Towler, 2003, Yauch & Steudel, 2003, Edmondson &

McManus, 2007). Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), two leading

academic mixed methods researchers, state that “…we see cross-

cultural and international interest, interdisciplinary interest,

publication possibilities, and public and private funding

opportunities for mixed methods research” (p. 18). Furthermore,

other well-known academic and professional research mixed methods

methodologists have referred to mixed methods research as the

“third methodological movement” (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2000;

Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003 & Cameron and Molina-Azorin, 2010).

Page 13 of 216


Currall and Towler (2003) attribute this steady increased

interest in mixed methods research, within the management

discipline to the fact that a mixed methods research design

(MMRD) approach allows the researcher to ask a large variety of

questions, while drawing on numerous qualitative and quantitative

theoretical paradigms from a range of disciplines. Next, for

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) MMRD is attractive because it

incorporates “philosophical assumptions, as well as methods of

inquiry” (p.5). They further maintain that “as a methodology, MMRD’s “…

philosophical assumptions guide the direction of the collection

and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and

quantitative approaches in many phases in the research process”

(Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007, p. 5).

Summing up, the increased interest in MMRD in the management

discipline can be largely contributed to Creswell and Plano

Clark’s (2007) claim that as a method, MMRD “focuses on

collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and

qualitative data in a single study or series of studies (p.5) And

they conclude that MMRD’s central premise is as follows:

Page 14 of 216


1) MMRD’s use of qualitative and quantitative approaches in

combination provides a better understanding of research

problems than either approach alone (Creswell and Plano

Clark, 2007, p.9).

2) MMRD provides more comprehensive evidence for studying a

research problem than either qualitative or quantitative

research alone could provide (Creswell and Plano Clark,

2007, p.9).

3) MMRD provides strengths that offset weaknesses of both

qualitative and quantitative research, while still

encouraging researchers to collaborate across sometimes

adversarial relationships between qualitative and

quantitative research activities (Creswell and Plano

Clark, 2007, pp.9-10).

4) MMRD allows the researcher to blend qualitative and

quantitative research data to perform more rigorous

research activities to answer the qualitative “why” and

quantitative “how” of the research question.

Page 15 of 216


1.1.2. Professional background

The researcher has over 30 years of professional experience

in the Aerospace, Department of Defense, Department of Energy and

Intelligence business management domains. The areas of expertise

include: 1) program and business development; 2) business and

process improvement management; and 3) strategic business

planning. For the past four years, the researcher gained

functional experience from working as a Lean Six Sigma (LSS)

Process Improvement Change Agent (George 2003) for the Lockheed

Martin Corporation (LMC). LMC, is headquartered in Bethesda, MD

is best described as “…a global security company that employs

about 140,000+ employees worldwide and is principally engaged in

the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and

sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and

services” (Lockheed Martin Corporate Website, 2009). LMC reported

2008 sales of $42.7 billion (Lockheed Martin Corporate Website,

2009). This study defines a LSS Change Agent as an individual who

performs purposeful LSS change management activities designed to

implement process changes in a program, group or organization.

The LSS Change Agent implements process improvement through the

Page 16 of 216


use of qualitative (i.e., waste reduction) and quantitative

(i.e., variation reduction) LSS tools, methodologies and

techniques. Sometimes the term LSS Change Agent is used

synonymously with LSS “Black Belt”, “LSS Green Belt”, “LSS Master

Black Belt”, LSS Facilitator, LSS Instructor, LSS Leader, LSS

Planner, or LSS Teacher” (Hiemstra, 2009). This above mentioned

familiarity helps the LSS Change Agent to better communicate the

excitement, possibilities, and details of process change that is

within his/her spear of influence to others” (MECG Website,

2009). Finally, as a LSS Change Agent, the researcher conducted

over 40 hybrid forms of LSS process improvement events (Joyce,

2004) to facilitate LSS change management in the following

functional processes: 1) business model design; 2) new business

management strategy development; 3) new business capture

management; and 4) program management. The functional domains

where these LSS change management activities occurred included:

1) the Information Communications Technology (ICT) managed

services domain; 2) the Information Technology (IT) technical

support; 3) the IT technology refresh; 4) the IT Systems/Software

Page 17 of 216


engineering and integration; and 5) the nuclear energy

construction and maintenance service.

1.1.3. Motivation for Conducting this Research

The idea and inspiration for conducting MMRD research in the

business management discipline emerged slowly during a three-year

participation in: 1) program management; 2) business management;

and 3) Lean Six Sigma (LSS) process improvement activities within

my current firm. Specifically, since June 2007, the motivation

to combine design-science (March and Smith, 1995) research and

Lean Six Sigma performance-based (George, 2002 & 2003) process

improvement manifested itself while working in: 1) business

management; 2) business development; 3) strategic planning; 4)

program management; and 5) performance excellence functional

areas within my organization. It was observed that some of the

organization’s leaders, managers and technical support staff

personnel experienced great difficulty in communicating,

implementing and managing the firm’s qualitative and quantitative

business logic for making money and delivering value to their

customers. The firm’s management personnel at the executive,

functional and program levels lack access to a business

Page 18 of 216


management framework which they could employ both inductively

(bottom-up) and deductively (top-down) to envision, communicate

and manage the firm’s business strategy. In the context of this

study, a “framework” is a basic, usually repeatable, conceptual

structure that can be used to convey lots of methods for

addressing complex issues. As a result of not having a management

framework to address complex organizational management issues,

management personnel throughout the organization had great

difficulty conceptualizing the complicated business logic (i.e.,

the why) and alignment strategy (i.e., the how) to enhance the

firm’s timely delivery of quality product and service offerings

to its customers via a customer focused value delivery system.

The desire to maximize the firm’s “knowledge yield” (McCall &

Bubo, 1990 and Currall & Towler, 2003) led to a comprehensive

research project to build and instantiate a BMOF to help address the

firm’s alignment and product and service delivery problems.

1.2. Problem Statement

The firm’s management personnel at the executive, functional

and program levels lack access to a business management framework

which they can employ both inductively (bottom-up) and

Page 19 of 216


deductively (top-down) to envision, communicate and manage the

firm’s business strategy. As a result, management personnel have

great difficulty conceptualizing the business logic (i.e., the

why) and alignment strategy (i.e., the how) to enhance the firm’s

timely delivery of quality product and service offerings to its

customers via a customer-focused value delivery system.

1.2.1. BMOF’s Practitioner-Researcher Hypothesis

Thus, if the organization instantiates and executes a common

and universally accepted BMOF then the firm’s management

personnel can collaboratively work together at the firm’s

executive, functional and program levels to align the firm’s

structures, strategy and key technological elements: which, in

turn, will enhance the firm’s timely delivery of quality product

and service offerings to its customers, via its customer-focused

value delivery system.

1.3. Exploratory-Sequential Mixed Methods Research Question

This dissertation will address the following research

question based on a relational, causal reasoning and worldview

perspective:

Page 20 of 216


Does the organization’s instantiation and employment of a BMOF to

support the alignment of its structure, strategy and technology elements

enhance the firm ability to continuously deliver timely and quality product

and service offerings via its customer-focused value delivery system?

1.3.1. Mixed Methods Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to utilize an exploratory-

sequential (QUAL quan) MMRD in combination with March and

Smith’s (1995) design-science research framework (DSRF) to: 1)

theorize; 2) build; and 3) evaluate the: 1) constructs; 2) models; and;

3) methods used to instantiate an enterprise-wide BMOF.

Additionally, employing this mixed methods framework supports the

firm’s continual alignment activities and is intended to enhance

its management personnel’s ability to continuously deliver timely

and quality products and services via its customer-focused value

delivery system.

1.4. Operational Relevance of Combining MMRD with DSRF

The operational relevance of this research is that it offers

an opportunity to explore several research methods while

increasing the breadth of knowledge acquired during the

Page 21 of 216


investigation. Thus the operational relevance can be articulated

in two ways. First, the MMRD mixes qualitative and quantitative

research methods with a DSRF to execute research activities that

theorize, build and evaluate the research outcomes of: 1) constructs; 2)

models; and 3) methods needed to instantiate a BMOF. The four

research outcomes introduced here will form the basis for

executing the research’s activities of this study. The study’s

analysis phase focuses on the research activities and assessing

their ability to achieve the following research outcome goals,

based on both design-science and performance-based Lean Six Sigma

processes improvement data. For clarity of purpose, the

definition and usage of the DSRF’s research outcomes for this

study are provided below:

1) Research Outcome Constructs:

a. Definition: Constructs or concepts form the

vocabulary of a domain being studied (March and

Smith, 1995). They constitute a conceptualization

used to describe problems within a domain throughout

the design cycle (Osterwalder, 2004).

Page 22 of 216


b. Usage: In the context of this study, the BMOF’s

constructs (i.e. concept of operations) support the

firm’s conceptualization of the issues and/or

problems associated with its structure, strategy and

technology elements alignment activities.

2) Research Outcome Models:

a. Definition: A model is a set of propositions or

statements expressing solution statements (March and

Smith, 1995).

b. Usage: In this research, models are utilized to

propose and examine the recursive relationships

between the firm’s structure, strategy and

technology elements. Additionally, models support

the coding of data to identify and interpret the

theoretical statements that explain how or why the

alignment of the firm’s structure, strategy and

technology elements either positively or negatively

impact the firms timely delivery of quality of

product and service offerings via its customer-

focused value delivery system.

Page 23 of 216


3) Research Outcome Methods:

a. Definition: A method is a set of steps (an algorithm

or guideline) used to perform a task (March and

Smith, 1995). "Methods are goal directed plans for

manipulating constructs so that the solution

statement model is realized. In design-science

research method supports the problem and solution

statement expressed in the construct vocabulary”

(March and Smith, 1995).

b. Usage: In this research, the BMOF’s methods are

expressed through its concept of operations (i.e.,

the tasks, steps, procedures, and standing operating

procedures) that it uses in support of the firm’s

execution of its business strategy.

4) Research Outcome Instantiation:

a. Definition: According to March and Smith (1995), an

instantiation is the operational employment of

constructs, models and methods in some form of

artifact in an environment.

Page 24 of 216


b. Usage: In this research, the BMOF’s instantiation is

first realized as an enterprise artifact that uses

textual, graphical and theoretical data within the

firm’s program and business management domains for

developing, communicating and executing the firm’s

business logic.

Second, the operational relevance of this research is that it

provides a framework for maximizing the opportunity to increase

the “knowledge yield” (McCall & Bubo, 1990 and Currall & Towler,

2003) by facilitating the usage of both the MMRD and the DSRF to

implement a comprehensive research methodology for studying a

complex research problem that neither a qualitative or

quantitative approach alone could accomplish (Creswell and Plano

Clark, 2007). According to Currall & Towler (2003, p. 514), “a

researcher’s knowledge yield is enhanced during the conduct of

research when:

1) A range of intriguing new hypotheses are formulated

2) Precise hypothesis tests are conducted

3) Detailed explanations for the phenomenon being studied

are provided

Page 25 of 216


4) Alternative explanations for relationships among

variables are eliminated

5) Other researchers can build on the study’s findings in a

cumulative manner

1.5. Overview of Methodology

To bind the four research MMRD and DSRF outcome goals

introduced above to an operationally relevant problem or issue,

the first phase of this design uses qualitative open, axial and

selective coding grounded theory (GT) research activities

(Glaser, 1978 and Strauss and Corbin, 1998) to theorize and build

(March and Smith, 1995) the BMOF’s constructs (i.e., concepts and

actors), models (i.e., categories), and methods (tasks, steps, or

procedures). To accomplish this, phase one’s grounded theory

activity employs both an inductive (bottom-up) and deductive

(top-down) analytical approach that informs the BMOF’s initial

instantiation as an enterprise-wide business management capability,

ready for deployment in a customer-focused business environment.

Connecting to and sequentially following phase one: phase two

employs DSRF evaluation and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) performance-

based “practitioner-researcher” approach (Peter Jarvis, 1999) to

Page 26 of 216


reflect in and on (Schön, 1983) current and past experiences,

lessons learned and emergent data results (Creswell and Plano

Clark, 2007). These results will benefit future LSS Value Stream

Mapping (VSM) and Kaizen process improvement events (George 2002

& 2003). Additionally, phase two’s LSS’s VSM and Kaizen process

improvement activities utilize causal qualitative (i.e., waste

reduction) and statically quantitative (i.e., variation

reduction) data analysis methods to evaluate the continuous

deployment of the BMOF to align the CFBM’s structure, strategy

and technology elements in its customer-focused business

environments.

1.6. Professional Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is that it employs a

pragmatic worldview, consisting of an exploratory-sequential

(QUALquan) MMRD and DSRF to theorize, build and formatively evaluate

the BMOF’s elements and relationships. Additionally, the mixing

of the MMRD with the DSRF allows the insights emerging from this

study to advance Osterwalder’s (2004, 2005 and 2009) prior

business model ontology and business model design-science

theories and George’s (2002 & 2003) LSS performance-based process

Page 27 of 216


improvement theory to build the BMOF prototype. Finally, the

mixture of the MMRD and the DSRF enriches the quality of this

mixed methods design and helps to focus the study on the core

problems associated with my firm’s lack of ability to communicate

and instantiate an enterprise business management approach to

support its alignment and customer-focused value delivery

system’s execution strategies.

1.7. Prior Work

Prior work from the following research streams are a crucial

part of this dissertation’s research activities and literature

review process, primarily because they set the stage for the

identification of the theoretical business model design and

business management knowledge gaps that this study aims to

addresses:

Research Stream 1: Modern and Post-modern Structuration Theory

1) Anthony Giddens’ (1984) Social-constructivist “Dimensions

of Duality in Structuration” Theory

2) Charles Barley’s (1990) Post-modern “Role Based Theory

of Technology Change”

Page 28 of 216


3) Wanda Orlikowski’s ( 1992) “Duality of Technology” and

(2000) “Practice Lens” Theories from

4) DeSanctis’s and Poole’s (1994) “Adaptive Structuration

Theory”

Research Stream 2: Mixed Methods Research Design (MMRD)

1) John Creswell and Vickie Plano Clark (2007) “Mixed

Methods Research Design” Theory

2) John Creswell (2003) “Research Design” Theory

Research Stream 3: Design-Science Research Theory

1) March and Smith (1995) Design and Natural Science

Research on Information Technology. Decision Support

Systems

2) Jokela (2001) Assessment of user-[centred] design

processes as a basis for improvement action: An

experimental study in industrial settings.

Research Stream 2: Business Management Design

1) Alexander Osterwalder’s (2004) “Business Model Ontology”

and (2005) “Business Model Alignment” Theory

2) Ken Kaplan and David Norton (1996) “Balanced Scorecard

Perspective” Theory

Page 29 of 216


3) Ken Kaplan and David Norton (2006) “Strategy Alignment”

Research Stream 4: Lean Six-Sigma Operating Excellence and

Best Practices

1) Michael George (2002) “Lean Six Sigma Process

Improvement” Theory and (2003) “Lean Six Sigma for

Services” Theory

2) Robert Schonberger (2008) “Lean Six Sigma Process

Improvement, Best Practices”

3) John Shook (2008) “ A3 Lean Management “ Theory

1.8. Contribution of Literature

First, from a constructivist perspective, literature

contributes by examining modern and post-modern structuration

theories that explore the CFBM’s relational and causal impact on

organizational social structures, business management execution

strategies and information technology usage, in an IT and

customer-focused business environment. Literature in this IT

category includes:

1) Barley’s (1990) “Role Based Theory of Technology Change”

Page 30 of 216


2) Orlikowski and Baroudi (1990) Studying Information

Technology in Organizations Research Approaches and

Assumptions

3) Orlikowski’s (1992) “Duality of Technology” theory

4) Orlikowski’s (2000) “Practice Lens” theory


Theory”

6) Jones and Karsten (2003) Review of Structuration Theory

and Information Systems Research

Second, from a design-science point of view, the literature

employs Kaplan’s and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard Perspective

(1996) and Strategy Alignment Theory (2006) to support

Osterwalder’s (2004) evolving Business Model Ontology Theory as

the foundational business management literature for analyzing,

coding and assessing the BOMF’s’ utility and concept of

operations. Third, from a performance-based outlook, Creswell’s

and Plano Clark’s (2007) exploratory-sequential (QUAL then quan)

and MMRD theory is used to make philosophical assumptions and to

better understand the qualitative and quantitative impacts that

external pressures, such as: (1) competitive forces, (2) social

Page 31 of 216


change, (3) technological change, (4) customer opinion and (5)

legal constraints have on an organization’s customer-focused

business logic and value delivery system. Fourth, from a

performance-based reflective-practitioner’s perspective (Schön,

1983 and Jarvis, 1999), the research reviews the following

authors’ practitioner theories as secondary literature to assist

in synthesizing the operational program and business management

data:

1) Reflective Practitioner Theory Research: (Schön, 1983 and

Jarvis, 1999)

2) Quantitative Research Theory: (Lind, Marchal, & Mason,

2002)

3) Mixed Methods Research Design (Creswell 2003)

4) Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Creswell and Plano

Clark 2007)

This allows for the systematic interpretation of what Barley

(1990 pp. 68-71) terms the “non-relational” and “relational”

relationships and social dynamics between human agents and the

CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology elements, at the

Page 32 of 216


organization’s executive, functional and program levels of

analysis

1.9. Structure of this Dissertation

This dissertation is organized around a traditional five

chapter dissertation construct:

1) Chapter one introduces the MMRD problem statement and

details the professional significance placed on the

utilization of both the Design-Science Research Framework

(March and Smith, 1995) and a Mixed Methods Research Design

(Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) to support the firm’s use

of the BMOF as an enterprise-wide business management

capability framework.

2) Chapter two’s literature review will characterize the

comprehensive theoretical literature critique of: (1)

structuration theory, (2) program management processes, (3)

business management theory, (4) strategy development and

alignment theory, (5) balanced scorecard perspectives, and

(6) the use of Lean Six Sigma process improvement tools and

methodologies that support the exploratory-sequential MMRD

and DSRF research activities.

Page 33 of 216


3) Chapter three, first, describes the “theorize” and “build”

research activities that are performed to instantiate the

BMOF’s constructs, models, and methods in an operational and

customer-focused environment. Second, chapter three

describes the use of formative and summary evaluation

research activities to assess both the value and utility of

employing an enterprise-wide BMOF to support the firm’s

alignment and product/service delivery strategy.

4) Chapter four reports and interprets the research findings

from chapter three and assesses the BMOF’s utility as an

enterprise-wide business management capability, ready for

deployment at the firm’s executive (i.e., corporate),

functional (i.e., operational) and program (i.e., business

unit) levels.

5) Chapter five summarizes the research results and proposes

areas for potential future research in the program and

business management domains. Chapter five concludes with a

summation of how this research advances the firm’s body of

knowledge and increases its competitive advantage for

aligning its structure, strategy and technology elements

Page 34 of 216


for delivering timely and quality product and service

offerings to its customer via its CFBM’s value delivery

system.

10. Assumptions, Dependencies, Limitations

10.1. Assumptions:

The research has the following three assumptions:

1) That Hart and Gregor (2006) “Principle of Equifinality” and a

pragmatic worldview (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) will

be used in this study to demonstrate that there are

multiple ways to use mixed methods research design to

achieve the organization’s desired qualitative and

quantitative business management objectives in a

turbulent and evolving customer-focused business

environment.

2) That the BMOF’s qualitative dominant data collection and

data analysis research activities will connect to and be

supported by phase two’s quantitative LSS VSM and Kaizen

tools and methodologies (George 2003 and Joyce 2004) to

continuously conduct necessary LSS process improvement

events and evaluative research activities.

Page 35 of 216


3) That the LSS process improvement activities will provide

the organization’s business management personnel with

what Orlikowski (1992) calls, “…a deeper and more

dialectical [ontological) understanding” (p. 398) of the

recursive interplay between: (1) the firm’s human agents,

(2) its CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology

elements, and (3) the program and business environments,

in which they all must interdependently interact to

improve the firm’s competitive position within its

turbulent customer-focused business environment .

10.2. Dependencies

The study has the following four dependencies:

1) First, the continuous use of MMRD and DSRF research activities

to connect and interpret Phase One dominant (QUAL) and Phase

Two supporting (quan) textual, theoretical and concept of

operations qualitative data results. Second, the use of LSS

process improvement activities to evaluate the theoretical

concept of operations (CONOPS) for de-constructing the BMOF’s

elements are necessary to continuously analyze and interpret

the organization’s internal alignment profile’s (i.e.,

Page 36 of 216


structure, strategy and technology) performance data. Third,

the continued use of LSS process improvement engagements with:

(1) organizational personnel; (2) functional area

practitioners; and (3) technical subject matter experts in the

research to stay abreast of emerging program/business

management theories and business process technologies that can

affect the firm’s migration of legacy structures, business

management processes and IT infrastructure to a customer-

focused business environment. Forth, the continued use of

Osterwalder’s (2004, 2006 & 2008) business model ontology

framework, depicted in Figure 1.1, because it provides an

evolving, authoritative, proven and accepted framework around

which to evaluate the firm’s business logic and value delivery

system.

Page 37 of 216


Figure 1.1: Business Model Ontology (Source: Osterwalder, 2005 p.

18)

10.3 Limitations

First and foremost, the concepts and themes in this

dissertation are intended for the design-science and performance-

based management research communities, thereby likely excluding

many important areas of management scholarship. Second, the data

sources are limited to a theoretical and documental simple

population from the program management, business management and

business model design disciplines, which limit the scope of this

research to a sub-set of the management study population.

Finally, the scope of the qualitative and quantitative research

activities is limited to theoretical and content analysis from

open and public documental data samples in the: 1) program and

business development; 2) business and process Improvement

management; and 3) strategic business planning areas of expertise

includes: which limits that scope of analysis to a small portion

of the business management domain.

Page 38 of 216


1.11. Nature of the Study

As a final point, as discussed several times in this

chapter, this research employs an exploratory-sequential (QUAL

building quan) mixed methods research design that utilizes

three theoretical streams of research activities to inductively

and deductively theorize, build and evaluate the BMOF’s

instantiation and concept of operations. The three streams of

research include: 1) Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model

Ontology, based on design-science theory; 2) Kaplan’s and

Norton’s (1996) Balanced Scorecard Perspectives, based on

performance-based theory; and 3) George’s (2002 & 2003) Lean Six

Sigma tools and methodologies, based on Lean Six Sigma process

improvement theory. From a practitioner’s perspective these three

streams of research provide the necessary design-science and

performance based conceptual and theoretical content data to

employ both an ontological business management vocabulary

(Glaser, 1978) and pragmatic mixed methods “knowledge claims”

(Creswell, 2003) upon which program management, business

management and LLS process improvement assertions and inquiry can

be exchanged among the organization’s’ stakeholders.

Page 39 of 216


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

Chapter one posits that If the organization instantiates a

common and universally accepted enterprise-wide BMOF, then the

firm’s management personnel could collaboratively work together

at the organization’s executive, functional and program levels to

facilitate the alignment of the firm’s structures, strategy and

key technological elements. It further posits that this alignment

could also affect the timely delivery of quality product and

service offerings via the firm’s customer-focused value delivery

system. To evaluate this hypothesis, Chapter two conducts a

three-part theoretical, critical and practitioner literature

review of: 1) Giddens’ (1984) Modern/Post-modern Structuration

Theory; 2) Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology (BMO)

Theory; and 3) Kaplan’s and Norton’s Balance Scorecard (BSC)

Perspective (1996 & 2001) and Strategic Alignment Theory (2006).

The goal of this three-part literature review, depicted in Figure

2.1, is to research the central phenomenon of organizational

alignment to create enterprise value and synergy in a customer-

focused business environment. The concept of organizational

Page 40 of 216


alignment, as addressed in this management-focused dissertation,

involves the synergy of enterprise resources, in this case

structure, strategy and technology elements of the enterprise to

enhance the “special assets, skills and capabilities” (Kaplan and

Norton, 2006) needed for timely value creation and the delivery

of that value to the firm’s customers in the form of quality

products and services.

Page 41 of 216

How to apply an Exploratory- Sequential Mixed Methods Research

Design to Theorize, Build and Evaluate the BMOF's utility as an enterprise-wide capability to aid the organization is the alignment of its CFBM's Structure, Strategy and Technology elements and to deliver valued product and service offerings to

its customers, via a customer-focused value

delivery system?


Figure 2.1: 3-year Doctorial Literature Review Process Map

Page 42 of 216

How to apply an Exploratory- Sequential Mixed Methods Research

Design to Theorize, Build and Evaluate the BMOF's utility as an enterprise-wide capability to aid the organization is the alignment of its CFBM's Structure, Strategy and Technology elements and to deliver valued product and service offerings to

its customers, via a customer-focused value

delivery system?

Giddens Original

Structuration Theory

1979 - 1884

Early application

of Structuration Theory in IS ResearchBarley, 1986 DeSanctis & Poole 1992

Orlikowski,

1992

Later application

of Structuration Theory in IS ResearchBarley, 1990

DeSanctis & Poole 1992Orlikowski, 1992 & 2000Jones & Karsten, 2003

Application of Structuration Theory in ICT Research based on Lit Researc

hGreene, 2007

Research Methods

Quantitative ResearchLind,

Marchal, & Mason, 2002

Qualitative ResearchLofland, Snow &

Anderson, 2006

Maxwell, 2005

Rubin & Rubin, 2005

Mixed Methods Design Creswell, 2003 & 2007

Action Research

Greenewood & Levin, 2007Reason & Bradbury,

2005

Organizational TheoryHatch, 1997Shafritz, Ott Jang,

2005Hesselbein, Goldsmith & Beckhard,

1997

Reflective Practitioner

TheorySchön, 1983Jarvis, 1999

1

4

3

2

5

6

7

8.3

8

8.2

8.1

Business Model

Ontology design-

based Research

Osterwalder, 2004

8.4

Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement with BMOF

Prototype as part

of Dissertat

ion Proposal Greene, May 2008

Balanced Scorecard

PerspectivesKaplan &

Norton 1996, 2000, 2003, 2008

9

Lean & Six Sigma

Performance-based Process

ImprovementGeorge,

2002, 2003

10

11

LegendTheoryResearch Methods


As depicted in Figure 2, Part One (highlighted in the green

boxes) of this literature review focuses on the identification

and analysis of the firm’s emerging theoretical relationships to

better investigate the theoretical sensitivity thread that exists

between the firm’s structure, strategy and technological elements

and its customer-focused business model (CFBM). Additionally,

Part One’s literature review also includes a comprehensive review

of business model design, program process management and business

management relationships to establish a practitioner’s

understanding of the constructs, models and methods that the

organization uses to communicate the why and how of the firm’s

business logic for delivering timely and quality product and

services offering in a customer-focused business environment.

Part two’s literature review (highlighted in yellow) focuses on

understanding the process and methodologies for conducting

science-based and performance-based theoretical and content data

analysis and formative evaluation of the BMOF’s build and

deployment concept of operations. This is necessary to again,

pull the theoretical sensitivity thread that will allow for the

articulate conceptualization of emerging themes based on the

Page 43 of 216


constant comparative analysis of relevance relational and causal

interplay between the firm’s structure, strategy and technology

elements, at the organization’s executive, functional and program

levels.

2.1 Theoretical Review of Modern and Postmodern Structuration

Theory

From a symbolic - interpretative perspective (Hatch 1997),

this literature review focuses on analyzing and interpreting

Giddens (1976, 1978, 1981 & 1984) post-modern “Duality of

Structure Theory” to, as Wanda Orlikowski (1992) states, “…allow

for a deeper and more dialectical understanding” (p. 398) of the

recursive (i.e., self-repeating) interplay between the

organization’s human actors and its structure, strategy and

technology elements. From my standpoint, this understanding is

essential for employing qualitative grounded theory constant

comparative analysis and LSS process improvement activities in a

collaborative way that allows participants to apply a reflective-

practitioner’s (Jarvis, 1999) analytical process to interpret the

multiple inductive and deductive data streams.

Page 44 of 216


2.1.1 Anthony Giddens’ Structuration Theory’s Impact on My Research Proposal

To begin the structuration theory’s stream of research,

Giddens’ (1984) “Duality in Structure Theory” is employed because

it provides a broad and eclectic meta-structuration theory from

which to compare both structural and technological relationships

within any organization. In a broad sense, Giddens’ (1984)

“Duality in Structure Theory” posits that the human agents and

their organizational and social environments exist together in a

recursive (i.e., self-repeating) process. During this recursive

process the human agent’s actions are both constrained and

enabled by organizational and societal structures (i.e., rules

and resources) that are then repeatedly produced and reproduced

by the human agent’s actions with those structures. Giddens

(1984) further states that during the structuration process,

human agents use their free will and knowledge to communicate

and/or to mediate the structural rules and resources of their

environment. This human agent interaction, within organizational

and societal structures, is primarily based on the human agents’

knowledge of norms, power and meaning. Thus, Giddens’ (1984)

Duality of Structure Theory maintains that “…recursive human

Page 45 of 216


action both creates and re-creates an organizational socio-

technical system that can be both produced and reproduced by the

same human agents in their day-to-day interactions within the

organization’s socio-technical system” (pp. 370 - 374).

Leveraging this broad theoretical perspective of structuration,

enables the research to focus on the following overarching

literature research question to help bound the review around

Giddens’ (1984) basic Duality of Structure theoretical concept

that: “…rules and resources drawn upon in the production and

reproduction of social action are, at the same time, the means of

system reproduction” (p 19). Thus the literature research

question is:

How can this theoretical literature review connect modern structuration

theory’s streams of research together with postmodern information

technology’s theories to inform both the relational and causal analysis

between human agents and the firm’s structure, strategy and technology

elements?

Answering this question will be the focus of section 2.2 in order

to later support the evaluation of the recursive interplay

Page 46 of 216


between the organization’s human agents and the CFBM’s structure,

strategy and technology elements.

2.2 Modern and Postmodern Structuration Theory

To help address the above literature review question, the

initial research of modern and postmodern structuration theories

assessed the conceptual, theoretical and ontological business

management relationships between the organization’s human agents

and the CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology elements in the

firm’s IT and customer-focused business environment. First,

Jones’ and Karsten’s (2003) comprehensive “Structuration Theory

Research” (pp. 22-39) was leveraged to assist in both the

selection and critically review of primary and supporting

theoretical, empirical and adaptive postmodern structuration

theory literature. This allowed a comparison and contrast using

Giddens’s (1984) macro (organizational & societal) social-

constructivist theory with Barley’s, (1986), Orlikowski’s (1992 &

2000) and DeSanctis’s & Poole’s (1990 & 1994) micro (individual &

group) reflective-constructivist theories. This initial

theoretical comparison enabled the examination of the

organizational impacts that postmodern structuration theories are

Page 47 of 216


having on the alignment of the physical and social information

technology (IT) structures within the firm. Examples of physical

IT structures include network management facilities, IT service

centers, IT helpdesks, functional IT engineering departments, and

the example of social IT structures include the organization’s

Internet and intranet, email network, social media and online

support services. This initial theoretical comparison also

enhanced the overall understanding of the social and technical

(socio-technical) emotional issues that can impact the firm’s

ability to execute its CFBM’s value delivery system and business

strategy in the Aerospace, Department of Defense and Department

of Energy industries. Second, from a symbolic-interpretive

perspective (Hatch 1997), the results of the empirical analysis

of postmodern structuration theory literature were synthesized to

support later operational lean Six Sigma process improvement

activities. The primary focus here was to examine the “non-

relational” (individual) and “relational” (group)” (Barley 1990,

pp. 68-71) social-technical dynamics of the human agent’s

acceptance of the firm’s business logic for executing the CFBM’s

structure, strategy and technology alignment strategy in an

Page 48 of 216


operational environment. For this operational analysis, the

research build activities heavily leveraged Charles Barley’s

(1990) alignment of technology and structure through roles and

networks theory. In essence, Barley (1990) examines the human

agents’ social and technological (socio-technical) relationships

at the individual, dyadic (group) and organizational levels of

analysis (P. 70). Third, the research’s performance-based

activities examines DeSanctis & Poole’s postmodern adaptive

structuration theory (1994) to better understanding how

structures are created and recreated through the human agent’s

generative and recursive and adaptive use of the organization’s

structural rules and IT resources.

2.2.1 Macro vs. Micro Structuration Theory

Jones and Karsten (2003) states that Giddens first

introduced his theoretical “Dimensions of Duality in

Structuration Theory” (1984) as a way to help reconcile, at a

macro-social level, several false dichotomies or ontological

assumptions that were persistent in the field of social science

in the 1980s. According to Wanda Orlikowski (1991, p. 143)

Page 49 of 216


Giddens’ line of thought for these false dichotomies includes the

following four major areas of contention:

1) Subjective (based on human interaction) vs. objective

(based on material artifacts) human agent actions

2) Socially constructed vs. material

3) Macro level (i.e., focused at the society/organization)

vs. micro level (i.e., focus at the group/individual)

4) Qualitative vs. quantitative social ontologies

Giddens (1984), thus, views structure as being based on social

phenomena and stated that structure “…depends upon the

regularities of social production and reproduction of social

systems through the agents’ regular use of rules and resources in

interaction over time” (Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2006).

Subsequently, Rose (2006) summarizes that “…Giddens rejects

theories such as functionalism and evolutionary theory, which he

regards as closed systems, insisting that social phenomena and

events are always contingent and open-ended” (Highbeam Research

Website, 2009). The following clothing example from Jones and

Karsten (2003), best illustrated the central recursive concept of

Giddens’ Duality of Structure Theory”. The highlighted yellow

Page 50 of 216


words (Meaning), (Power) and/or (Norms) are inserted into Jones

and Karsten’s quoted text to illustrate Giddens’ focus on the

recursive nature of structuration. The definitions of these

terms follow:

1) Meaning – (structures of Signification): The morals,

values and standards that Human Agents interpret and

communicate to develop rules (i.e., constrains) that

enable or inhibit structure (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p.

149).

2) Power – (structure of Domination): The power, control and

authority that an organization provides for humans to

accomplish outcomes (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149).

3) Norms – (structure of legitimization): Organizing rules

for sanctioned or appropriate conduct, defining the

legitimacy of interaction within a setting’s moral order

(Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149).

Jones’ and Karsten’ (2003, PP. 6-7) clothing example:

1) “The clothes that people wear to work reflect the influence of social structures

that are reproduced by an individual’s conformance with accepted practice.

We may expect, for example, that people working in an office will typically wear,

more or less formal, business attire, such as a suit or smart causal clothing

Page 51 of 216


(Norms). When encountering somebody in a work setting we draw on

structures of signification that inform our understanding of that person’s

role. So, if we meet a person in a white coat in a hospital we are likely to assume

that they are a doctor (at least in many settings), or, in a laboratory, that they

are a scientist (Meaning). Clothes do not simply indicate who a person is, but

also convey important messages about the powers that they hold. Thus police

officers’ uniforms enable them to influence people’s behavior in ways that would

be unlikely to be successful if they were in plain clothes (Power). There are also

structures of legitimation that define the appropriate dress code in particular

settings, the transgression of which may invoke sanctions. Organizations may

differ, for example, in the degree of formality expected in employees’ dress, and

even “dress-down Fridays” may be subject to clear limits on how “causal” attire

may be: polo-shirts OK, perhaps, Hawaiian shirts unacceptable (Norms). As may

be evident from this example the structures underlying dress codes are not

implacable or immutable (Meaning). They are sustained by their ongoing

reproduction by social actors, but can be changed (Norms). If certain

individuals or groups challenge the code, then, over time, new structures, no less

influential, may develop (Norms). Individuals are thus, seen as possessing the

capability to transform structures” (Power)

In general, what the reader should gleaned from this initial

literature review is that Giddens views the relationship between

social structure and the human agency’s free will, as a mutually

supporting duality, based on the human agent’s understanding and

use of the Duality of Structure’s modalities; 1) meaning; 2)

Page 52 of 216


power; and 3) norms. Table 2.2. depicts a framework to illustrate

Giddens’ Duality of Structure Structuration recursive process.

Page 53 of 216


Table 2.1:

Researcher’s Interpretation of Giddens’s Duality of Structuration

Theory (Sources: Giddens 1984; Orlikowski 1991; Jones and Karsten

2003; Chong, 2004; & Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2006)

STRUCTURE RealmStructural Features of socialsystems (Jones & Karsten 2003, p. 6)

Signification Social rules that enable, inform and inhibit the communication process (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149)

Domination Power through the control of organization resources (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149)

LegitimationMoral order via communicationin societal norms, valuesand standards(Orlikowski &Robey, 1991, p. 149)

(MODALITY) RealmRecursive process to determine how institutional properties of social systems mediate and/or deliberate human action and how human actions constitute social structure (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p.148).

Interpretative SchemeStandardized andshared stocks ofknowledge that people use to interpret behavior and events, and thereby achieve meaningful interaction (Chong, 2004)

Facility Resources Eitherauthoritative orallocative, theyare the means for exercising power, accomplishing goals, realizingintentions (Chong, 2004).

NormOrganizing rules for sanctioned orappropriate conduct, defining the legitimacy ofinteraction within a setting’s moral order. (Orlikowski &Robey, 1991)

INTERACTION RealmRealm of human action based on free will (Orlikowski &

Communication MeaningCommunicating the meaning of rules

PowerProvides organizational capabilities forhumans to

Moral Sanction Provides the individual orgroup with

Page 54 of 216

Active Human Agent’s Free Communicating Moral


Robey, 1991) (constrains) andresources that enable or inhibit structure (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149)

accomplish outcomes (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149)

codes for executing legitimate moral conduct(Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149)

Page 55 of 216


In analyzing Table 2.1, the reader will discover the

following four emergent concepts regarding Giddens’ Duality of

Structure Theory:

1) Structuration’s modality realm binds human knowledge and social

structure: The modality realm (middle row) consist of: 1)

Interpretative Schemes (structure of signification- i.e.,

social rules that enable communication); 2) Facility

Resources (structure of domination – i.e., power, control

authority); and 3) Norms (structure of legitimation – i.e.,

morals, values and standards) links the structure realm (top

row) and the interaction realm (bottom row). The modality

row can be thought of as the glue that holds Giddens’

recursive structuration theory together, because It connects

the interaction between the “knowledgeable capacities of

human actors and the [institutional] structural features of

the organization’s social system” (Jones & Karsten 2003, p.

6). In this vain, Chiumbu (2007) states that Giddens

“Duality of Structure Theory” expresses the following three

integral elements of interaction:

Page 56 of 216


1) Signification: producing meaning through discursive

practices

2) Domination: produces power, originating from the

control of resources.

3) Legimitation: produces moral order via societal norms,

values and standard.

2) The nature of structuration is a recursive one; between human free will and

moral order: While reviewing Table 2.1, the reader should

reference back to the clothing in the work place example

that was provided eariler and use the up (solid) and down

(dotted) arrows to interpret Giddens’ concept of the

recursive (interactive and mediating) nature of

structuration. The up (solid) arrow represents the human

agent’s use of free will to interpret meaning, power and

norms in order to become “…knowledgeable about their actions

and to continuously reflect on their conduct” (Jones &

Karsten, 2003, p. 18). The down (dotted) arrows represent

the mediation that occurs between the institutional realm

and the interaction realm (e.g., the bottom area) where

human action is communicated, controlled and suctioned. For

Page 57 of 216


example, Jones & Karsten (2003) postulates that

communication (the action) comes about when the actor

applies an interpretation schema to signification (the

rules) to apply meaning to the communication process.

3) Structuration is based on time and routine: Giddens also stressed

that the temporal and behavioral concepts of time space

distanciation and routine as being “…integral to the

continuity of the personality of the agent…and to the

institutions of society” (Jones & Karsten 2003, p. 15). As

Table 2.1 also depicts, other postmodern structuration

theorists like Orlikowski (1991), Jones and Karsten (2003)

and Pozzebon & Pinsonneault (2006) also viewed Giddens

structurational duality theory as a valid theory for

focusing on either open or closed social systems in the IT

field.

4) Structuration is based on the interplay between meanings, norms and

power: Based on the above information, I agree with

Orlikowski (2000) who states that Giddens’ (1984) “Duality

of Structure Theory” is broad enough to be applied to the

questions of power, “legitimation, and moral section” (p.

Page 58 of 216


404). Orlikowski & Robey (2001) further maintain that this

relationship can be traced to material artifacts (e.g.,

facilities/resources) such as technology to enable a deeper

understanding of the constructive role of social practices

in the workplace. Thus, one can conclude from this analysis

of Giddens’ (1984) “Duality of Structure Theory” that

Orlikowski and Robey (2001, pp. 145-147) are all correct in

their assertion that indeed “…structure and [human agent]

action constitute each other recursively, and is based on

the interplay between meanings, norms and power”.

2.2.2. Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective of Post-modern

Structuration Theory

The research’s symbolic-interpretative perspective of

structuration theory is supported by the following four social

and technical extensions of Giddens (1984) original “Duality of

Structure Theory” that focus on:

1) Barley’s (1990) “Role based theory of Technology Change”

2) Orlikowski’s (1992) “Duality of Technology Theory”

3) Orlikowski’s (2000) “Practice Lens Theory”

Page 59 of 216



Theory”

A critical review of the preceding four authors’ primary and

supporting post-modern structuration theories compare and

contrast Giddens’s macro social-constructivist views with

Barley’s, Orlikowski’s and DeSanctis’s/Poole’s micro reflective-

constructivist views of structuration. This comparison leverages

Hatch’s (1997) symbolic-interpretive perspective to better

understand the organizational impact that these modern

structuration theories are having on the micro (i.e., individual

and group) organizational levels of structural analysis, in the

Information Communications Technology (ITC) field.

2.2.2.1. Barley’s Early Evolution of Theory of Structuration in

ICT Field

According to Chong (2008, p.8) “…the duality of structure

means that structure offers a pattern for action, but has no

reality outside of action itself. All structural properties of

society change and continue to change over time. The role that

time plays in this analysis is critical: you can’t do

structuration studies without them being longitudinal.” In this

Page 60 of 216


vain, Barley’s (1986) development of a four-year hybrid

negotiated-order and role-based theory of technological change,

is the first example of an alternative postmodern structuration

theory being design and use specifically for an Informational

Communications Technology (ICT) longitudinal research study.

Specifically Barley (1986) conducted a four year longitudinal

field study of CT scanner usage in the medical field and observed

that the shift in interactions between radiologists and

technicians while using diagnostic CT scanners triggered a change

in organizational structural that over time altered the

organization’s institutional roles and patterns of interaction.

Barley (1986 & 1990) further suggested that since technology

exist as material objects in the interaction realm of

structuration (see Table 2.1). One must examine how technology

is incorporated and used in the everyday life by an

organization’s individual and group members, to both understand

and proactively manage its impact on organizational structures.

Finally, from Barley’s (1990) perspective social orders are

stable patterns of action, intersection, and interpretation that

are constructed at the micro (individual) organizational level

Page 61 of 216


but eventually effect the role relations of groups at the macro

(group) organizational level; which in turn ultimately effects

organizational structural and social change (p. 67). Barley’s

(1990) negotiated-order and role-based theory of technological

change, reinforces Giddens’ original structuration theory that

material resources, (e.g., technology), influence social

practices only through their incorporation of processes of

structuration (pp. 67-68). This demonstrated that core concepts

from Giddens’ (1984) original “Duality of Structure Theory” can

be applied towards solving IT related social and technical (e.g.,

socio-technical) issues in a micro-social (individual and group)

constructionist context (Barley 1990, pp. 68-71, Jones & Karsten

2003, pp. 23 & 39).

2.2.2.2. Review of the Impact of Giddens Structuration Theory on

IT

Jones and Karsten (2003), reported that since 1986 Giddens’

Duality of Structuration Theory, has been significantly “…cited

by more than 225 information system articles” (p. 3) and that an

additional “…39 [Information Systems] (IS) papers have discussed

Giddens’s [structuration] ideas in edited books or at

Page 62 of 216


conferences” (p. 20). Jones and Karsten (2003) further state that

the two most important extensions of structuration theory in a

postmodern IS context, came from the following two researchers’

works:

Orlikowski’s (1991) Structural Model of Technology, (1992)

Duality of Technology, and (2000) Practice Lens Theories

DeSanctis and Poole’s (1994) Adaptive Structuration Theory

(AST)

From a constructivist perspective, Orlikowski’s and

DeSanctis and Poole’s postmodern theories have a common

conceptional goal of developing an IS specific version of

structuration theory that advocates “…technology as a resource to

enact distinctive socio-technological use in organizations”

(Orlikowski 2000, p. 425). From a sociological perspective, this

puts them in conflict with Giddens’s (1984) original “Duality in

Structure Theory”; but allows them to routinely address the issue

of material resources, such as technology, being able to

influence social practices. Orlikowski’s (2000) Practice Lens and

DeSanctis and Poole’s (1994) Adaptive Structuration theories have

a mutually supporting relationship at the organizational, group

Page 63 of 216


and individual level of analysis that has enhanced their

understanding of social and technological phenomena in the IT

field of study. This is further demonstrated as Orlikowski

changed her original concept of “interpretive flexibility,” that views

“technology resources as embodying structural material artifacts”

(Orlikowski 1992) to the revised “practice lens – technology-in-practice”

view (Orlikowski 2000), which postulates that “…technology

structures are not embodied and appropriated but rather emergent

and enacted” (Jones & Karsten 2003, pp. 35-37). Finally,

Orlikowski’s (2000) new conceptional direction is “…focused

specifically on how agents recurrent interaction with

technologies enacts distinctive structures of technology use”

(p.1). It fits well with DeSanctis/Poole’s (1994) evolution-in-

use adaptive structuration theory as a viable approach for

conducting micro-level studies of the role of individuals and

small group activity in IT-focused organizations.

2.2.2.3. A Postmodern Perspective of Structuration Theory in the

Information Communication Technology (ICT) Field

The above initial literary review of the evolution of modern

and postmodern structuration theory clearly showed that Jones and

Page 64 of 216


Karsten’s (2003) research of Giddens’ (1984) “Duality Structure

Theory” is on the mark when they assert that Giddens’ theory “…

continues to draw in a wide range of theoretical and empirical

studies in the IS field” (Jones and Karsten, 2003, p. 4).

However, from a post-modern constructivist perspective, Giddens’

(1984) original “Duality in Structure Theory” is out-dated for

the following two reasons:

1) First, it lacks any significant explanation of how

external technological resources (i.e., the internet,

social media, on-line support services, etc…) can enhance

the facilitation of power in an organization’s

interaction (i.e. communication, knowledge, social rules,

etc...) and modality (i.e., power, resource, control,

etc…) realms in today’s IT driven environment.

2) Second, Giddens’ original insistence that “…technology

does nothing, except as implicated in the actions of

human beings” (Jones & Karsten 2003, p. 11) is flawed

because it does not account for the post-modern world’s

use of technology since the evolution of ICT in the early

1990s.

Page 65 of 216


In closing, from a constructive – interpretive perspective,

this analysis was crucial because business management researcher-

practitioners are beginning to recognize post-modern

structuration theory’s real value as being the integrating meta-

theory for analyzing the relationship between human agents and

the organization’s structure, strategy and technology elements

(DeSanctis and Poole, 1994 and Osterwalder, 2004). Understanding

the evolution of structuration theory allowed the program and

business management practitioners to discover and examine the

firm’s social and technological structure at both the “…macro

(industry/enterprise) and micro (group/individual) organizational

levels of analysis” (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 1991, 1992 & 2000;

DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Jones and Karsten, 2003). Giddens

Duality in Structuration Theory inspires and motivates many IS

theorists like Barley, Orlikowski and Robey, & DeSanctis and

Poole, to develop modern IS and ICT specific versions of his

original 1984 “Duality in Structure Theory” and apply it to the

current and future ICT field of study. The contributions that

Barley (1990), Orlikowski and Robey (1990, 1991 & 2000) and

DeSanctis and Pool (1994) have already made and will continue to

Page 66 of 216


make in evolving post-modern structuration theories in the IT

domain are having a significant positive impact on the modern

researchers’ ability to conduct current and future design and

performance based studies to examine the relationships between

the organization’s human agents and the CFBM’s structure,

strategy, and technology elements in today’s 21st century,

customer-focused organizations.

2.3. Customer-focused Value Delivery System in a Literary Context

Reviewing a large body or literature on the current state of

customer-focused business model design and process improvement

best practices reveals that the following authoritative authors

have all published informative and widely accepted books,

articles, whitepapers and/or professional blog entries on

different business management frameworks, business strategies and

program/business management best practices: (1) Kaplan and Norton

(1996, 2001, 2006 &2008); (2) Linder and Cantrell (2000); Amit &

Zott (2001); (3) Magretta (2002); (4) Chesbrough and Rosenbloom

(2002): (5) Afuah and Tucci (2003); (6) Lambert (2003); (7)

Osterwalder (2004,); and (8) Osterwalder, Pigneur and Tucci,

(2005, 2006 & 2009). Therefore, a major portion of the primary

Page 67 of 216


and secondary literature research and the data coding activities

in this study analyze the above mentioned authors’ generic

business model design concepts, business management theories and

program/business management execution methods from a design-

science and performance-based research point of view.

Additionally, Chapter Two will provide a detail analysis of this

literature review to support the BMOF’s qualitative research

activities and to inform the summary evaluation of both the

BMOF’s concept of operations and implementation strategies.

Concerning the execution of the CFBM’s business strategy,

there are three factors which the literature review highlights

that all enterprise-wide management team (EWMT) personnel should

understand to assist them in determining their firm’s specific

business logic for ensuring the timely delivery of quality

product and service offerings and for generating profit, via a

CFBM’s value delivery system.

1) First, EWMT personnel should understand that the generic

CFBM is based on a conceptual framework that, “…describes

the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers and

Page 68 of 216


captures value” from the customer’s perspective

(Osterwalder, 2009, p.14).

2) Second, the EWMT personnel should embrace Lambert’s (2003)

observation that organizational stakeholders at all

management levels must use some or all elements of their

business model’s product or service offerings to create and

continuously engage in business relationships with their

customers. This engagement is critical to understanding the

value creation process and the positive or negative rewards

for either delivering or not delivering on that value, from

the customer’s perspective. This is a crucial part of the

causal reasoning process for the variables of timely

delivery (Variable 1) and quality delivery (variable 2),

that will be use in chapter four to assess the BMOF’s

utility and concept of operation variables.

3) Third, EWMT personnel need to understand Magrett’s (2002,

p.4) claim that “…an effective business model’s customer-

focused value delivery system must address the following

four basic questions:

o Who is the customer?

Page 69 of 216


o What does the customer [truly] value (i.e., timely and

quality delivery…) and is willing to pay for?

o How does the firm make money?

o What are the underlying economics and business logic

that explains why and how the firm can deliver their

superior product and service offerings to its customers

at an appropriate, yet profitable cost?

To further support these three factors and to clearly define

the customer-focused aspects of the business model, Zeithaml,

Bitner, and Gremler’s (2006, p, 2) define service(s) as “…deeds,

processes, and performances (or constellations of deeds,

processes, and performances) that are provided to customers, in

exchange relationships among organizations and individuals.

Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler (2008) further expands on the need

for a customer-focused business management focus, by pointing out

that across the spectrum of businesses in the U.S. today; there

is a basic lack of understanding among organizations for how to

innovatively manage and deliver services as part of a total

product and customer-focused offering. Part of the problem,

according to Dr. Christian Grönroos (2007, p.27), is that in

Page 70 of 216


order to innovatively deliver total product and service

offerings, firms must understand that their CFBM’s primary focus

is not on the products themselves, but rather on the qualitative

aspects of the CFBM’s value delivery system; whereby, value

emerges based on input and continuous feedback from the

customers’ perceptions. Hence, Grönroos (2007) advises

organizations to develop an enterprise-wide customer-focused

value delivery perspective that views and measures the firm’s

business logic at the executive, functional and program levels of

the enterprise, based on the customer’s value desires. Most

importantly, the customer-focused business model research in this

dissertation unveiled several empirical practitioner focused

studies that help me to examine how a firm can develop the

necessary operational business management ontological framework

for delivering a total product and service offering, via a

customer-focused value delivery system. Particularly,

Osterwalder, Pigneur and Tucci (2005 & 2009) business model

ontology study stood out because the authors collectively

maintain that the operational customer-focused business model is

best understood as a holistic concept which embraces both

Page 71 of 216


tangible and intangible elements such as: (1) pricing mechanisms,

(2) customer relationships, (3) partnering, and (4) revenue

sharing. In this context a customer-focused business model must

strive to align its “structure, strategy and technology”

(Osterwalder 2004) elements and connect them with the firm’s

operational business logic for creating, capturing and delivering

tangible and intangible goods, products and services to the

customer.

In closing out this review of the CFBM, other authorities

such as, Linder and Cantrell (2000); Zott & Amit (2001); Magretta

(2002); Chesbrough & Rosenbloom (2002,) Lambert (2003) and

Osterwalder (2004) all postulate in their individual business

model research documents that there remains a tendency in the

business literature today, towards downplaying the importance of

how the total product and service offerings are made available to

customers, via an operational customer-focused value delivery

system. Linder and Cantrell (2000, p.2) articulate this best when

they explained in their year-2000 empirical study of business

models, that “…99% of the organizations that they analyzed had no

apparent framework to describe how they plan to operationally

Page 72 of 216


execute their business model’s value delivery system”. Linder

and Cantrell (2000, p.2) went on to state that “…most

organizations know what business they're in—they just can't

describe it clearly”. Finally, it should be noted that in the

initial phases of the CFBM’s literature review and the BMOF’s

concept of operation requirements mapping activities an emergent

theory that revealed itself. This being that the social,

cultural and structural organizational changes that such a

transformational BMOF must address requires conducting several

secondary streams of research and LSS process improvement

activities to examine and clearly understand the day-to-day

program and business and management rhythms, relationships and

enterprise-wide interdependencies that are needed to execute any

business model’s customer-focused value delivery system. For this

reason a significant portion of this dissertation’s secondary

practitioner’s research stream focuses on conducting LSS process

improvement activities that systematically analyze the

organization’s non-relational (i.e., individual level task and

skills) and relational (i.e., group and organization level)

business management structures and their interdependent

Page 73 of 216


relationships to assess their impact on existing and future

program management, business management and revenue generating

processes and strategy execution, in the customer-focused

environment.

2.4. Why Focus on Lean Six Sigma For Services and LM 21 Operating

Excellence?

Lean Six Sigma tools and methodologies are used in this

study because they provide an efficient process for conducting

constructive and participatory research activities which informed

my formal or semi-formal facilitation of LSS evaluation and

assessment research activities. These LSS process improvement

activities allowed the participants to collaboratively conduct

qualitative and quantitative research activities to develop and

analyze the BMOF’s elements and sub-elements, constructs, models and

methods, which supported the research’s central phenomenon of

deploying the BMOF to support the firm’s alignment of its CFBM’s

structure, strategy and technology elements to enhance its

ability to deliver timely and quality product and service

offerings, to its customers, via its CFBM’s value delivery

system.

Page 74 of 216


2.4.1 Lean and Six Sigma for Services Overview

Michael George (2003, p. 6) defines “Lean Six Sigma for Services”

as a business improvement methodology that “…maximizes

shareholder value by achieving the fastest rate of improvement in

customer satisfaction, cost, quality, process speed, and invested

capital” (p. 6). He also states that the coupling of Lean and Six

Sigma improvement methods is required because, “…Lean cannot

bring a process under statistical control, and Six Sigma alone

cannot dramatically improve process speed or reduce invested

capital and both enable the reduction of the cost of complexity”

(p. 6). Thus, George (2003) views Lean and Six Sigma as being

“complimentary” (p.7); whereby “…Lean focuses on quantitative

statistical process improvement activities to eliminate non-value

added steps (i.e., wasteful activities that the customer is not

willing to pay for) in a process and Six Sigma focuses on

reducing variation from the remaining value-added steps of the

same process” (pp. 27-28). Lean process improvement activities

attempt to identify the following seven types of process waste

(GS Website, 2009, pp. 262-267):

1) Overproduction

Page 75 of 216


2) Excess inventories

3) Non-value added process steps

4) Excess people movement,

5) Excess material transportation,

6) Waiting

7) Non-value added goods of services

Common examples of process waste incidents in organizations

include (GS Website, 2009, pp. 262-267):

1) Accidents

2) Rework

3) Downtime

4) Material waste

5) Absenteeism

6) Equipment damage

7) Product damage

8) Customer complaints

9) Lost customers”

On the other hand, Six Sigma uses quantitative statistics to

remove variation from the same process steps and makes the value

flow smoothly without interruption. “When implemented correctly,

Page 76 of 216


Six Sigma promises and delivers $500,000+ of improved operating

profit per Black Belt per year (hard values figure many companies

consistently achieve” (George 2003, p. 7). Finally, George (2003)

lists the following characteristics for Lean and Six Sigma (p.7):

Lean:

1) Focuses on maximizing process velocity

2) Provides tools for analyzing process flow and delay times

at each activity in a process

3) Provides a means for quantifying and eliminating the cost

of complexity

4) Centers on the separation of "value-added" from "non-

value-added" work with tools to eliminate the root causes

of non-valued activities and their cost.

Six Sigma:

1) Emphasizes the need to recognize opportunities and

eliminate defects as defined by customers

2) Recognizes that variation hinders our ability to reliably

deliver high quality services

Page 77 of 216


3) Requires data driven decisions and a comprehensive set of

quality tools under a powerful framework for effective

problem solving

4) Provides a highly prescriptive cultural infrastructure

effective in obtaining sustainable results.

2.4.2. LM21 Lean Six Sigma Operating Excellence Overview

LM 21 stands for Lockheed Martin in the 21st Century.

According to Michael Joyce (2004), Senior Vice President for LM21

since 2001, “In 1999, Lockheed Martin first developed a Lean Six

Sigma Operating Excellence Best Practices approach called “LM21

Best Practices” (p.173). Then “…in early 2000 the title of the

LM21 effort was changed from LM 21 Best Practices to LM21

Operating Excellence” (p. 173); with the ultimate goal [of

creating] a continuous improvement enterprise management system

that consistently achieves excellence for our customers,

shareholders, and employees” (p. 176). Joyce also stated that “…

LM21 was developed to identify Lean Six Sigma Best Practices for

increasing efficiency and improving financial and operating

performance by attacking waste” (P.176). Joyce (2004) concludes

his overview of LM 21 by summarizing that,”… LM21 has become a

Page 78 of 216


workplace standard and a mindset. The Lean/Six Sigma principles

of process improvement have migrated to every business function:

Finance, Business Development, Procurement, Operations, Human

Resources, Cash Management, Contracting, and Engineering, to name

a few.”(p. 174). Thus, according to Joyce (2004) “…LM21 quickly

became the common corporate drive for application of the Lean and

Six Sigma philosophy and methodology throughout the [146,000

Employee] Lockheed Martin enterprise, with coordinated efforts in

training and standard application of the tools” (p.176). As

Figure 2.2 shows, LM 21 Lean Six Sigma Operating Excellence

Principles employ a sequential flow that build on each other,

resulting in an end-to-end and continuous focus on delivering the

best customer value.

Page 79 of 216


Figure 2.2: LM21 Operating Excellence Principles (George 2003, p. 61

& Joyce 2004, p 176

2.4.3. Why I leveraged Kaplan’s and Norton’s BSC Perspectives?

Data from preliminary BMOF capability evaluation activities

indicate that the primary strategic business management task of

aligning the CFBM’s business strategy elements required employing

a theoretical analysis of the enterprise’s value proposition and

business management processes. By definition: “…business

management analysis theory is a study of the principles and

practices of a business process to attain its desired

organizational goals. Business management analysis encompasses

Page 80 of 216

1 - Customer Value

Value from customers'

Perspective to define value added

from waste

2 - Value Stream

Create Value streams, based on data and Customer

Demands

3 - FlowDesign work that optomize the flow

of data and molecules

4 - PullInitiate work only based on customer

demand

5 - PerfectionContinuously refine the

process to improve efficiency, cycle time,

costs and quality


the deployment and manipulation of human, financial,

technological and natural resources and their effective

allocation for the optimum level of output for the business”

(Business Management Website 2009). Subsequently, in the third

research year, the researcher conducted a six – month reflective-

practitioner’s literature review of Kaplan’s and Norton’s (2006)

“Alignment” and (1996) “Balanced Scorecard Perspective” theories

to address the organization’s need to link strategic (i.e.,

enterprise-wide) business management analysis theory with

practitioner (i.e., program-level) program and business

management strategy execution. The results of the above

activities clarified Kaplan and Norton (2008) expectations that

organizations should use their balanced scorecard (BSC)

perspectives, depicted in Figure 2.3 below, as a strategic

business management tool for creating corporate synergies and for

aligning the firm’s strategic vision and business strategy with

the organization’s four functional management areas of: 1)

finance; 2) customer relations; 3) internal business process; and

4) workforce learning and growth (pp. 39-40).

Page 81 of 216


Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

InitiativesCUSTO M ER

How do our custom ers see us?

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

Initiatives

LEARNING andG RO W THCan w e continue to im prove and create value?

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

InitiativesFINANCIAL

How do w e look to shareholders?

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

Initiatives

INTERNAL BUSINESSPRO CESS

W hat m ust w e excel at?

Visionand

Strategy

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

InitiativesCUSTO M ER

How do our custom ers see us?

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

Initiatives

LEARNING andG RO W THCan w e continue to im prove and create value?

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

InitiativesFINANCIAL

How do w e look to shareholders?

Objective

Mea

sures

Targets

Initiatives

INTERNAL BUSINESSPRO CESS

W hat m ust w e excel at?

Visionand

Strategy

Visionand

Strategy

Figure 2.3: Kaplan’s and Norton’s Balance Scorecard (1996, p. 9)

In describing the BSC’s strategic framework, Kaplan and Norton

(2001, pp. 70 -71) provide the following definition: The BSC is“…

a strategic framework that employs a top-down vision and strategy

(i.e., business logic for making money and delivering customer

value) that starts with describing the desired financial and

customer outcomes and then moving to the value proposition,

business processes and infrastructure that are drivers of

strategy execution and change”. Kaplan and Norton (2001) further

define vision and strategy in the following way: “…vision is the

depiction (verbal or written) of where the organization wants to

Page 82 of 216


be in future; while a strategy is a set of goals and specific

action plans that, if achieved, provide the desired competitive

advantage to create customer value and to meet desired future

financial outcomes” (pp.75-78). They conclude their BSC

Perspectives definition by stating that the BSC Perspectives

contain “…top down relationship which starts with the financial

and customer perspectives forming a group to determine desired

outcomes of the business logic; while the internal process and

learning growth perspectives form an interdependent working-group

to help drive both business strategy execution and change”

(Kaplan and Norton 2001, p. 76).

After conducting a six-month practitioner research study, the

researcher chose to critically review and use Kaplan’s and

Norton’s BSC perspectives (1996) and strategy alignment (2006)

theory in the research, because they have demonstrated through

their field and case studies that organizations who use the BSC

Perspectives to strategically align their 1) finance; 2) customer

relations; 3) internal business process; and 4) workforce

learning and growth perspectives (Kaplan and Norton, 1996,

p.p.25-28) can efficiently communicate their vision and business

Page 83 of 216


logic throughout the enterprise. Kaplan and Norton (1996) define

the BSC Perspectives’ functions as follows:

1) Financial Perspective: The financial perspective evaluates the

profitability of the Strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 1996,

p.p.25-26).

Question asked: What are our shareholders

expectations for financial performance (Kaplan and

Norton 2006, p.6)?

2) Customer Perspective: The customer perspective identifies

targeted customer and market Segments and Measures the

organization’s success in these Segments (Kaplan and

Norton, 1996, p. 26).

Question asked: To reach our financial objective,

how do we create value for our customers (Kaplan and

Norton 2006, p.6)?

3) Internal Business Process Perspective: This perspective focuses on

internal operations that create value for customers that,

in turn, advance the financial perspective by increasing

the shareholder value (Kaplan and Norton, 1996, p.p.26-

28).

Page 84 of 216


Question asked: What processes must we excel at to

satisfy our customers (Kaplan and Norton 2006, p.6)?

4) This perspective identifies the capabilities the

organization must excel at to achieve superior internal

processes that create value for Customers and

shareholders (Kaplan and Norton, 1996, p.p.25-29).

Question asked: How do we align our intangible

assets – people, systems, and culture – to improve

the critical process (Kaplan and Norton 2006, p.6)?

Summarized, as depicted in Figure 3.4, The BSC methodology

can be de-constructed and inductively used by the firm’s

management personnel to perform both qualitative and quantitative

content and performance analysis on the organization’s management

and performance data.

Page 85 of 216


Figure 2.4: Kaplan’s and Norton’s Balance Scorecard (1996)

Methodology

The BSC methodology is use to translate an organizational mission

and strategy into comprehensive set of performance activities and

measures that provides the framework for the strategic

measurement and management system (Kaplan and Norton, 1996, pp.

8-10). Kaplan and Norton (2006) define strategy as “a detailed

set of objectives and, initiatives” (p.261). Strategy consists

of a specific action plans that, if achieved, provide the

organization its desired competitive advantage. Thus, the

Page 86 of 216


organization’s strategy specifies how the firm matches its own

capabilities with the opportunities in the business environment

to accomplish its objectives. Strategic management involves

identifying and implementing these strategic goals and action

plans through a vision, with a defined mission and performance

targets. As a result, the vision is articulated and executed in

three ways: First, the vision defines where the organization

wants to be in future. Second the mission defines where the

organization is going now and why the organization exists. Third,

targets define the goals and objectives that the vision intend to

achieve. The target goals and objectives must be both

quantifiable and measurable in order to fit the performance based

management criterion. Finally the use of strategy maps and the

BSC Perspectives provide the organization with a mechanism to

describe and communicate strategy at each organizational level.

2.4.4. Why focus on Alexander Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model

Ontology?

First, in 2004, Osterwalder conducted a large portion of his

practitioner’s research on the subjects of: 1) business model

ontology (BMO) design (2004); 2) business model management

Page 87 of 216


(Osterwalder, 2006); and 3) business model generation

(Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009). In fact, in October 2009,

Osterwalder, in collaboration with 470 other business management

practitioners from 45 countries, published a new handbook

entitled “Business Model Generation”. The main concepts, theories and

practical information in this book came from his original 2004

BMO Theory. Thus, Osterwalder’s (2004) BMO framework has

empirical validity and also has been “…cited in over 224

articles, publications and scholarly masters/doctorial papers

around the world (Google Scholar.com 2009). Second, this

practitioner portion of the literature review draws on

Osterwalder’s (2004) original BMO Theory to provide the study’s

build research activities with an end-to-end foundational

business model design ontology that binds the organization’s

executive, operational and program level data analysis

environments. From a constructivist perspective, Osterwalder’s

(2004) BMO provided an analytical tool to both de-construct and

evaluate the firm’s structure, strategy and technology data

elements, based on their ontological concepts, theoretical

relationships and overall business logic for generating revenue.

Page 88 of 216


Third , Osterwalder (2006) stated that “…we must consider which

[ontological] concepts and relationships allow for a simplified

description and representation of what value is provided to

customers, how this is done, and with which financial

consequences” (p. 17). Accordingly, he used grounded theory to

coded the BMO’s four pillars and nine sub-elements, depicted in

Figure 2.5, so that they can be employed conceptually to “…de-

construct a business model’s elements for further individual

examination on different levels of granularity, in more or less

detail and according to specific needs” (Osterwalder 2004, p.

50).

Page 89 of 216


FINANCIAL ASPECTS

Pillar 4

INFRUSTRUCTURE M ANAGEM ENT

Pillar 3 PRODUCTPillar 1

CUSTOM ERINTERFACE

Pillar 2

Resource

Account

OfferingActivity CriterionLink

Pricing

Agreem ent M echanism

Value Proposition

1 Channecl 3 Custom er 2

Revenue 8

Partnership 7

Cost 9

Capability 5 Value Configuration

6

Relationship 4

Figure 2.5: Osterwalder’s Business Model Ontology (Osterwalder,

2004, p. 44)

Fourth, as depicted in Table 2.2, the research uses Osterwalder’s

(2004) BMO elements (p. 43) as the business model foundational

framework at the functional organizational level to enable the

flexible employment of a two-phased mix methods research design.

Thus the use of this table allowed me to explore my pragmatic

knowledge claims (Creswell 2003, p. 19) that by both analyzing

and interpretation data from the BMOF operational (i.e.,

function) and program levels, the organization can leverage the

Page 90 of 216


BMOF’ to assist in the alignment of its structure, strategy and

technology elements.

Table 2.2:

Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology (p. 43)

Fifth, the research strategically leveraged Osterwalder’s (2004)

BMO Theory because it contained a systematic and proven

ontological business modeling framework the can be implemented at

Page 91 of 216


the organization’s enterprise level to analyze and interpret the

firm’s enterprise-wide business management requirements and

performance metrics..

2.6 Summary

2.6.1 Related Research “Way Forward”

The next steps or “way forward” strategy involved leveraging

the BMOF to accomplish the following three related objectives

(RO):

RO 1: Apply post-modern structurational theories to better

understand the social-technological interplay between the

CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology from a inductive

and constructive– participatory perspective.

RO 2: Standardize the proposed BMOF’ concept of operations

(CONOPS) to determine if the BMOF can or should be employed

as an effective (QUAL) and efficient (quan) enterprise-wide

business management tool to support data analysis for

implementing the organization’s CFBM’s executing strategy.

RO 3: Employ Creswell’s and Plano Clark’s (2007)

Exploratory-Sequential mixed methods research design to

focus the research methodology on analyzing what Creswell

Page 92 of 216


called the “what” and “how” (Creswell 2003, p. 12) of using

the BMOF’s textual, graphical and operational data

collection and analysis results to assist in interpreting

the BMOF’s final concept of operations.

2.6.2 Insights Gained

Conducting this comprehensive academic and practitioner

literature review reinforced the significance of connecting the

interpretive results from the sequential (QUAL quan) mixed

methods data analysis with the LSS PI activities to gain a

inductive (bottoms-up) business management and deductive (top-

down) revenue generating perspective of the customer-focused

business environment. This pragmatic worldview perspective

supports the research’s final reflective-practitioner’s

performance-based activities in phase two that will summarily

evaluate the interplay between the CFBM’s structure, strategy and

technology elements at the non-relational (i.e., individual -

skill and tasks) and relational (group – collective activities)

organizational levels. Finally, by leveraging LSS VSM and Kaizen

tools and methodologies, one can, as Giddens states, “…acquire

ontological security” (Giddens 1979, p.60) for formatively and

Page 93 of 216


summarily evaluating the BMOF as an enterprise-wide business

management capability. Additionally, this course of academic and

practitioner research provides the best opportunities for my firm

to analyze its business logic for “why” and “how” the firm should

align its CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology elements for

delivering timely and quality product and service offerings, to

its customers, via the CFBM’s value delivery system.

Page 94 of 216


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction

The insights that emerge over time from this mixed methods,

qualitative connecting to quantitative (QUAL quan), research

design draw heavily on documental data collection, sampling and

analysis research activities to assess the BMOF’s long-term

utility for supporting the firm’s continual execution of its

customer-focused value delivery system. As previously stated the

research question that this dissertation aims to answer is:


support the alignment of the CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology

elements enhance the firm’s ability to continuously deliver timely and

quality product and service offerings, to its customers, via the CFBM’s value

delivery system?

Thus, the aim of chapter three is to provide a detailed

explanation of the use of: 1) relational and causal reasoning; 2)

open, axial and selective coding grounded theory; and 3) content

comparative data analysis research activities that will be

employed to: 1) theorize; 2) build; 3) and evaluate the; construct; 2)

Page 95 of 216


model; methods use to instantiate a BOMF: in support of the firm’s

efforts to increase its competitive advantage by continuously

providing timely delivery of quality product and service

offerings in a customer-focused business environment.

3.2. Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to build and instantiate a BMOF to

continuously support organizational management personnel in the

collection and analysis of emerging customer-focused program and

business management theoretical and content data analysis

research activities. Furthermore, this study aims to employ the

use of open, axial and selective grounded theory (GT) and

formative and summary evaluative research techniques to assess

the BMOF’s concept of operations (i.e., the BMOF’s tasks, steps,

procedures and processes) for supporting the firm’s execution of

its business strategy.

3.3. Practitioner-Researcher Hypothesis

This research’s hypothesis states that, if the organization

instantiates and executes a common and universally accepted BMOF

then the firm’s management personnel can collaboratively work

Page 96 of 216


together at the firm’s executive, functional and program levels

to align the firm’s structures, strategy and key technological

elements: which, in turn, will enhance the firm’s timely delivery

of quality product and service offerings to its customers, via

its customer-focused value delivery system.

3.4. Overview of the Exploratory-Sequential MMRD Methodology

To address both the above research question and hypothesis,

I will use a rigorous exploratory mixed method research design

consisting of two distinct data collection and analysis

sequential phases: qualitative connecting to quantitative (i.e.,

QUAL → quan) (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007, pp.75-79). The

rationale for this explorative-sequential (QUAL quan) timing,

is to ensure that the dominant qualitative grounded theory (GT)

data collection and analysis activities in phase one are

accurately grounded in traditional program and business

management language and theory. This grounding in a theoretical

alignment and synergy thread ensures that the emerging BMOF’s

concept of operations (CONOPS) and program and business standard

operating procedures (SOPs) are selectively coded to

Page 97 of 216


conceptualize and define the initial BMOF’s build and instantiation

research requirements.

To begin the research process in phase one’s first stage,

the qualitative research activities use purposeful data sampling

to identify a sample population and open, axial and selective

coding to inductively collect and analyze that data to inform the

BMOF’s stage one build and stage two formative evaluation research

activities. Next, stage one’s build research activity focuses on

the development of the: 1) constructs (i.e., concepts and actors);

2) models (i.e., categories); and 3) methods (tasks, steps, or

procedures) needed to instantiate the initial BMOF. Subsequently,

phase one ends with the formative evaluation of the BMOF’s

utility as an enterprise-wide business management capability to

support the research’s central phenomenon of aligning the firm’s

structure, strategy and technology elements. As depicted in

Figure 3.1 below, phase two of the methodology first connects

phase one’s dominant (QUAL) data results with phase two’s

supporting (quan) data findings to further explore the use of LSS

Value Stream Mapping (VSM) and Kaizen methodologies to advance

the firm’s use of process improvement best practices (George,

Page 98 of 216


2003) in the areas of: 1) mixed methods research design; 2)

enterprise-wide program and business management and strategy

development.

Figure 3.1: Exploratory-Sequential Mixed Methods Research Design

Flow (Source: Creswell and Plano Clark 2007, pp 75-79).

Page 99 of 216

(QUAL)

Interpretati

on based on

connecting QUAL quan design-based and performance-based Data Result

s

Design-Based

Research

Phase One (QUAL) Oct 2006 - Aug

2008

QUAL

Data

Collection

using purposeful

and theoritical, sampling

QUALOpen, Axial, and Selective CordingDataAnalysis

QUAL

Theorize and Build Research Activities , based on program

and business management data

Formative Evaluation

of BMOF

Instantiationand

CONOPS

for operational deployment

QUAL connecting to quanLSS Process Improvement DataCollection

LSSProces ImprovementQUAL quanDataAnalysis

LSS quanResults toInform BMOF'sCONOPS

DESCRIPTION:1. Research Design = Mixed Methods Research2.Type = Problem Centered, BMOF Instrument Design, Build and Evaluation2. Methodology = Exploratory-Sequential (QUAL) connecting to (quan) (QUAL quan)3. Priority = Phase one QUAL is the dominent phase and Phase-two's quan) supports 4. Theoretical Perspective and Pragmatic Worldview: -- Phase-one, uses purposeful and theoritical data sampling collection and GT open, axial, and selective coding data analysis methods to develop and evaluate the BMOF's instantiation -- Phase-two (quan) connects to phased one (QUAL) data findings and uses LSS VSM and Kaizen process improvement activities to: 1) Analyze and interpret phase-one’s: (QUAL) data findings ; 2) Instantiate the BMOF as an enterprise-wide business management capability; and 3) evaluate the BMOF utility tfor align the CFBM structure, strategy and technology elements, which in turn, enhances the firm's timely and quality delivery of procuct and service offerings, via the CFBM's value delivery system.

Performance-Based

Research

LEGEND1. (QUAL) = Qualitative 2. (quan) = Quantitative3. GT = Grounded Theory4. BMOF = Business Management Ontology Framework5. LSS = Lean Six Sigma6. CONOPS = Concpt of operations

Phase Two (quan) - Sep 2008 - Oct

2009(quan)

Stage One

Stage Two Stage Three

formative and

summsry evaluation

Connecting to


Subsequently, the third stage will deductively gather LSS PIF

quantitative data results (i.e., statistical performance data) to

support the first stage’s qualitative data findings. The study

will conclude with an evaluative summary of the utility of the

BMOF to support both organizational alignment and product and

service delivery business strategy.

3.5. Developing Theoretical Sensitivity

3.5.1. Rationale for Integration of the MMRD with the DSRF

During the early conduct of the theoretical portion of the

literature review, detailed in chapter two, it slowly became

apparent to me that to gain theoretical sensitivity, I must

combine the exploratory-sequential (QUAL quan) MMRD and DSRF

for the following three reasons. First, this combination is

necessary to utilize a pragmatic worldview that draws on diverse,

authoritative and empirical documentation from: 1) business model

design; 2) strategy development; and 3) Lean Six Sigma (LSS)

process improvement data sources to maintain theoretical

sensitivity (Glaser, 2004) with the data. According to Glaser

and Holton (2004, Para, 43):

Page 100 of 216

QUAL

Theorize and Build Research Activities , based on program

and business management data

Formative Evaluation

of BMOF

Instantiationand

CONOPS

for operational deployment

QUAL connecting to quanLSS Process Improvement DataCollection

DESCRIPTION:1. Research Design = Mixed Methods Research2.Type = Problem Centered, BMOF Instrument Design, Build and Evaluation2. Methodology = Exploratory-Sequential (QUAL) connecting to (quan) (QUAL quan)3. Priority = Phase one QUAL is the dominent phase and Phase-two's quan) supports 4. Theoretical Perspective and Pragmatic Worldview: -- Phase-one, uses purposeful and theoritical data sampling collection and GT open, axial, and selective coding data analysis methods to develop and evaluate the BMOF's instantiation -- Phase-two (quan) connects to phased one (QUAL) data findings and uses LSS VSM and Kaizen process improvement activities to: 1) Analyze and interpret phase-one’s: (QUAL) data findings ; 2) Instantiate the BMOF as an enterprise-wide business management capability; and 3) evaluate the BMOF utility tfor align the CFBM structure, strategy and technology elements, which in turn, enhances the firm's timely and quality delivery of procuct and service offerings, via the CFBM's value delivery system.

LEGEND1. (QUAL) = Qualitative 2. (quan) = Quantitative3. GT = Grounded Theory4. BMOF = Business Management Ontology Framework5. LSS = Lean Six Sigma6. CONOPS = Concpt of operations


“A researcher requires two essential characteristics for the development of

theoretical sensitivity. First, he or she must have the personal and

temperamental bent to maintain analytic distance, tolerate confusion and

regression while remaining open, trusting to preconscious processing and to

conceptual emergence. Second, he/she must have the ability to develop

theoretical insight into the area of research combined with the ability to make

something of these insights. He/she must have the ability to conceptualize and

organize, make abstract connections, visualize and think multivariately. The first

step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter the research setting with as few

predetermined ideas as possible—especially logically deducted prior hypotheses.

The research problem and its delimitation are discovered”.

Next, utilizing a pragmatic world view allows me to continue

the journey towards theoretical sensitivity by supporting the

qualitative mixing of the pragmatic worldview elements (see

column one in Table 3.1) under one theoretical data population.

The focus on theoretical sensitivity also improves the richness

of my emerging nascent alignment theory (i.e., new and unproven

theory) and provides a substantive data source from which I can

assess the data’s value for supporting inductive and deductive

problem centered research activities. As illustrated in Table

Page 101 of 216


3.1, this pragmatic worldview is needed to both collecting

qualitative and quantitative nascent theory data (Edmondson and

McManus, 2007) and for analyzing the data, using inductive mixed

methods research activities.

3.5.2. Rationale for Integration of the MMRD with the DSRF

As depicted in Table 3.1, this pragmatic worldview focuses

on the consequences of the research (Creswell, 2003). This fits

well with my desire to use a combined MMRD and DSRF approach that

is dominated by qualitative GT research activities to flush out

the theoretical sensitivity thread and to address the question of

how to create value through the alignment of the firm’s structure

strategy and technology elements. As well as how to create value

by increasing the firm’s ability to deliver timely and quality

product and service offerings via the CFBM’s value delivery

systems?

Page 102 of 216


Table 3.1: Use of Creswell’s (2003) Worldview Framework to Gain

Theoretical Sensitivity:

Next, March and Smith’s (1995) DSRF was chosen over other

DSRFs because their DSRF categorizes design-science research into

two distinct research areas: natural-science and design-science.

From these natural-science and design-science categories, March

and Smith (1995) further identify four natural-science research

activities and four corresponding design-science research outputs

Page 103 of 216


as a basis for collecting, sampling, coding and analyzing

existing data from a theoretical perspective. Additionally,

using March and Smith’s (1995) proven DSRF supports the final

instantiation of the BMOF in a customer-focused business

environment. As depicted in Table 3.2 below, the following four

natural science research activities represent descriptive

science, whose primary aims is to descriptively explain the " how

and why things are” (March and Smith, 1995):

1) Theorizing: March and Smith (1995) state that theories explain

the characteristics of the artifact and its interaction with

the environment that result in the observed performance.

Theories explicate "why and how” the constructs, models,

methods, and instantiation work. "

2) Building: Building is the process of constructing an artifact

for a specific purpose (Jokela, 2001). According to March

and Smith (1995), in the building process, one develops

constructs, models, methods and instantiation to build artifact (s)

that will perform a specific task of value or utility to a

community of users.

Page 104 of 216


3) Evaluating: Evaluation is the process of determining how well

the artifact performs (Jokela, 2001). March & Smith identify

the following evaluation metrics for the different

artifacts:

a. Evaluation of constructs: "completeness, simplicity,

elegance, understandability, and ease of use" (March

and Smith, 1995).

b. Evaluation of models: "fidelity with real world

phenomena, completeness, level of detail, robustness,

and internal consistency" (March and Smith, 1995).

c. Evaluation of methods: "operationality (ability to

perform the intended task or the ability of humans to

effectively use the method if it is algorithmic),

efficiency, generality, and ease of use" (March and

Smith, 1995).

d. Evaluation of instantiations: "efficiency and

effectiveness of the artifact and its impacts on the

environment and users" (March and Smith, 1995).

4) Justify: March & Smith (1995), state that justifying is about

the gathering and assessment of natural and scientific

evidence (i.e., data) to explain and test theories.

Of note here is the fact that the justify research activities are

not addressed in this study. Justify research activities are

Page 105 of 216


outside of the scope of this dissertation but are a desired

future research topic for a research project focused on

qualitative performance-based analysis in the business management

discipline.

Table 3.2: March and Smith (1995) Generic Design-Science Research

Framework

In concluding the description of the DSRF elements, the following

four research outcomes represent a chance for the research to

employ a rigorous DSRF approach to better understand the causal

and intervening conditions that the research must model and

analyze to gain theoretical sensitivity:

Page 106 of 216


1) Construct: Constructs (i.e., concepts) form the vocabulary of

a domain. They constitute a conceptualization used to

describe problems within a domain (March and Smith, 1995).

2) Model: A model is a set of propositions or statements

expressing relationships (i.e. tasks, situations, or

processes) among constructs (March and Smith, 1995). In

design activities, March and Smith (1995) maintain that

models represent situations as problem and solution

statements representing how things are.

3) Method: A method is process (i.e., set of steps or an

algorithm or guideline) used to perform a task (March and

Smith, 1995). Methods are based on a set of underlying

constructs (language) and a representation (model) of the

solution space (Jokela, 2001).

4) Instantiation: An instantiation is the realization of an

artifact in its environment to operationalize constructs,

models and methods (March and Smith, 1995).

3.5.3. Utilizing Grounded Theory to gain Theoretical Sensitivity

Grounded Theory refers to theory that is developed

inductively from a corpus of data (Borgatti, 2006). Grounded

Page 107 of 216


Theory (GT) was introduced by Glaser and Strauss in their 1967

book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Moghaddam, 2006). The

book was based on a justification for using qualitative research

to build up theoretical analysis frameworks (Trochim, 2004). The

qualitative research activity of naming or labeling things,

categories, and properties is termed coding in qualitative

research. In grounded theory, coding can be done very formally

and systematically or quite informally. In most qualitative

studies, as wells in this particular dissertation, it is normally

done quite informally (Creswell, 2003). GT’s coding is best

thought of as a kind of content analysis research of the data to

find and conceptualize the core issues from within the enormous

data population (Creswell, 2003). According to Borgatti (2006),

“…the basic idea of the GT approach is to read (and re-read) a

textual database (such as a corpus of field notes) and "discover"

or label variables (called categories, concepts and properties)

and their interrelationships”. The ability to perceive variables

and relationships is termed "theoretical sensitivity" and is

affected by a number of things including one's reading of the

Page 108 of 216


literature and one's use of techniques designed to enhance

theoretical sensitivity (Borgatti, 2006).

3.6. Summary of the Significant of this MMRD and DSRF Approach

Summarized, the significance of this methodology is that it

employs a pragmatic worldview, consisting of an exploratory-

sequential (QUALquan) MMRD and DSRF to theorize, build and evaluate

the research outcomes of: 1) constructs; 2) models; and 3) methods.

This activity allows me to conduct build research activities to

instantiation a BMOF in an operational business environment. The

research methodology is also significant because the instantiated

BMOF can provide the firm with an enterprise-wide business

management capability for continuously aligning the firm’s

structure, strategy and technology elements, in a customer-

focused business environment. For this reason, the philosophical

assumption here is that this study is of significance because it

will test the hypothesis that through the continuous and correct

alignment of the firm’s structure, strategy and key technological

elements, the organization’s personnel will have the ability to

positively influence and direct the timely and quality delivery

Page 109 of 216


of product and service offerings via the CFBM’s value delivery

system.

Page 110 of 216


CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

4.1. Introduction

As articulated previously in this study the purpose of this

study was to utilize an explorative-sequential (QUAL quan)

MMRD and DSRF approach to “theorize”, “build” and “instantiate” a

Business Management Ontological Framework (BMOF) to continuously

support the organizational management personnel’s structure,

strategy and technology alignment activities. These alignment

activities have a desired outcome objective of enhancing the

firm’s ability timely deliver quality products and service

offerings to its customers via a customer-focused value delivery

system. Thus, the analysis in chapter four is focused on both the

alignment of organizational resources and the creation of synergy

in the use of those resources for executing the firm’s business

logic. Additionally, the theoretical and content analysis

activities reported in chapter four predominantly used

qualitative grounded theory to address three organizational

alignment core phenomena. These include: 1) the alignment of

organizational structures; 2) the alignment of business

strategies; and 3) the alignment of technologies to support the

Page 111 of 216


firm’s business management goals and business strategy execution.

Finally the focus on alignment increased the firm’s competitive

advantage by continuously providing it with a management tool

that supported answering the following research question:


support the alignment of its structure, strategy and technology elements

to, in turn, enhance the firm’s ability to timely deliver quality product and

service offerings via its customer-focused value delivery system?

4.2. MMRD and DSRF Methodology

First, the research employed the use of grounded theory

coding to theorize and build the constructs, models and methods

necessary to “instantiate” (March and Smith, 1995) the BMOF. Second

the research conducted theoretical and constant comparative data

analysis to collect, sample, code, sort, and iteratively analyze

the sample data that supported the research’s central phenomenon:

deployment of the BMOF that supported the firm’s alignment of its

structure, strategy and technology elements. Third, the research

activities connected phase one’s qualitative (i.e. dominant GT)

data findings with phase two’s quantitative (i.e., supporting)

LSS process improvement activities and performed iterative and

Page 112 of 216


evaluative analysis which assessed the causal relationships

between the firm’s structure, strategy and technology elements as

they recursively interacted with each other while executing the

organization’s business strategy.

4.3. The Research Context

This study’s research activities focused on the collection

and theoretical analysis of documental (i.e. textual and

graphical) data that specifically supported the BMOF’s build

research activities, in phase one. Accordingly, all documental

data was retrieved from open or public domains. The sittings for

conducting the documental collection and analysis research

activities included office, classroom, library and on-line

environments. Finally, software tools were used in this study to

conduct data coding and analysis activities. The qualitative data

collection and analysis software tools included Microsoft word,

power-point and excel software tools and applications. The

quantitative data collection and analysis software used in this

study was Lean Six Sigma statistical software from QI Micro for

Excel. The primary software tool that I used from QI Micro was

Page 113 of 216


its SPC Software for Excel suite, which consisted of the

following five software bundles (QI Micro, 2009):

1) Over 30 charts including histograms, pareto charts,

scatter plots, box whisker plots and all variable and

attribute control charts. Just select your data and then

click on the QI Macros menu and select the chart you want

to run.

2) Over 80 Fill-in-the-blank templates and tools including

fishbones, FMEA, DOE, Gage R&R, PPAP forms and more.

3) Statistical tools including Anova, f-test, t-test,

regression, data normality test, sample size calculator

and more.

4) Data Transformation tools to help organize and analyze

your data including stack and restack, and WordCount and

PivotTable Wizards.

5) Automated Control Chart Dashboards - just drop your data

into these pre-formatted templates.

Page 114 of 216

http://www.qimacros.com/qiwizard/control-chart-dashboard.html

http://www.qimacros.com/free-excel-tips/data-transformation.html

http://www.qimacros.com/statistical-tools-excel.html

http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-tools.html

http://www.qimacros.com/six-sigma-charts.html


4.4. Phase One (QUAL): Theoretical GT Data Collection and

Analysis Methodologies

4.4.1. Stage One: Data Sampling:

From a Relational Reasoning Perspective the three

qualitative data collection and analysis methods in stage one

(refer to Figure 3.1) employed relational reasoning and open,

axial, and selective coding GT research methodologies to code and

analyze the theoretical data. In stage one I examined the

theoretical relationships between the organizations: 1)

executive; 2) functional; 3) and program management personnel by

collecting and analyze program and business management documental

data. This allowed me to begin to conceptualize the causal

relationships between the organization’s executive, functional

and program levels. The following three definitions are intended

to provide the reader with a conceptual idea of the open coding

process that I performed to develop the initial BMOF’s

organizational categories. This first coding focused on defining

the organizational personnel at the perceptual level,

categorizing consisted of the process of identifying, coding, and

categorizing the primary patterns of alignment from the data. I

Page 115 of 216


used an affinity diagram to select and code words that related to

the core phenomenon of defining, managing and implementing the

strategy for aligning the firm’s structure, strategy and

technologies elements. The following three definitions emerged,

over time, from the use of open coding to support the theme of

alignment. The highlighted words all relate to activities that

assisted in the production of management artifacts that supported

the theoretical alignment, synergy and enterprise value theoretical

threads:

1) Executive level: The organization’s executive level is

comprise of executive leaders and senior management type

decision-makers who provide vision, leadership and long-term

strategic direction to the firm’s enterprise-wide management

team (EWMT) personnel in the form of policies, governance,

processes and financial frameworks. This, in turn, enables the

EWMT to communicate, develop and execute the firm’s business

logic for making money and delivering customer-focused value.

2) Functional Level: The organization’s functional level consists

of functional staffs (i.e. business operations, business

development, contracts, legal, supply chain management,

Page 116 of 216


IT support, finance, etc…) who provide the functional and

intellectual resources (i.e., personnel, subject matter

expertise, capital equipment, technical IT materials,

etc…) which enable the EWMT to manage the day-to-day

execution of the firm’s collective program/business

management , process improvement operations and business

strategy.

3) Program level: The organization’s program level consist of

technical, program and business operational groups, teams

and/or individuals who provide focused practitioner support

(i.e., technical, management, business operations and

subject matter functional support) that enables the firm’s

EWMT to define, analyze and implement a very specific

program-level day-to-day business rhythms and operational support

activities. This, in turn, enables the continuous creation of

the customer-focused business model relationships that enables

product and service offerings to be proactively assessed and

delivered to customers via the firm’s customer-focused value

delivery system.

Page 117 of 216


From this simple example the reader can begin to realize the

process associated with open coding to identify, code, and

categorize the primary patterns in the data. Inductively this

illustrates that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis

emerged out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior

to beginning the data collection and analysis research

activities.

4.4.2. Stage One: Data Sampling and Coding Overview

Stage one’s data sampling activities used “purposeful and

theoretical” (Tuckett, 2004) data sampling methodologies focused on

the collection of: 1) business modeling; 2) strategy modeling;

and 3) program and business management modeling textual and

graphical documental data from the following open source or

public document “sample frame” (Trochim, 2008:

1) Public and open sourced program and business management

graphical models

2) Authoritative professional practitioner books’ textual

data

Page 118 of 216


3) Online public and open source journals, articles and

publications textual data

4) Academic textbook textual and graphical

5) Business management journal articles from the Academy of

Management journal’s on-line database.

The simple frame provided the data to conduct four sampling

activities:

First, the simple frame was reduced to a textual and

graphical document simple size consisting of:

1) Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology Dissertation

(172 pages);

2) Kaplan’s and Norton’s (1996) Balanced Scorecard

Perspectives book (311 pages)

3) Kaplan’s and Norton’s (2006) Alignment (289, pages)

4) George (2002) Lean Six Sigma Combining Six Sigma Quality

with Lead Speed (295 pages)

5) George (2003) Lean Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma for

Services book (380 pages)

Page 119 of 216


This sample size was chosen because it combined Osterwalder’s

(2004) BMO’s pillars, elements and sub-elements, at the program

and functional level, with Kaplan’s and Norton’s (1996) BSC

perspectives, at the firm’s strategic level. Additionally this

data provided the strategic, functional and program level

ontological elements that later supported the conduct of the LSS

process improvement activities. Based on this initial data

sample, LSS activities were conducted to formatively evaluated

the value, usefulness and efficiency of the BMOF from the BSC’s:

(1) financial, (2) customer, (3) internal process, and (4)

workforce learning and growth perspectives. The most valuable

discovery from these initial stage one sampling and coding

activities was the realization that the combined BSC Perspectives

and BMO Theory, depicted in Table 4.1, are a natural “ontological

fit” (Gruber, 1993) for supporting the BMOF’s concept of

operations at the firm’s executive, functional and program

management levels. Additionally Osterwalder’s (2004) BMO theory

provided the functional ontological concepts, theories and

elements/sub-elements to evacuate the relationships between the

Page 120 of 216


firm’s human agents, structure, strategy, and technology

elements.

Table 4.1:

Combination of Kaplan’s and Norton’s (1996) Balanced Scorecard

and Osterwalder’s (2004) “Business Model Ontology Theories

Page 121 of 216


4 - Balanced Scorecard Perspectives 4 - Pillers 9 - Building Blocks Descriptions

Learning and Grow thCan we continue to im prove and

create value?Product Value Proposition A Value Proposition is an overall view of a com pany's bundle

of products and services that are of value to the cistom er.

Target Custom er The Target Custom er is a segm ent of custom ers a com pany wants to offer value to.

Distribution Channel A Distribution Channel is a m eans of getting in touch with the custom er.Custom er Interface

Relationship The Relationship describes the kind of link a com pany establishes between itself and the custom er.

Value ConfigurationThe Value Configuration describes the arrangem ent of activities and resources that are necessary to create valuefor the custom er.

CapabilityA capability is the ability to execute a repeatable pattern of actions that is necessary in order to create value for the custom er.

Infrastructure M anagem ent Partnership

A Partnership is a voluntarily initiated cooperative agreem ent between tw o or m ore com panies in order to create value for the custom er.

Cost Structure The Cost Structure is the representation in m oney of all the m eans em ployed in the business m odel.

Revenue M odel The Revenue M odel describes the way a com pany m akes m oney through a variety of revenue flows.

Custom er Interface

Infrastructure M anagem ent

Financial AspectsFinancial

How do w e look to our shareholders?

Internal Business ProcesesW hat m ust we excel at?

Custom erHow do our custom ers see us?

Second, based on the above mentioned sample size the first

coding activities included converting the sample size’s data to a

Microsoft WORD 2007 document text format for more constant

comparative analysis of the data. The coding activity started

with the above sample size’s original documents to acquire

“theoretical sensitivity” (Glaser & Holton, 2004) for the organization’s

executive, functional and program level management data. The

coding software tool used here was Microsoft WORD. The use of

Page 122 of 216


WORD’s “find”, “highlight” and “count” features allowed me to use a

simple text search tool to perform informal and unstructured text

and content analysis using a the key word frequencies technique.

These research activities generated a list of all the unique

business management concepts and phenomenon, based on the use of

word and full-text search capabilities. The process went fairly

well, once the data was converted to a WORD “.docx” format. As a

result, constant comparative data analysis was employed to

affinitize the central business themes, facts, opinions and

issues emerging from the data into the following key program and

business management ideas and definitions. This anchored the

program and business management vocabulary around a common

alignment, synergy and framework theme that was derived from the

coded research notes:

1) Business Management: Business management refers to all

the management activities (i.e., financial, legal,

strategic planning, human resource, IT, etc…) carried out

in the course of the firm’s execution of its operational

business support activities, such as controlling,

leading, monitoring, organizing, and planning

Page 123 of 216


program/business operations (Business Dictionary.com,

2009).

2) Business Model: The generic business model is best

defined as a plan that “describes the rationale for how

an organization creates, delivers and captures value”

(Osterwalder, 2009, p.14) My primary use of the term

business model in this research will focus on the

ontological concepts and/or business management

relationships that allow the firm’s leadership and

management personnel to express their business logic for

how the firm: (1) earns money, (2) creates, communicates

and delivers customer value and (3) generates profitable

and sustainable revenue streams.

3) Business Model Ontology: The business model ontology is a

“…semi-formal ontological framework that “…aim[s] at

formalizing business concepts in the business model

domain” (Osterwalder, 2004, p. 44).

4) Ontological Concepts: In the context of this study

ontological concepts are defined as “…a specification of

a conceptualization of objects, concepts, and other

entities that are presumed to exist in some area of

interest (i.e., the program/business management areas of

interest) and the relationships (i.e., the CFBM’s

structure, strategy and technology relationships) that

hold among them." (Gruber, 1992 and Osterwalder, 2004).

Page 124 of 216


5) Customer-focused Business Model (CFBM): CFBM should be

thought of as an agreed on “organizational blueprint”

(Osterwalder 2004)or business management execution plan,

containing “models and methods” (March and Smith, 1995),

whereby the models are use to define the CFBM’s structure,

strategy and technology relationships and their concept

of operation for delivering customer value via its value

delivery system.

6) Customer-focused Value Delivery System: The customer-

focused value delivery system is best thought of as an

end-to-end delivery system that stretches and

collaborates across the firm’s management structure,

functional support organizations and supply/distribution

chains to communicate with and deliver products and

services to the firm’s customers, based on a customer-

focused value proposition.

7) Customer Focused Value Proposition: A customer-focused

value proposition consequently describes the bundle of

products and services that creates value for the

customer, from the customer’s emotional and personal

perspectives. In the context of this research, the

customer-focused value delivery system’s primary

objective is to link the firm’s communication and

distribution channels together (i.e., the organization

and customer-focused business logic) so that the firm can

Page 125 of 216


effectively and efficiently deliver its promised value

proposition to the customer.

8) Business Logic: Business logic is a non-technical term

use in this research as an abstract comprehension of the

workflow, steps and/or procedures that defines the way a

company conducts its business strategy to: 1) earn money;

2) create, market and deliver customer value; and 3)

generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams

(Osterwalder, 2004, p. 15), via its customer-focused

value delivery system.

9) Business Strategy: The business strategy is two-fold:

First it can be defined as a set of goals and specific

action plans that, if achieved, provide the desired

competitive advantage to create customer value and to

meet desired future financial outcomes” (Kaplan and

Norton, 2001). Second, a business strategy identifies the

direction and scope for how the firm matches its vision

and organizational capabilities with the opportunities

in a particular marketplace to successfully accomplish

its business objectives (Osterwalder, 2004)

10) Business Management Ontological Framework (BMOF):

Borrowing from Osterwalder (2004) and Gruber (1992), in

the context of the study, the BMOF should be seen as an

ontological framework that defines the concepts,

theories, relationships, and business management

processes (i.e., its program/business management

Page 126 of 216


workflow, steps and/or procedures) that make up the

organization’s rationale (i.e., its business logic) for

how it will create, manage and deliver customer value and

make money for its employees and shareholders.

11) Business Model Design: Business model design refers to

the activity of theorizing, building, evaluating and

justifying a company’s business logic, using design

methods (i.e., step-by-step “algorithms or guidelines

that will be use to perform task or procedures” (March

and Smith, 1995) to translate the firm’s business

strategy into a business model’s execution blueprint

(Osterwalder, 2004, p. 15).

Third, the use of purposeful and theoretical sampling

established the foundation for the initial conceptualization of

the business management data through coding research activities.

The above business management definitions, concepts, and themes

emerged from the data and were later coded and analyzed using

GT’s constant comparative method. This allowed for the conduct of

inductive reasoning activities that identified the program and

business management traits and trends associated with each word,

phrase and theme. Next the words were analyzed to discover the

concepts and relationships between words to determine theoretical

meanings. This technique allowed me to conceptualize how the

Page 127 of 216


firm’s structure, strategy and technology substantive codes

recursively related to each other as they naturally emerged

(Tuckett, 2004) throughout the study’s constant comparative

analysis research activities.

Fourth, Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology

dissertation, Kaplan’s and Norton’s (1996) Balanced Scorecard

Perspectives book and Alignment (2006) book make up the

“documental simple or data source” (Trochim, 2008) that was used in this

chapter to build and evaluate the BMOF’s instantiation and

deployment activities. The laborious effort of using purposeful

and theoretical sampling was crucial and applicable because

purposeful data collection reduced the sample population to a

“sample frame” (Trochim, 2008) that contained the most relevant

documents, categories, themes and definitions that possessed

specific program and business management traits or qualities

(Tuckett, 2004). As the reader will see in the next section,

purposeful sampling allowed the combination of the strategic

concepts, models and processes from Kaplan’s and Norton’s BCS

Perspectives (1996) and Alignment Theory (2006) with

Osterwalder’s BTO Theory (2004) to analyze the structure,

Page 128 of 216


strategy and technology relationships at a granular level. The

categories and themes introduced in Table 4.1 illustrate the

beginning of the BSC/BTO theoretical alignment thread that

established the criteria for subsequent selective coding of the

BMOF’s emerging key categories of alignment, synergy and

enterprise-wide value.

4.4.3. Open Coding

The utilization of GT’s open coding was the second step in

this research process. Open coding involved the process of

breaking down the data into separate units of meaning to

conceptualize and label it for later theoretical and content

analysis (Moghaddam, 2006). Open coding started the process of

inductively identifying, naming, categorizing and describing the

“alignment” phenomena (Glaser and Holton, 2004) as noted in the

text. Applying open coding to the generic DSRF, as depicted in

Table 3.2., seemed logical because the DSRF’s focus is on design-

science. This facilitated the use of qualitative GT research

activities that conceptualized and developed the initial BOMF’s

executive, functional, and program level descriptive categories.

Thus, the BMOF’s categories, concepts and “descriptive artifacts”

Page 129 of 216


(March and Smith, 1995), depicted in Table 4.2 below, informed

the initial theoretical and content analysis research activities

which, in turn, enabled the specializing of the research’s

language (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) for aligning and

executing the firm’s business logic. This was an important first

step in this study’s GT research because it established the

ground work for articulating the theoretical sensitive for “how

and why things are” (March and smith, 1995) in the firm’s program

and business management domains. Accordingly, the initial open

coding of the DSRF elements in Table 4.2, supported the next step

in the GT process, namely axial coding. Open coding activity was

a crucial part of GT research activities because, from an

inductive perspective, it allowed for the research’s movement

from the general open coding of the concepts and actors (see

Table 4.2); to a more specific, second step, called axial coding.

Page 130 of 216

../../../D:/CTU%20Doctorial%20Program%202006-2010/MGM%20895%20(2010)/Disstertation%20Proposal%20(Oct%2010)/Greene%20Dissertation%20(MMRD)%20Final%20V2%20(21%20Nov%2010).docx#_Table_4.2:_Axial


Table 4.2: Coding Action Matrix for Use in the Management Domain

(Source: March and Smith (1995) and Borgatti, (2006)

Natural Science (NS)ResearchActivities

Theorizing (NS)

Building (DS)

Evaluating (DS)

Justifying (NS)

Design

Science (DS) Research Outcome

Constructs

•Concepts•Theories•Attributes•Relationships •Vocabulary of Dom ain

•Build an artifact to perform a specific task.•Build an artifact as proof of concept that such an artifact can be built

•Com pleteness•Sim plicity•Elegance•Understandability•Ease of use

Not Use

M odels

•Propositions or statem ents expressing relationships (i.e. tasks, situations, or processes) am ong constructs .

•M odel the utility of the artifact•M odel that such an artifact can be constructed

•Fidelity with real world phenom ena•Com pleteness•Robustness•Internal Consistency"

Not Use

M ethods

Processes containing:1) set of steps; 2) an algorithm ; 3) guideline;4) procedures ; and 5) concepts of operations that can be used to perform a task .

•Built as a set of underlying constructs (vocabulary) and representation (m odel) of the solutions space•Built to describeways of perform ing goal-directed activities

•Operational ability to perform the intended task or hum ans’ ability to effectively use the m ethod (if algorithm ic)•Efficiency•General ease of use

Not Use

InstantiationRealization of an artifact in its environm ent to operationalize constructs, m odels and m ethods .

•Built to dem onstrate the feasibility & effectiveness of the m odels and m ethods they contain

•Efficiency and effectiveness of the artifact and its im pacts on the environm ent and users

Not Use

4.4.4. Axial Coding

The primary focus of axial coding research activities were

to continually flush out the causal conditions associated with

Page 131 of 216


the central phenomenon, (i.e., organizational structure, strategy

and technology alignment) and deployment of the BMOF as an

enterprise-wide capability to support the firm’s delivery of

timely and quality product and service offerings, via its CFBM’s

value delivery system. Axial coding is the process of relating

codes (categories and properties) to each other, via a

combination of inductive and deductive reasoning (Trochim, 2005).

To simplify this process, grounded theorists emphasize causal

relationships that fit things into a basic frame of

conceptualized relationships. The frame consists of the following

six conceptual elements” (Borgatti, 2006):

1) Phenomenon: Phenomenon identification is concern with what

in schema theory might be called the name of the schema

or frame. It is the concept that holds the bits together.

In grounded theory it is sometimes the outcome of

interest, or it can be the subject (Borgatti, 2006).

2) Causal conditions: These are the events or variables that

lead to the occurrence or development of the phenomenon.

It is a set of causes and their properties (Borgatti,

2006).

3) Context: Hard to distinguish from the causal conditions. It

is the specific locations (values) of background

variables. A set of conditions influencing the

Page 132 of 216


action/strategy. Researchers often make a quaint

distinction between active variables (causes) and

background variables (context). It has more to do with

what the researcher finds interesting (causes) and less

interesting (context) than with distinctions out in

nature (Borgatti, 2006).

4) Intervening conditions: Similar to context. If we like, we can

identify context with moderating variables and

intervening conditions with mediating variables. But it

is not clear that grounded theorists cleanly distinguish

between these two (Borgatti, 2006).

5) Action strategies: The purposeful, goal-oriented activities

that agents perform in response to the phenomenon and

intervening conditions (Borgatti, 2006).

6) Consequences: These are the consequences of the action

strategies, intended and unintended (Borgatti, 2006).

Accordingly, as depicted in Table 4.3, phase one axial coded

the DSRF’s general concepts and themes and produced a table

(i.e., action matrix) to guide the use of future BMOF axial

coding. Additional this matrix provided a framework that was used

to analyze the causal relationship variables of the core

phenomenon associated with aligning the firm’s structure,

strategy and technology elements (refer to tables 4.1 and 4.2).

Page 133 of 216


Table 4.3: Interpreting Design-Science Research in Program and

Business Management Domain. Primary source of reference comes

from (Jokela, 2001)

In summary, initial axial coding activities in this study

were supported by data sampling, data collection and constant

comparative data analysis research activities. These research

activities drew from a public and/or open sourced

program/business management documental data population,

consisting of textual, graphical and theoretical open sourced

Page 134 of 216


data that maximized the researcher’s “knowledge yield” (McCall &

Bobko, 1990) for conducting problem centered mixed methods and

design-science research activities. As stated earlier in chapter

one, “a researcher’s knowledge yield is enhanced during the

conduct of research when: 1) A range of intriguing new hypotheses

are formulated; 2) precise hypothesis tests are conducted; 3)

detailed explanations for the phenomenon being studied are

provided; 4) alternative explanations for relationships among

variables are eliminated; and 5) other researchers can build on

the study’s findings in a cumulative manner” (Currall & Towler,

2003, p. 514). The use of axial coding established a pattern for

the continued and iterative use of coding that informed the

study’s “build” research activities. As depicted in Table 4.1, by

combining Osterwalder’s (2004) BMO theory and Kaplan’s and

Norton’ (1996) BSC Perspectives to inform Stage One’s GT data

content analysis and formative research evaluation activities,

resulted in the theoretical sensitivity to conduct the study’s

research build activities at the firm’s executive, functional and

program levels. This focus allowed further conduct and constant

comparative analysis to more accurately construct the BMOF’s

Page 135 of 216


elements and sub-elements into an enterprise-wide (i.e., end-to-

end) framework. Understanding the alignment thread facilitated a

better appreciation for the firm’s synergistic and recursive

relationships and business logic for aligning its structure,

strategy and technology elements and customer-focused value

delivery system.

4.4.5. Selective Coding

The third and final coding activity in the GT coding process

was selective coding. Selective coding research activities

supported my rationale for utilizing a combined MMRD and DSRF

approach to inductively address the core problem of

conceptualizing the firm’s business logic (i.e., the why) and its

business strategy (i.e., the how) for aligning its structure,

strategy and technology elements. Selective coding is the

process of choosing one central category to be the core category

or core phenomenon of the study (Creswell, 2003) and relating all

other categories, causal condition and strategies (Creswell,

2006) to support the core phenomenon or central category.

According to Borgatti (2006), “…the essential idea is to develop

a single storyline around which everything else is draped.” There

Page 136 of 216


is a belief by most qualitative researchers that such a core

concept always exists (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). In this

study GT’s selective coding drew from nascent (i.e., new and

unproven) theoretical research, thus, mixing the research’s

“theorize” and “build” activities based on the exploratory-

sequential (QUAL quan) GT research approach, enhanced my

ability to selectively code the firm’s emergent operational

methodology (i.e., concept of operations). This in turn impelled

the research emergently forward and supported the firm’s ability

to align its structures, strategy and technology to enhance the

delivery of timely and quality, tangible and intangibles product

and service offerings, for a price that the customers are willing

to pay. Tangible and intangible products and services were

selectively coded as follows. First, tangible products and

services are physical things that a company produces, which the

customer can see, feel, hold, and purchase. Tangible examples

include: (1) technology, such as a flat screen TV; (2) clothing;

(3) groceries; (4) computer hardware; (5) computer software

programs; or (6) something as simple as basic everyday services

that provide electricity, gas, water to our homes, schools and

Page 137 of 216


businesses. Second, intangible products and services consist of

things that cannot be seen or touched but provide emotional and

personal value to the customer. Intangible products and service

examples include items such as: (1) a written guarantee of

service in the form of a warranty; (2) a verbal guarantee to

provide maintenance and/or repair, as needed; (3) domain names

that the customer values (i.e., Google, Starbucks, Home Depot,

Wal-Mart, etc…); and (4) the emotional advice, quality, prestige

and reputation offered within the service provider’s value

delivery system. Clearly if one reflects on the complex nature of

the organization’s program and business management environments,

it is clear that the firm’s enterprise-wide management team faced

difficult challenges with the employment of the BMOF to identify

the tangible and intangible products and services that a customer

value, is willing to pay for, and that the firm’s value delivery

system can and must leverage to execute firm’s business strategy.

4. 4.6. GT Data Analysis of the BOMF’s Elements and Sub-elements

Chapter one loosely defined the firm’s customer Focus

Business model (CFBM) as an agreed on organizational “blueprint

Page 138 of 216


or execution strategy” (Osterwalder 2004) containing

interdependent structures, strategy and technology elements.

Consequently, the use of open and axial coding identified and

interpreted the concepts for each of the DSRF’s research elements

and revealed the emerging framework of constructs (i.e.,

concepts, themes and core phenomenon). This emerging framework

clarifies the “how and why” (Creswell and Plano Clark) for the

firm’s structures, strategy and technology elements and how they

continuously work together in a relational manner to execute the

firm’s business logic for making money and delivering value to

its customers. Hence, GT coding activities helped to develop and

flush out the central phenomenon (i.e., core theme) of this

study, that being alignment. Next, it was determined that the

BMOF’s concept of operations deployment process must employ a

relational approach, whereby, the models and methods have a

dependent relationship for defining the relational constructs

(i.e., the categories or concepts) in which the firm’s structure,

strategy and technology elements must forge and foster causal

business relationships. This also helped to define the methods

(i.e., tasks steps, procedures, processes and concept of

Page 139 of 216


operations) which the CFBM’s elements must use to execute the

firm’s value delivery system. Understanding the previously

described relational and causal elements from a DSRF perspective

means that the BMOF’s constructs (i.e., concepts and actors),

models (i.e., categories), and methods (tasks, steps, or

procedures) must be instantiated as an end-to-end enterprise-wide

business management capability.

4. 4.7. CFBM’s Structure, Strategy and Technology Elements

Operational Relevance

Throughout the 2007 and 2008 calendar year, the researcher

led a focus group whose goal was to conduct LSS process

improvement activities that developed a strategy and an concept

of operations execution process for migrating legacy service

applications, business management processes and outdated

Information Technology (IT) infrastructure to an open-standard

service-oriented architecture. The focus group’s primary open-

source data sample and business modeling design framework was

Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology BMO (BMO) and his

concepts for creating a three-prong business model alignment

profile, which he termed a “Business Triangle” (Osterwalder,

Page 140 of 216


2004, p. 16). Use of this business triangle supported the focus

group’s research activities to understand the causal

relationships and “recursive interplay” (Giddens, 1984) between the

firm’s structure, strategy and technology elements. As depicted

in Figure 4.1, Osterwalder’s (2004) “Business Triangle” sets the

foundation for defining the repeating or “recursive interplay”

(Giddens, 1984) between the firm’s human agents and the BMOF’s

constructs, models, methods, and concept of operations for instantiation

in any operational environment.

Page 141 of 216


Figure 4.1: Osterwalder’s “Business Triangle” (Source: Osterwalder

2005, pp. 14-15)

4. 4.8. CFBM’s Structure, Strategy and Technology Elements

Recursive Interplay

As depicted in Figure 4.1, at the center of the above

business triangle’s is the business model, which Osterwalder

describes as the “…plan that allows designing and realizing the

business structure and systems that constitute the operational

and physical form the company will take” (2005 p. 14).

Furthermore, Osterwalder (2006, pp. 14-16) states that the

Page 142 of 216


Business model implementation and management include the

translation of the business model into the following, more

concrete, structure, strategy and technology elements:

1) Business structures (e.g. functional staffs, departments,

units, human resources)

2) Business Strategy (e.g. workflows, management processes, data

management, etc…)

3) Technological Infrastructure and systems (e.g. IT facilities, IT

networks, power grids, etc…).

As noted in chapter two’s (section 2.2.1.) literature

review, the “recursive interplay” (Giddens, 1984) between an

organization’s human agents and the firm’s business structure,

business strategy and technological infrastructure is what, over

time, shapes and reshapes the CFBM’s constructs (i.e., concepts and

actors), models (i.e., categories), and methods (tasks, steps, or

procedures) and instantiation (i.e., physical realization) of its

customer-focused value delivery system. To refresh the reader’s

recollection of the meaning of structuration theory from Giddens’

perspective, and to drive home the importance of understanding

the “recursive interplay” (Giddens, 1984) between the firm’s human

Page 143 of 216


agents and the CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology

elements, refer to the example below. The yellow highlighted text

in the definitions below and in Rose’s (2006) example of the

“recursive interplay” (Giddens, 1984) between structural modalities

(i.e., meaning, power and norms) are intended to draw the

reader’s attention to the use of structuration’s modalities in

our everyday activities:

1) Meaning Modality– (structures of Signification): The morals,

values and standards that Human Agents interpret and

communicate to develop rules (i.e., constrains) that

enable or inhibit structure (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p.

149).

2) Power Modality – (structure of Domination): The power,

control and authority that an organization provides for

humans to accomplish outcomes (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991,

p. 149).

3) Norms Modality – (structure of legitimization): Organizing

rules for sanctioned or appropriate conduct, defining the

legitimacy of interaction within a setting’s moral order

(Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149).

Page 144 of 216


Rose’s (2006) example of the human agent’s day-to-day use of

Giddens’ (1984) Duality of Structure Theory’s modalities provides

more clarity to the above definitions as they relate to “recursive

interplay” (Giddens, 1984) in this study:

1) (Norms) = “…The modalities are the means through which individuals are

able to instantiate rule and resource structures in their practice; 2) (Meaning)

= More specifically, social actors draw on structures of "signification"

(language and other symbolic codes) to produce/reproduce "communication"

(meaningful and understandable interactions) via the modality of "interpretive

scheme" (background knowledge regarding the codes); 3) (Power) = When

persons exercise "power" (influence) at the level of concrete practice, they do so

by accessing inter-subjective "domination" structures--whether allocative

(control of materials like budgets) or authoritative (control of people)--through

the modality of "facility" (capacity, capability); 4) (Norms) = Finally, social

agents are able to "sanction" each other by drawing on "legitimation"

structures (moral orders associated with laws, religion) via the "norm"

modality” (HighBeam Research Website, 2008).

In closing, understanding the causal relationship between

the firm’s business structure, business strategy, technological

infrastructure elements, and the human agency’s “free will”

Page 145 of 216


(Giddens, 1984) was critically analyzed in phase two so that data

results and findings it could be interpreted to assess the impact

of these causal relationships on the firm’s timely and quality

delivery variables, based on the human agent’s understanding and

use of the modalities meaning, power and norms.

4.5 Phase One (QUAL) Build Research Activities

4.5.1 Stage one Open Coding and Content Data Analysis to Build

the BMOF’s Executive Level Constructs

The research activities in phase one started by connecting

stage one’s (QUAL) theorize data sampling results with phase one’s

emerging open coding and content analysis data findings to

establish the “analytical rules” (Glasers, and Holton, 2004) for

conducting the phase one build research activities. Employment of

analytical rules to conduct the phase one GT research activities

that would inform the BMOF’s exploratory or pilot “build” and

“evaluative” research activities was the most difficult part of the

study because, at this stage, it was almost impossible to predict

or to define the: 1) constructs; 2) models; or 3) methods that would

make up the final instantiation BMOF. What can be said at this

Page 146 of 216


point in the research is that the BMOF’s theoretical data

analysis activities needed to be supported by specific BMOF build

data content from the literature and that the data’s simple

population should , at least, to consist of Osterwalder’s (2004)

BTO theory data, Kaplan and Norton’s BSC Perspective (1996) and

Strategy Alignment Theory (2006) data, and LLS Value Stream

Mapping (George, 2002 & 2003) data. Trusting in this simple data

was crucial at this point in the research because it helped flush

out the theoretical thread for conducting the BMOF’s build

research activities that would support the BMOF’s concept of

operations and initial formative evaluative research activities.

As a novice researcher, all I knew at this point in the study was

that I needed to try and stay true to Glaser’s (2004) warning

that “…it is critical in GT research to avoid unduly influencing

the pre-conceptualization of the research through extensive

reading in the substantive area and then to force the extant

theoretical overlays on the collection and analysis of [the]

data” (Glaser and Holton, 2004, Para, 46). Thus, I used selective

coding to tie the content analysis research activity to the core

phenomenon of supporting the firm’s initial efforts to align its

Page 147 of 216


structure, strategy and technology elements. The following

questions from Glaser and Holton (2004, Para. 48) were used to

help focus the selective coding activity:

1) What is this data a study of?

Answer: This data is a study of alignment of the

firm’s structure, strategy and technology elements

to increase its ability to provide timely and

quality tangible and intangible product and service

offerings to its customers via a CFBM’s value

delivery system.

2) What category does this incident indicate?

Answer: The BMOF build incident indicates: 1)

alignment: 2) synergy; 3) enterprise value creation

and earn value management categories.

3) What is actually happening in the data?

Answer: The data is emerging into patterns among

incidents that yield codes, concepts and finally

theory for building the BMOF.

4) What is the main concern being faced by the participants?

Page 148 of 216


Answer: How to align the firm’s resources to

synergize its business management process for

instantiating and deploying a BMOF to support the

execution of the CFBM’s business logic.

5) What accounts for the continual resolving of this

concern?

Answer: the firm’s business logic is focused on

aligning the its CFBM’s structure, strategy and

technology elements to enhance its competitive

advantage for delivering timely quality products and

service via the CFBM’s value delivery system.

What answering the five questions revealed is that when

conducting GT analysis the researchers can trust the data and

focus on using a constant comparative data analysis method to

execute the following comparative analysis research actions:

1) Compared incidents in the data to incidents to establish

underlying uniformity and its varying conditions.

2) Use the uniformity and the conditions to generate

concepts and hypotheses.

Page 149 of 216


3) Compared the concepts to more emerging data incidents to

generate new theoretical properties of the emerging

concepts and update the research original hypothesis.

4) Use theoretical elaborations to saturate and verify the

concepts and to develop the concepts’ properties to

recursively generate further concepts.

5) Finally, compared concepts to concepts to establish the

best fit of many choices of concepts to a set of

indicators, and integrate the indicators into hypotheses

between the concepts which will inform and become the

final theory.

Next, armed with the clarity produced by answering Glaser’s

above five questions, I was able to, as Glaser (2004) requested,

“…just treat the literature’s data as another source of emerging

data to be integrated into the GT’s qualitative constant

comparative analysis process…” (Para, 46). Subsequently, the build

research activities focus on supporting the central phenomena of:

1) organizational alignment of resources; 2) synergy of effort to

execute the firm’s business logic; 3) creation of enterprise

value; and 4) program execution through the use of earn value

Page 150 of 216


management. Through the use of GT coding, constant comparative

analysis and content data analysis research activities I produced

the following six categories that make up the BMOF’s key

constructs (i.e., categories and actors) of the executive

(strategic) management level.

1) Governance: Organizational body that provides thought

leadership, policies, procedures and review boards (i.e.,

Change MGT. Risk MGT., Financial MGT., HR MGT., etc...)

to control, manage, review, and validate all

organizational functional staff support activities for

the enterprise. At a minimum this includes: 1) Internal

Process Surveillance 2) Internal HR and Learning MGT.; 3)

Customer Relations and Outreach MGT.; and 4) Financial

MGT.

2) Processes: Enterprise-level written process that provide

detailed step-by-step descriptions with task, condition

and standards for "HOW" to execute enterprise-wide

program and business management standard program and

business management procedure.

Page 151 of 216


3) Measurement and Reviews: Organizational body that

provides performance metrics and review bodies to

monitor, test measure and validate program and business

performance.

4) Productivity and Target Strategy: Organizational body

that synchronizes business plans and talent management

strategies for achieving productivity objectives and long

term business strategies.

5) Customer Relations Management: Organizational body that

provides guidance for developing and managing customer

relations.

6) Financial: Defines and integrates programs' financial

commitments and business revenue generating objectives at

all levels of the enterprise.

As a result, stage one’s constant comparative and content

analysis research activities supported the use of selective

coding and produced this initial model, illustrated in Figure 4.2

below, for the BMOF’s executive level.

Page 152 of 216


Figure 4.2 BMOF’s Executive Level Construct Based on Open Coding

As the reader might recall from the open coding example in

section 4.4.1, in this BMOF’s model the executive (i.e.,

strategic) level is comprise of executive leaders and senior

management type decision-makers who provide vision, leadership

and long-term strategic direction to the firm’s enterprise-wide

management team (EWMT) personnel in the form of policies,

governance, processes and financial frameworks. This, in turn,

Page 153 of 216


enables the EWMT to communicate, develop and execute the firm’s

business logic for making money and delivering customer-focused

value. From selective coding and content analysis we now know

that the executive level employs its top-down leadership, vision

and organizational strategic direction though six categories: 1)

governance; 2) processes management; 3) measurement and reviews;

4) productivity targets and strategy; 5) customer relations

management; and 6) financial management. According to Kaplan and

Norton (1996) the executive organizational level communicates and

drives the organization’s business strategy through the use of

the BSC internal business process (#1) and innovation/learning

(#2) “driver perspectives” (pp. 147-151). The drivers perspective

are measured based on their ability to support the firm’s

business logic for creating customer value and generating profit

based on both the customer (#3) and financial (#4) BSC “outcome

perspectives” (pp. 147-151). Next, as was explained earlier in

Section 4.4.1., through the use of purposeful document data

sampling criteria (Trochim, 2008) I retained the flexibility to

modify and merge categories by continuously conducting

theoretical sampling of the above new data as it emerged

Page 154 of 216


throughout the research’s lifecycle. The focus here was to

identify emerging gaps in the theory to inductively guide the

analysis and to refine the: 1) themes = constructs; 2) codes =

variables and/or scales; and 3) test/performance metrics

(Creswell, 2003) to “build” the rest of the BOMF’s functional and

program levels. Again this was accomplished by the continued

theoretical sorting of the data which later formatively evaluated

the utility of the BMOF’s concept of operations for continuously

aligning the firm’s structure, strategy and technology elements.

To conclude, Figure 4.2 above represents the executive (i.e.

strategic) level of the BMOF.

4.5.2. Stage One: Theoretical Sorting and GT Data Analysis

Activities to Build the BMOF’s Functional Constructs

Stage two’s theoretical data sorting research activities

first focused on inductively employing “purposeful or “expert”

(Trochim, 2008) documental sampling techniques that supported

further content comparative analysis of the emerging data. This

activity further defined the causal conditions, core management

phenomenon and intervening conditions between the BMOF’s initial

“build” research activities and later concept of operations

Page 155 of 216


(CONOPS) deployment processes. Expert sampling in the context of

this study involves the sample size of Osterwalder’s (2004) BTO

Theory data from pages 42-102 and Kaplan and Norton’s (2006)

Alignment theory data from pages 1-156. Stage two’s primary

theoretical sorting activities involved the establishment of the

causal relationship variables among the causal condition and

intervening conditions variables. This helped to better

understand Glaser’s (2004) analytic rules which were used to

guide the “build” research activities through theoretical sorting

and subsequently through selective coding research activities.

According to Glaser (2004, Para, 71):

“While theoretical coding establishes the relationship among variables analytic

rules guide the construction of the theory as it emerges. They [analytic rules]

guide the theoretical sorting and subsequent writing of the theory. Analytic rules

detail operations, specify foci, delimit and select use of the data and concepts,

act as reminders of what to do and keep track of and provide the necessary

discipline for sticking to and keeping track of the central theme as the total

theory is generated”

Glaser (2004) establishes the following fundamental analytic

rules, which is quoted verbatim because of their importance in

Page 156 of 216


guiding this dissertation’s “theorize” and “build” research

activities. Note the use of the (Para, citation) notation for

easy reference back to Glaser original source document:

1) Sorting can start anywhere in the research process. It

will force its own beginning, middle, and end for writing

[Glaser, 2004, Para, 72].

2) Start with the core variable and then sort all other

categories and properties only as they relate to the core

variable. This rule forces focus, selectivity and

delimiting of the analysis [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

3) Theoretical coding helps in deciding and in figuring out

the meaning of the relation of a concept to the core

variable. Thus, theoretical code should be written and

sorted into the appropriate pile with the substantive

code [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

4) Once sorting on the core variable begins, the constant

comparisons are likely to generate many new ideas,

especially on theoretical codes for integrating the

theory [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

Page 157 of 216


5) Stop sorting and memo! Then, sort the memo into the

integration [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

6) The analyst carries forward to subsequent sorts the use

of each concept from the point of its introduction into

the theory [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

7) The concept is illustrated only when it is first

introduced to develop the imagery of its meaning.

Thereafter, only the concept is used, not the

illustration [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

8) All ideas must fit in somewhere in the outline or the

integration must be changed or modified. This is

essential for, if the analyst ignores this fitting of all

categories, he/she will break out of the theory too soon

and necessary ideas and relations will not be used. This

rule is based on the assumption that the social world is

integrated and the job of the analyst is to discover it.

If he/she cannot find the integration, he/she must re-

sort and re-integrate the concepts to fit better [Glaser,

2004, Para, 73].

Page 158 of 216


9) The analyst moves back and forth between outline and

ideas as he/she sorts forcing underlying patterns,

integrations and multivariate relations between the

concepts. The process is intensely generative, yielding

many theoretical coding memos to be resorted into the

outline. Again it cannot be done by the simple code and

retrieve of computer sorting [Glaser, 2004, Para, 73].

Glaser (2004) concludes his important lesson on data sorting

by stating:

“Sorting forces the analyst to introduce an idea in one place and then

establish its carry forward throughout the theory when it is necessary to

use it again in other relations. When in doubt about a place to sort an

idea, put it in that part of the outline where the first possibility of its use

occurs, with a note to scrutinize and pass forward to the next possible

place. Theoretical completeness implies theoretical coverage as far as the

study can take the analyst. It requires that, in cutting off the study, he/she

explains with the fewest possible concepts and with the greatest possible

scope, as much variation as possible in the behavior and problem under

study. The theory thus explains sufficiently how people continually resolve

their main concern with concepts that fit, work, have relevance and are

saturated” (Para, 74).

Page 159 of 216


Next, using the above analytic rules and constant

comparative analysis method called incident comparison; I re-

coded the relationship between the firm’s structure and strategy

elements and identified the incidents that affected the causal

and intervening conditions associated with aligning the firm’s

structure and strategy elements. The data source for this was:

1) Osterwalder’s (2004) Business Model Ontology Dissertation

(pp. 40-102);

2) Kaplan’s and Norton’s (2006) Alignment Using the BSC to

Create Corporate Synergies Book (pp. 1-287)

The rationale for using these documents is that both documents

are recognized in the business management domain as best

practices business management and business modeling frameworks.

Additionally, each has a very extensive excel toolset and

training programs for management personnel and, as mentioned in

chapter one, both are used throughout the Aerospace and

Department of Defense Industries by both industry and government

personnel as part of organizational enterprise management

systems. This the reduction to this simple size and subsequent

Page 160 of 216


data analysis research activities generated my nascent concept

for combining the two to create functional alignment and resource

synergy between the organization’s executive, functional and

program levels. Thus through the use of sorting and constant

comparative analysis (Glaser and Holton, 2004) that connected the

BSC Perspectives with the BTO elements and sub-elements, depicted

in Figure 4.3, below, produced the following executive and

functional level BMOF as a repeatable, conceptual model focused

on addressing the BMOF’s complex build, deployment and utilization

issues:

Page 161 of 216

3. Customer PerspectiveThe customer perspective identifies targeted customer and market Segments and Measures the organization’s success in these

Segments

2. Innovation and Learning PerspectiveThis perspective identifies the capabilities the organization must excel at to

achieve superior internal processes

that create

value

for Customers

and shareholders


Figure 4.3: BMOF Executive and Functional Level

Page 162 of 216

5. Value

Configuration

7. Partnership

6. Capability

1. Infrastructure Management

AgreementRes

ource

Activity

Actor

Offering

1. Value

Proposition

2. Product

2. Target

Customer

4. Relationship

3. Distribution Channel

3. Customer Interface

MechanismLink

Criterion

4. FinancialAspects

Pricing

Account

3. Customer PerspectiveThe customer perspective identifies targeted customer and market Segments and Measures the organization’s success in these

Segments



that create

value

for Customers

and shareholders

4. Financial

PerspectiveThe financial

perspective evaluates the profitability of the Strategy

1. Internal Business

PerspectiveThe financial perspective

evaluates the profitability of the Strategy

Executive (Strategic) Level 6.

Financial Defines and

integrates

programs'

financial

commitments and business revenue generati

ng objectiv

es across the

enterprise based on LPR

4. Productivity Targets and Strate

gyOrganizational body that

synchronizes

business plans and

talent manageme

nt strategies for achievin

g productivity

objectives and long term

business strategi

es

1. Governance

Organizational body that

provides thought leadersh

ip, policies

, procedures and review boards (i.e., Change MGT. Risk MGT.,

Financial MGT., HR MGT., etc...)

to review, control manage and

validate all

organizational

functional staff support activities for the

enterprise

2. ProcessesEnterprise-level written process that

provide detailed step-by-step descriptions with task, condition and standards for "HOW" to

execute enterprise-wide

program and

business

management

standard

program and

business

management

procedure

3. Measurements and

Reviews


provides performa

nce metrics

and review bodies

to monitor,

test measure

and validate program

and business performa

nce

5. Custom

er Relations

Management

Provides guidance

for developing and managing customer relations, to include1) Customer Contact Plan 2) Opportunity Shaping 3) Crisis Management Plan

Drivers

Outcomes

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

Program (Business Unit) Level

Functional (Organizational) Level


The organization’s functional level consists of functional

staffs (i.e. business operations, business development,

contracts, legal, supply chain management, IT support, finance,

etc…) who provide the functional and intellectual resources

(i.e., personnel, subject matter expertise, capital equipment,

technical IT materials, etc…) which enable the EWMT to manage the

day-to-day execution of the firm’s collective program/business

management, process improvement operations and business strategy.

The functional level is where the business model four elements

and nine sub-elements are use to align the organization’s

resources to execute the firm’s business logic and business

strategy. The focus here was on the alignment of the firm’s

executive and functional management independent and dependent

timely and quality value added variables that that supported the

measurement of executive constructs described above. This

coupling further facilitated constant comparative data analysis

and causal data analysis of the following independent and

dependent causal variables:

Page 163 of 216



that create

value

for Customers

and shareholders

1. Governance


provides thought leadersh

ip, policies

, procedures and review boards (i.e., Change MGT. Risk MGT.,

Financial MGT., HR MGT., etc...)

to review, control manage and

validate all

organizational

functional staff support activities for the

enterprise

2. ProcessesEnterprise-level written process that

provide detailed step-by-step descriptions with task, condition and standards for "HOW" to

execute enterprise-wide

program and

business

management

standard

program and

business

management

procedure


1) Independent quantitative variable of “timely delivery” to

the dependent quantitative variables of “early delivery”,

“on-time delivery” or “late delivery” of financial services.

2) Independent qualitative variable of “value” to the

dependent qualitative variables of “value added”, “non-value

added, but necessary” and “on value added” process steps.

The purpose of these selective coding and constant comparison

activities was to specify the final development of the BMOF FPS

product and service offering causal , based on a timely and

quality (i.e., value added) program level and concept of

operations, to establish the best fit for the future BMOF’s

deployment activities.

4.5.3. Phase Two: Formative Evaluative Research Activities to

Build the BMOF’s Program Level Constructs

Stage two’s formative evaluation activities focused on the

following two distinct research frameworks to inform the

theoretical and conceptual causal requirements needed to assess

the BMOF’s instantiation and concepts of operation for deployment

into an operational and customer-focused program and business

environment:

Page 164 of 216


1) Evaluate the BMOF’s concept of operations for deployment in

support of the firm’s structure, strategy and technology

elements’ alignment activities.

2) Evaluate the use of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Value Stream

Mapping (VSM) process improvement performance-based tools

and techniques (George, 2002, 2003 & 2005) to provide a

qualitative and quantitative set of procedures to

collaboratively construct and reflect-in/and on (Schön,

1883) present and past program and business management

process improvement experiences, as a critical part of

the performance-based data collection, analysis and

evaluation research activities.

Stage two’s formative evaluation (Trochim, 2008) began with

a value stream mapping that assessed (George, 2002 & 2003)

whether an operational implementation of the BMOF was feasible

and how the firm’s enterprise-wide management team (EWMT) should

shape the BMOF’s deployment. The evaluation required selective

coding of LSS VSM textual and operational performance data

(George, 2002 & 2003) to established program level constructs

that created a LSS performance-based ontological commitment (Glaser,

Page 165 of 216


(1967) between the firm’s enterprise-wide management personnel

and the program level operational stakeholders. This ontological

commitment is explained in section 4.5.4. Additionally, the LSS

process improvement tools and data analysis techniques provided a

structured improvement activity framework (George, 2003); whereby

a systematic set of qualitative and quantitative process

improvement methods (i.e., procedures or steps) were employed to

identify and eliminate waste (using qualitative lean principles)

and variation (using quantitative statistical analysis) from both

the BMOF’s concept of operations processes and the CFBM’s

execution strategy.

4.5.4. Stage Three: LSS Process Improvement Framework (LSS PIF)

Overview

The LSS ontological commitment mentioned above in

conceptualized in Figure 4.4 below. The LSS Process Improvement

Framework was developed to enhance the firm’s ability to share

and merge its complicated program and business management

vocabulary, concepts and theories into a coherent and repeatable

customer-focused business management strategy, which the firm

Page 166 of 216


used to articulate the strategic goal and objectives for

executing its CFBM’s business logic.

Figure 4.4: Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement Framework (Source:

Kolb (1984), Learning Cycle Schön; (1983), Reflective

Practitioner and Brown & Keeley’s (2004), Asking the Right

Questions A Guide to Critical Thinking, 7th Edition

Page 167 of 216


The above elements of the LSS PIF are based on Kolb’s (1984)

four-stage learning cycle and Schön’s (1983) reflective-

practitioner’s model for how professionals think-in-action

through a reflective-in-action learning process. The four areas

described below make up the Reflective-Practitioner’s thought

process for conducting reflective thinking-in-action to deal with

uncertainty and unique situations.

1) Concrete Experience (CE): Used to diagnose the concrete

experience by documenting the current state of the

experience and asking the question what are the major

issues, concerns and possible conclusion?

2) Reflective Observation (RO): Used to rationalize or make sense of

the concrete experience through reflective observation,

participants will examine, construct, evaluate and then

reconstruct their concerns, observations and discoveries.

Reflection includes the proactive use of Lean Six Sigma

methodologies to facilitate proactive discussion by the

participants where they identify a shared concern or

problem using a Lean Six Sigma VSM or Kaizen approach.

Page 168 of 216


3) Action Theory of the Situation (AC): Used to continuously assess

the situation, determine the bottom-line and “Way

Forward” plan for follow on actions and evaluation of

changes.

4) Action Experiment (AE): Used to reflect-in-action and to

develop assumptions, evaluate implications and

conclusions for experimenting with logical and practical

solutions and actions to uncertainty and unique

situations that is happening in real-time.

Next, stage three utilized sequential QUAL quan data

collection and constant comparative analysis research activities

to inform the design and use of a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Process

Improvement Framework (i.e., LSS PIF) to conduct final summary

evaluation of the research’s combined design-science and

performance-based data results. Accordingly, the LSS PIF was best

supported by the use of LSS qualitative and quantitative tools

and methodologies that promoted the organization’s broad

participation in process improvement events that supported the

instantiation of the BMOF. Hence, the LSS PIF was used to

Page 169 of 216


facilitate constructive learning and participatory content

analysis. Using this LSS PIF the participants actively engaged in

formal or semi-formal facilitated LSS PI activities and

collaboratively explored qualitative and quantitative methods

that would institutionalize the program and functional level

processes for aligning the CFBM’s structure, strategy and

technology elements. The goal here was to increase the firm’s

timely delivery of quality product and service offerings, via the

CFBM’s value delivery system while reaming focused on the need to

tie the concept of operations to the program’s earned value

management system. Subsequently, based on the emerging themes,

the following basic ground rules were established to ensure that

functional staff or individual participants conducting LSS events

have a good understanding of what research activities or

processes they could or should perform, based on the following

analytical rules (Glaser and Holton, 2004).

1) Apply a sequential (QUAL then quan) MMRD and DSRF to the

data collection, analysis and evaluation processes; while

exploring multiple emergent data streams to inform the

Page 170 of 216


final formative and summary evaluation of the BMOF’s

CONOPS processes.

2) Apply open, axial and selective coding grounded theory

methodologies to identify and interpret the firm’s

structure, strategy and technology alignment phenomena,

concepts, theories, and business relationships to develop

an emergent concept of operations for the BMOF.

3) Apply Kolb’s (1976) learning in action and Schön’s (1983)

reflective – practitioner approaches to study how human

agents create and apply “Duality of Structuration”

(Giddens, 1984) modalities of meaning, power and norms

constructs (i.e., concepts) to their professional

experiences in a customer-focused operational and

business management environment.

4) Develop a qualitative open-ended BMOF concept of

operations questionnaire to inform Phase Two’s

quantitative data analysis and interpretation of the BMOF

concept of operations execution strategy.

Page 171 of 216


5) Create a LSS PIF focus group where participants feel that

they can make a significant contribution to the BMOF’s

operational case/field study activities.

6) Use the LSS PIF, depicted in Figure 4.4 above to collect,

analyze and interpret the BMOF’s data findings in order

to collaboratively act upon newfound information and

knowledge from a reflective-practitioner’s ( Schön, 1983)

perspective.

Next, the results of these LLS PIF activities produced the

following BMOF’s program level constructs, illustrated in Figure

4.5 below. The organization’s program level consist of technical,

program and business operational groups, teams and/or individuals

who provide focused practitioner support (i.e., technical,

management, business operations and subject matter functional

support) that enables the firm’s EWMT to define, analyze and

implement a very specific program-level day-to-day business

rhythms and operational support activities. The program level of

the organization is where the business logic is executed. Thus

the BMOF’s constructs (i.e., categories and actors) from the

executive and functional levels are aligned to provide leadership

Page 172 of 216


and management structure to the program level. The functional

level’s customer focused business model, in turn, enables the

continuous creation of the customer-focused business model

relationships that support the timely delivery of product and

service offerings to the firm’s customers via its customer-


Page 173 of 216

6. Financial Long Range Plan based on: 1) 1. Orders; 2) Sales; 3) EBIT; and 4) Cash6a. Cost Structures based on contract type 1) Firm, Fixed Price (FFP); 2) Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF); 3) Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF); 4) Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) 6b. Revenue model for how the program makes money through revenue flows

4. Product or service Offering -- Reasoning -- Utility -- Price -- Offering Life Cycle4a. Monitor/Manage Critical Baselines4b. Customer Interface 4c. Distribution Channel4d. Risk/Opportunity MGT.4e. Talent MGT.4f. Employee Career Dev. & Training -- Functional TRN. -- Leadership Dev. TRN. -- Academic TRN

1. Governance Program Command Media1a. Business Review -- LRP Reviews -- LOB's QTR Reviews 1b. Operational Reviews 1c. Program Reviews -- Weekly -- Monthly -- Quarterly1d. Customer Reviews1e. Engineering Reviews1f. Technology Reviews

2. Program Process Improvement Command Media2a. Lean Six Sigma2b. Standard Operting procedures2c. Engineerig Change Documents2d. Architecture Reference Models2e. Ect...

3. Program Performance Measurement and Reviews Command Media1a. Strategy Maps/Balance Score Card1b. CMMI (Levels 3, 4, and 5)

5. Customer tangible and intangible criterion for purchasing product and services offerings5a. Program value delivery system is based on: -- Customers' buying cycle -- Product's or service's value life cycle5b. Customer Trends Analysis5c. Customer Satisfaction Measurement5d. Customer Service Model5e. Customer Relations MGT. Plan -- Crisis MGT -- Audit MGT -- Contact/Call Plan -- Communication Plan


Figure 4.5: BMOF Executive, Functional and Program Level

Constructs

Page 174 of 216

Program (Business Unit)

Level





3. Program Performance Measurement and Reviews Command Media1a. Strategy Maps/Balance Score Card1b. CMMI (Levels 3, 4, and 5)


3. Customer Perspective

2. Innovation and Learning Perspective

4. Financial

Perspective

1. Internal Business

Perspective

Accounting System MGT. Tool

Organization

Sec 1: Contract AuthorizationSec 2: Organization SOW, OBS, WBS, RAM and IMPSec 3: Control Account & Change Number Control Account Change Number

Planning Scheduling and Budgetin

gSec 4: Program Planning & Performance PSMS and IMSSec 5: Work Authorization Document (WAD)Sec 6: Program Level Budgeting CBB, PMB, MR, UB and Summary PPSec 7: Control Account Planning and Performance Control Account, WP, PP, EV Technique, RW and MRP

Analysis and Management

(A&M) ReportsSec 9: Estimate or Complete/Estimate at Complete Monthly Annually EAC Change RequestSec 10: Performance Analysis Evaluation, and Reporting Weekly/Monthly VARSec 11: Risk and Opportunity MGT. R/O MGT. Plan

Revisions and Data Maintenance

Sec12: Baseline Change Control MGT. Rpt. Customer Rpt. Baseline Change Control Docs

Program Management EVM Functional

ElementsBaseline Control Tool

A&M Reports' Tool

EVMTool

WBS Dictionary Tool

Accounting Sec 8: Accounting Time-Phased Budget Spread Control Account Plan Time-Phased ETC Spread Actual Costs Manufacturing & Material Rpt. Earn Value Status

Program

Excellence

Plans (PEPs)

Lean Six Sigma Process

Improvement Activities

-- Value Stream Mapping-- Kaizens (Data MGT. , Work Flow, Mistake Proffing, etc...)-- Product Design Kaizen (PDK)-- Root cause Alalysis (RCA)-- Technical Design Kaizen (TDK)-- Supply Chain MGT Kaizen

Scheduling Plans -- Integrated master Plan & -- Integrated master Schedules

Finance & Accounting Plans

PPM A&M Reports

ETC/EAC VARR/O MGT. Plans

Baseline Control MGT Plans

Customer Relations

MGT.

Plan

New Business Development Plan


4.6. Stage Three (quan): Case Study BMOF Financial Planning

System (FPS) Value Stream Mapping Summary Evaluation from a

Causal Analysis Perspective

Before we begin this assessment it is essential that we

understand some basic lean terminology that will be presented in

this section. The current BMOF FPS has limited ability to test

for two independent variables: 1) timeliness = process cycle

efficiency; and 2) quality value = value added, non-value but

necessary and non-value added) work in progress (WIP). WIP is

work that has been started but not yet completed. Process cycle

efficiency (PCE) is a critical metric of waste for any service

process. PCE is what percentage of the total cycle time spent in

value-added activities defined as the total amount of time spent

performing value added tasks vs. non-value added but necessary

and non-value added WIP tasks throughout the process step’s cycle

time. The process cycle time is defined as the total time it

takes to complete the work in process (WIP) from start to finish.

PCE = Value-add time divided by total lead time. Lead time is the average

time it takes you to deliver your service or product once the

order is triggered - from start to finish - including time

Page 175 of 216






Organization

Sec 1: Contract AuthorizationSec 2: Organization SOW, OBS, WBS, RAM and IMPSec 3: Control Account & Change Number Control Account Change Number

Planning Scheduling and Budgetin

gSec 4: Program Planning & Performance PSMS and IMSSec 5: Work Authorization Document (WAD)Sec 6: Program Level Budgeting CBB, PMB, MR, UB and Summary PPSec 7: Control Account Planning and Performance Control Account, WP, PP, EV Technique, RW and MRP

Analysis and Management

(A&M) ReportsSec 9: Estimate or Complete/Estimate at Complete Monthly Annually EAC Change RequestSec 10: Performance Analysis Evaluation, and Reporting Weekly/Monthly VARSec 11: Risk and Opportunity MGT. R/O MGT. Plan

Revisions and Data Maintenance

Sec12: Baseline Change Control MGT. Rpt. Customer Rpt. Baseline Change Control Docs

Accounting Sec 8: Accounting Time-Phased Budget Spread Control Account Plan Time-Phased ETC Spread Actual Costs Manufacturing & Material Rpt. Earn Value Status


waiting between sub-processes: Lean Time = amount of WIP divided by

average completion rate. As mentioned in section 2.4.1, lean process

improvement activities attempt to identify the following seven

types of process waste (GS Website, 2009, pp. 262-267):

1) Overproduction

2) Excess inventories

3) Non-value added process steps

4) Excess people movement,

5) Excess material transportation,

6) Waiting

7) Non-value added goods of services

To formative and summarily evaluate the utility and

repeatability of the BMOF financial planning system (BMOF FPS),

LSS value stream mapping activities were conducted to assess the

timeliness and quality of the current BMOF FPS ‘ data input

process. The details and process improvement activities will be

explained as they naturally occurred during the LSS VSM. The

purpose is not to assess the LSS VSM process, but rather the

deployment of the BMOF’s concept of operation for supporting the

BMOF FPS business logic for providing timely and quality value

Page 176 of 216


added product and service offerings to the BMOF FPS’s data input

process. The BMOF FPS’s process information will be analysis

based on its flow through the internal notional BMOF FPS.

Next, the following VSM categories were coded to articulate

the process 1) problem statement; 2) customer’s value 3)

timeliness (i.e., process cycle time efficiency) and quality

(i.e. value added and non-value added) process improvement

objectives, 4) desired future state deliverables, and 5)

measurable significant results.

1) Problem Statement:

The current BMOF FPS software is not user friendly and is

not “tuned” for mistake-proofing. Additionally there is little to

no functional planning guidelines available with descriptions and

plans for upgrading the BMOF FPS in the future. Finally current

process has points of contact (POC) available to provide tech

support and to work off software abnormalities, as required.

2) Customer Value:

Page 177 of 216


The customer values a BMOF FPS that is user friendly,

automated and has its software “tuned” for mistake-proofing.

Additionally the customer wants software changes to be made

immediately and transparently across the numerous user functions

with minimum impact to timeliness and quality delivery of product

and service offerings. Finally the customer values a FPS with

auto-notification of pending transactions.

3) Objectives:

(1) Automation

Tune BMOF FPS software for mistake-proofing

Automate BMOF FPS software functions to improve user

input error rates

Provide auto-notification of request for BMOF FPS

availability

(2) Process:

Develop & Distribute functional planning guidelines

for two major BMOF FPS functions (less planning

methodology variance)

Identify product planning POCs and develop

guidelines and description for publishing the

guidelines via command media for major functional

groups

Page 178 of 216


Mistake-proof the BMOF FPS software and automate

functional and auto-notification processes to

improve TAKT or touch time (i.e., the actual time

engaged in the financial planning system activity,

touch time stops when the actor or activity stops

for whatever reason).

4) Deliverables:

1) High-level CONOPS and final gap analysis for all BMOF FPS

software automation and functional capability upgrades

2) To-be (i.e., future state) flow diagram for entering,

selecting, managing, updating and distributing “BMOF FPS

financial data” to customers/stakeholders

3) Recommended Steps for BMOF FPS database implementation.

4) Recommended Standard Operating Procedure for database

process flow.

5) Inputs, Process, Outputs (IPO) Diagramming Technique:

As depicted in Figure 4.6, the first step in the VSM process

was to use an input-process-output (IPO) method of coding that

captured critical BMOF FPS process information. IPO stands for

inputs, process and output. The IPO is a high-level process map

that helps define the start and end points of a process, whereby

output quality is analyzed for improvement based on analyzing

input and process variables. The IPO process begins by looking

Page 179 of 216


for some form of input data that triggers an action or process

step that results in an action to provide an output artifact. In

this case the “I” in IPO represent the action that customer

submits a request for some form of financial service. This inputs

thus trigger a process step or action to occur (i.e. request

accepted) the process would eventually produce a output (i.e.,

request logged into FPS’s database).From this example the reader

should understand that the IPO is a qualitative LSS analysis tool

that codes value added process data to scope the boundaries of

the process that is being map. Data from this IPO’s coding

activity produced the IPO diagram depicted in Figure 4.6., below.

The data was next used to further develop the high-level BMOF’s

process steps further causal analysis and informed the initial

value stream mapping activities. The input side of the chart

identified the sources of variation (i.e., quan variables) and

the right side of the chart (i.e., the output side) identified

the measures performance output variables.

Page 180 of 216


Figure 4.6 Input, Process, Output (IPO) Diagram (George, 2005)

6) Causal/Problem Analysis:

Through the use of causal analysis three high-level problems

in the BMOF FPS’s current state’s process was discovered:

1) Problem: Delays in processing a BMOF FPS action

Better integrated product team (IPT) communication

is required

Develop and distribute functional planning

guidelines for two major functions (less planning

methodology variance)

2) Problem: No Process discipline; not following a defined

process

Page 181 of 216


Identify product planning POCs to answer/react to

BMOF FPS input

Develop guidelines and description for publishing

the guidelines via command media for IPT functional

groups

3) Problem: Lack of Understanding

Develop and distribute guidelines from the functions

Integrated Planning User Group (IPUG) needs to

mistake-proof the BMOF FPS software

Improve TAKT (i.e., touch) time by automating

functional and auto-notification processes.

7) Analysis of AS-is Process Flow with Broad Area Issues and

Problems Mapped

The below diagram in Figure 4.7., illustrate the “As-Is

State of the BMOF current process. The value stream map provided

access to data that helped to identify the broad problem areas,

(identified inside the red boxes) and the problems and issues

within the broad problem areas (identified in the call-out

boxes). This mapping technique supported both casual and constant

comparative data analysis and was done systematically to support

visual and content analysis research activities. The result of

the as-is mapping was that the root causes (i.e., core phenomena)

effecting the BMOF FPS’s ability to deliver timely and error free

Page 182 of 216


financial service to its customers, via its CFBM’s value delivery

system, was identified.

Figure 4.7 As Is Process Causal Analysis Map

8) Cause and Affect Analysis:

Next, cause and effect analysis was performed to provide a

logical and visual diagram of all the possible causes for why the

firm has planning delays and why it was getting so many errors

during the data entry process. This allowed the analysis to focus

on the specific problems and to identify the root cause of the

most significant problems. This ensured a common understanding of

Page 183 of 216


all the cause and effect relationships and it also facilitated

the brainstorming of casual and intervening conditions has to be

analyzed as part of the problem solving activities. The items

highlighted in red are the root cause issues that required the

immediate corrective actions.

Figure 4.8 BMOF Financial Planning System (FPS) Cause and Effect

Analysis Diagram for Error rates

Page 184 of 216

page 13

Too high

a level to respond

Wrong SSDM

Why do we get so many pre-load errors?

Materials

MethodologyApplication Environment

Measurements Personnel

The 2000 ReorgFirst time through

No confidence

Confidence in the SWNot enough time

Late change on planning approach

Not enough training

Training did not cover specific tasks

Wrong person performing task

Rushed

Didn’t care

Reports not accurate

Perception that reports not accurate, so not used

SW accepts the errorfields not intuitive

So slow, users didn’t care

No early comm within business areaPlanning Flow not addressed with sys architectsInaccurate numbers given

Cost centers not understood, known

Corrections made to CCs after some planning had been madeNo time, just in time approach

Replans drove apathy

P&S Catalog unstableService Providerresponsible for new uncharted products

Matl Master number changes

KEY: RED comments are root cause issues making it to PICK recommendations

First time exposure tospecific planning tasks

AM DID NOT Follow Procedure

Did not Attend

Did not see

asimportant

Incorrect Cost Center selected

Incorrect plng matl plannedSkills planned for non-labor productPeriod of performance

Customer Group incorrectIO Field incorrect selectionRecurring/ Non-RecurringIncorrect Product

DescriptionSold To

SSDM

Ship To

SW Input

Planning Guidelines are confusing or non-existant -All Functions


Figure 4.9 BMOF FPS Cause and Effect Analysis Diagram for

Planning Delays

9) Quan Data Analysis

Testing Assumptions:

A process timing matrix was developed to collect the timing

data from within the BMOF FPS’s process steps. Criteria for

collecting timing matrix data are:

1) One work day = 8-hours, After hrs/weekends not

counted

Page 185 of 216

What Causes Planning Delays?

Materials

MethodologyApplication Environment

Measurements Personnel

Planner does not include enough information in the Request causing significant delays

Wrong Name in SSD field…causes delays for product planners

Planning Guidelines are confusing or non-existant -All Functions

Untrained Personnel

No Product Planning Guidelines Waiting for system stability

Confusion on planning specific type products..LMGT

No backup…. on vacation, who is in charge?

Org 2000No auto notification for requests generatedNo auto notification for responses

completed

Customer doesn’t know affordability

Requests not entered until too late

Numerous planning cycles before entry into PIPS

Roles not EMBRACED

P&S Catalog unstable

Unclear how to choose products & services from the catalog

BDC SessionsUnclear Roles & Responsibilities

KEY: RED comments are root cause issues making it to PICK recommendations


2) Six timing matrix charts were developed for the

model; data came from both the as-is (i.e., current

state) and to-be (i.e., future state) process

mapping

3) Minimum and maximum times collected based on

planners’ input data

4) “Typical” request times weighted 5:1 toward minimum

times

5) (Pass-Thru product manager times only); Report times

not included unless it was impossible to gain data

otherwise

6) No extended waits due to vacation; only extended

waits due to data collection efforts or dead ends

7) No disputed request times was used

8) Parallel wait time for multi requests was taken out

to provide a realistic profile

The timing matrix consisted of typical types of generic

financial planning that was time bound. The timing was scaled

in minutes and the cycle, wait and TAKT (i.e., touch) times

were collected during the casual mapping process activities.

The time values were both qualitative and quantitative and

were further based on the following causal times:

Page 186 of 216


1) Waste time required qualitative analysis based on a

qualitative “value added” or “non-value but

necessary ” and non-value variable:

a. Value added (VA) = Customer is willing to pay

for the service or product offerings

b. Non value, but necessary (NVBN) = Must perform

c. Non value (NVA) rating = Customer is not

willing to pay for the service or product

offerings

2) Cycle times required a quantitative numerical value

that was determined from measured cycle, TAKT (i.e.,

touch) and wait times in the process steps. For this

study, Cycle time = the time it takes to complete an

action or process step, from start to finish this

include TAKT/Touch and wait times

a. Touch time = actual time engaged in the

activities, touch time stops when the actor or

activity stops for whatever reason.

b. Wait time = amount of time spent waiting to

begin a process step or activity.

Page 187 of 216


Assumption: (Note: Six data matrixes were used)

1) 2 quote lines items; with 3 lines per quote; line item

equals 6 quote line/elements per request = 6 lines per

request)

1680 requests X 5 possible errors = 8,400

3503 quote lines X 3 possible errors X 2 elements =

21,018

2) There are total 29,418 mistake opportunities for error

checked fields in the BMOF FPS pre-SAP load error

checking process

Defects per million opportunities (DPMO), is the measurement

used in this quan LSS analysis. DPMO provided a program

performance sigma rating based on the following input

conditions:

1) Defects are defined as pre-load or detectable errors.

2) Current State does not take into account integrated

planning user group (IPUG) improvements.

3) Errors occur when BMOF FPS users input incorrect

information.

Page 188 of 216


4) Error flags result if autonomous mistake proofing in

BMOF FPS does not preclude errors.

5) There is an assumption that other errors may result,

but are not caught in an observable error trap.

6) Numerous input items can be made causing problems, but

not triggering error.

7) Regardless of likelihood of error, if an error can be

made that causes pre-load or BDC error, it is a

targeted DPMO basis item.

8) Request Planner Error Fields: There were five

possibilities within each request:

Recurring/ Non-Recurring

Incorrect knowledge of MM usage

IO Field incorrect selection

Customer Group incorrect

Period of performance incorrect

9) Respondent Fields: There were three possibilities per

quote line item planning line:

Skills planned for non-labor product

Incorrect planning material planned

Page 189 of 216


Incorrect Cost Center selected

Testing Methodology:

Based on the casual analysis and value stream mapping

activities the following actions were performed to analyze the

data from the value stream mapping:

1) A detailed time value map was developed & de-

constructed into discrete tasks.

2) The tasks were categorized with the variables: 1) value

added (VA); 2) non-value added, but required (NVAR);

and 3) & waste (WA).

3) Then a request for time value map was developed and

times were assigned to model task performance and the

identified waste reduction opportunities.

4) Modeling took place for the current state and future

state maps and the three most likely types of requests

variables were developed.

5) The following variables value was based on typical BMOF

FSP planning requests:

Scenario 1: simple labor (one quote line)

Page 190 of 216


Scenario 2: data circuits (BMOF FPS), dasd, mips

(three quote lines)

Scenario 3: mixed labor, numerous rate pool

products (three quote lines)

6) Times were collected for minimum and maximum times in

three scenarios.

7) Different software versions (Netscape VS Internet

Explorer) were used that incorporated numerous changes

associated with the process for the future state

process model.

8) Time matrix input was collected for statistical

analysis.

10) SAP Error Analysis

This chart shows variance caused by errors in the planning

process. Causes of errors were compared against process

Page 191 of 216


improvements to ensure all causes were addressed.

Figure 4.10 Pre-Load Error Pareto Chart Analysis

11) BMOF FPS Six Sigma Rating

The BMOF FPS has 2,817 out of 23,687 possible errors for a

sigma rating of 2.68 or 118, 926 defects per million

opportunities (DPMO).

12) Time Observation

1) Hands-On (Engaged) Savings Total = $867K.

2) Total cycle time was reduced 64.4% by 4.5 days from 7.1

to 2.6 days

Page 192 of 216

2,817 O ct 2000 Pre-L oad Errors

Pre-Load Error Pareto C hart A nalysis

1 1 30 5 C o s t C en te r 9 9 9 9 9 n o t m atch e d to A c tivity 2 4 9 4 In va lid C o st C tr - 00 0 0 0 for R e s p o n se 3 4 5 5 S h ip to C u s to m er is n o t tie d to S o ld to C u s to m e r.4 2 3 7 In te rn a l o rd e r u se d o n a no th e r line 5 1 6 8 N o R es p o n s e fo u nd fo r lin e ite m6 6 3 In te rn a l O rd e r alre a d y P la n ne d fo r - A C T IV IT Y7 5 3 S o ld to C u s to m er do e s n o t m a tc h . C h e c k In te rn a l O rd e r8 3 9 P la n n in g o u ts id e o f V alid pe rio d V a lid vs P la n m o n9 2 In te rn a l O rd e r d o e s n o t ex is t o r is c lo s e d

1 0 1 In va lid P ro fit C tr - D U M M Y F o r M a te ria l

0

2 0 04 0 0

6 0 08 0 0

1 0 0 01 2 0 0

1 4 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

2,817 Pre-Load Errors



Page 193 of 216


13) Further State Value Stream Map


14) BMOF FPS Significant Results

SW optimized for faster performance and now employs a better

mistake-proofing strategy.

Page 194 of 216

Prepare for Customer Interview

and schedulemeetings

Forward CustomerRequirements

to Site ServiceDelivery Manager

Account ManagerContact

AppropriateService Provider/Product Manager

Review CustomerRequirements

Site Svc Del MgrReview CustomerResponse withSite Service

Delivery Manager

Review CustomerResponse with

Account ManagerService Provider

Present Response

to CustomerLegend:

Release Customer Requirements & Response,

Send to BMOF FPS

Bus OperationsSystemsLog into PIPS,

Fill out Customer

Requirements

Log into PIPS, Fill out Customer

Response

Log into PIPS, Fill out Billing

And ChargeNumber Info

SDCreate QuoteAnd Contract

COCreate/amend IOAnd do ActivityAllocation in Cost Center

These steps relate back to steps in the Integrated Planning ProcessBMOF FPS

PIPS to BMOF FPS

BMOF PIF

RED Blocks Signify Items addressed within this Project


Planning Guidelines developed / distributed in two major

functions resulting in less confusion on the part of the

service providers.

Improved information flow with requests and between Acct

Mgmt and BMOF FPS program has helped improve overall success

and feedback.

The integrated efforts of the Integrated Planning Users

Group (IPUG), the BMOF FPS Program and this project are

aligned and function more effectively and efficiently

Additional planned LSS Events will facilitate continued

improvement of the overall BMOF FPS

Figure 4.13: BMOF FPS’s Cost Savings

Page 195 of 216

Six-Sigma Results:Category Before After Im provem ent

# data load errors / basis 2,817 / 23,687 212 / 29,418 2605 fewerSigm a / DPM O 2.68 3.95 1.2 / 7,206Error Rate 11.89% 0.72% 1329%Request Cycle Tim e 7.1 days 2.6 days 64% or 4.5 days

Cost Savings Results:M anhours saved (see presentation for detail)Actual $ saved

Savings based on *yearly actual savings request com plexity algorithm . expected at $1,734K

8604 Hrs = $ 867K


Figure 4.15: BMOF FPS’s Cost Savings Results

4.7. Contributions

Based on this VSM activity the BMOF FPS’s software was

optimized for faster performance and now employs a better

mistake-proofing strategy. Planning Guidelines have been

developed and distributed; resulting in less confusion on the

part of the service providers. Improved information flow has been

realized and the requests between account management and the BMOF

PFS program has helped improve overall success. Customer

satisfaction ratings rose from 67% to 92%. Based on the data from

this VSM and the use of a mixed methods exploratory-sequential

research methodology to collect, analyze and interpret the data

in this dissertation, the null hypothesis that aligning the

firm’s structure, strategy and technology has no, or little

effect, on the organization’s ability to provide a timely and

quality product and service offerings to its customer, via a

customer-focused value delivery system is rejected. Furthermore,

the alternate hypothesis that the BMOF can be effectively

employed and managed by the organization as an efficient

enterprise-wide business management capability to support the

Page 196 of 216


firm’s business strategy is accepted. As the financial planning

system’s case/field study data analysis results clearly showed,

employment of the BMOF as an enterprise-wide business management

capability to effectively and efficiently migrated the financial

system’s procedures from its wasteful and costly legacy

surroundings to a proactive and agile customer-focused

environment; resulted in a qualitative value-driven cost saving

of $867,000. As explained throughout this dissertation, the

rigorous use of a BMOF to assist the firm in the execution of its

resource alignment and product/service delivery activities will

increase the firm’s competitive advantage; while still providing

outstanding value to its customers and shareholders.

Page 197 of 216


CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

5.1: New Research Contributions

This study is a new contribution to the body of program and

business management research because its breaks new ground in the

management discipline for employing a pragmatic worldview,

consisting of a mixed methods research design: exploratory-

sequential (QUALquan) to theorize, build and formatively evaluate

the instantiation of an enterprise-wide business management

framework to support the execution the firm’s business strategy,

in a customer-focused business environment. Additionally, the

model for mixing MMRD with a design –science research framework

(DSRF) provides a framework that can be used in future management

research activities as a foundational mixed methods model. Next,

the BMOF’s theoretical model described in this study provide a

new contribution to the management discipline by providing access

to insights and emerging theoretical data that could be used to

further advance Osterwalder’s (2004, 2005 and 2009) prior

business model ontology and business model design-science

theories and George’s (2002 & 2003) LSS performance-based process

Page 198 of 216


improvement theory in future research. Finally, the mixture of

the MMRD and the DSRF enriches the quality of mixed methods

design theory and contributes to my organization’s renewed focus

on the core problems associated with its lack of ability to

communicate and instantiate an enterprise business management

approach to support its alignment and customer-focused value

delivery system’s execution strategies. This is a significant

contribution to the bottom-line in my firm because it supports

the firm’s generation of profit through the timely delivery of

quality products and service offering, via its CFBM’s value

delivery system.

5.2. Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the

hypnosis that in order for an organization to remain agile,

responsive and proactive to its consumers’ multifaceted service-

oriented value demands all organizational leaders, functional

managers and technical staffs must focus more of their day-to-day

program and business management activities on the development and

Page 199 of 216


implementation of an enterprise-wide BMOF that supports the

execution of the firm’s business logic for providing its

customers with a product and service offering via a customer-


5.4. Methodology Review

First, to recap, the methodology used in the study used a

rigorous exploratory mixed method research design consisting of

two distinct data collection and analysis sequential phases:

qualitative connecting to quantitative (Creswell and Plano Clark,

2007, pp.75-79). Second, the rationale for this explorative-

sequential (QUAL quan) timing, was to use dominate qualitative

grounded theory to conduct open, axial and selective coding to

support the nascent theory of: alignment of structure; 2) synergy

of enterprise management recourses and strategy; 3) and

employment of program earned value management processes to

execute the firm’s enterprise-wide customer-focused value

delivery system. Third, the use of GT coding followed by

formative and summary evaluative research activities assisted

this researcher with coding, collecting and analyzing the

emerging customer-focused program and business management data’s

Page 200 of 216


incidents, concepts and theories for supporting the firms’

resource alignment, product and services delivery, and business

logic for generating profit for the organization’s shareholders.

Specifically, the focus on phase one’s dominant qualitative

coding and content analysis of documental program and business

management data continuously produced a core set of intervening

conditions (i.e., variables, attributes and relationships) that

were later used to evaluate the BMOF’s concept of operations

(i.e., the tasks, steps, procedures, processes) for supporting

the alignment of the firm’s structure, strategy and technology

elements. Fourth, the activities also supported sorting of: 1)

causal conditions; 2) contexts; and 3) intervening condition

variables, that were used to evaluate if there is a positive

increase or negative decrease in the firm’s action strategy

(Glaser, 1967) for aligning its structure, strategy and

technology elements. Fifth, as depicted in Table 4.1., combining

Osterwalder’s (2004) BMO theory and Kaplan’s and Norton’ (1996)

BSC Perspectives informed stage one’s GT data content analysis

and formative research evaluation activities resulting in my

acquiring a high degree of theoretical sensitivity during the

Page 201 of 216

../../../D:/CTU%20Doctorial%20Program%202006-2010/MGM%20895%20(2010)/Disstertation%20Proposal%20(Oct%2010)/Greene%20Dissertation%20(MMRD)%20Final%20V3%20(22%20Nov%2010).docx#_Table_4.1:


BMOF’s build and constant comparative data analysis research

activities. This theoretical sensitivity helped to focus the

study’s build research activities at the firm’s executive,

functional and program levels in order to conduct content

analysis for aligning the BMOF’s elements and sub-elements into

an enterprise-wide (i.e., end-to-end) BMOF capability. Finally

the GT coding research activities improved the research’s focus

by grounding the dominant qualitative content analysis activities

in the emerging data. This approach ultimately informed phase

two’s supporting quantitative causal data analysis and content

data analysis research activities. To conclude, the employment of

both a design-science and performance-based research model

supported my ”pragmatic knowledge claims” (Creswell, 2003, p. 19)

that the instantiation and evaluation of an enterprise-wide BMOF

capability could increase the firm’s ability to communicate and

manage the alignment of its CFBM’s structures, strategy and

technology elements: which, in turn does positively enhance the

firm’s ability to deliver timely and quality product and service

offerings, to its customers, via the CFBM’s value delivery

system.

Page 202 of 216


5.5. Research Question

The research activities in this dissertation focused on

answering the following research question:


support the alignment of the CFBM’s structure, strategy and technology

elements enhance the firm’s ability to continuously deliver timely and

quality product and service offerings, to its customers, via the CFBM’s value

delivery system?

5.6. Recommendations for Future Research

Additional research is needed in several areas to further

advance the program and business management disciplines.

First, as noted in chapter one, the need for both a

qualitative and quantitative reflective-researcher worldview

perspective dedicates both a humanistic (qualitative) and

scientific (quantitative) research approach to data collection,

data analysis and data interpretation that systematically

examines the complicated recursive interplay between the human

agent and an organization’s structure, strategy and technology

elements in the business management domain. Future areas of

research in business management should include incorporating more

Page 203 of 216


ethnographic and participant observation studies to: 1) theorize;

2) build; 3) justify; and 4 instantiate the BOMF’s research activities in

both theoretical and causal analysis. This should be related

first to leadership and organizational management behaviors to

get a better understanding for the type of challenges associated

with both leadership and management behaviors as they relate to

top-down and bottom-up strategy development and performance-based

business management.

Second, more performance-based knowledge is also needed on

the impact that the executive, functional and program level

decision- makers have on the alignment and synergy activities of

the firm, based on both the BSC Perspective (Kaplan and Norton,

1995 and 2008) and Osterwalder’s (2004 & 2009) BMO Framework.

This performance-based research must include new innovative

methods of data collection and analysis through the use of LSS

tools, such as Value Stream Mapping, Kaizen, Technical Kickoff

Kaizen, Root Cause Analysis (George, 2002 & 2006) are seen to be

suitable LSS processes improvement approaches in this regard.

Second, the already observable increased tendency towards a

methodological mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches in

Page 204 of 216


management research (see, Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) should

be intensified. Various phenomena and issues can benefit from

mixed-method-designs and design-science research activities

especially in the areas of: 1) business process management,

innovation and learning; 3) customer relationship building; and

4) financial management research.

Third, new web 2.0-based technology offer a range of new

research combinations around command/social media technology

usage and netnography (Kozinets, 2002), are particularly

promising for research of communication of new product

development and service offering. Netnography is the branch of

ethnography that analyses the free behavior of individuals on the

internet. My thoughts here are that integrating various methods

in terms of mixed-method-designs will significantly contribute to

future business development and business management research in

general and marketing, sales, service delivery, brand management

and brand loyalty research in particular.

5.7. Conclusions

As was stated many times in this body of work, the use of a

BMOF as an enterprise-wide business management tool is still a

Page 205 of 216


nascent theory. As such, this dissertation pulled together key

elements from both mixed methods research design and design-

science research activities into a single ontological framework

that provided a common language and theoretical constructs for

discussing and promoting business model design, strategy

alignment and technological usage. In this study the researcher

did not advocate one research activity or lean six sigma

methodology over others but, rather, clarified how his

exploratory-sequential (QUAL quan) methodological choices can

enhance the firm’s ability to address the core phenomenon of

aligning its structure strategy and technology elements to

deliver timely and quality product and service offerings to its

customers, via its CFBM value delivery system. This researcher’s

worldview advocated that “methodological fit” (Edmondson and

McManus, 2007) is achieved by the logical and theoretical

pairings between qualitative and quantitative research methods

and theoretical sensitivity that was then used to develop the

emergent framework.

The insights that emerged from the study drew on relational

and causal reasoning to assess the BMOF’s long-term utility for

Page 206 of 216


supporting the firm’s execution of its business logic. The BMOF

was also significant because it provided the organization’s

personnel with the new-found ability to positively influence and

direct the timely and quality delivery of product and service

offerings via the CFBM’s value delivery system. Summarized, the

research goal of this study was to instantiate an initial BOMF

capability that could be deployed within the organization’s

enterprise management system to continuously improve business

management processes that also would increase the firm’s

competitive advantage in a customer-focused business environment.

Finally, this researcher intends to continue to use mixed methods

qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis

research design, as well as Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement

events to develop new program and business management constructs

and to demonstrate the plausibility of developing new business

management relationships, theories and methodologies to define

and deliver customer and stakeholder value in a customer-focused

business environment.

Page 207 of 216


REFERENCES

Air Academy Associates Website (2009). Retrieved 10 May 09, from: http://www.airacad.com/LeanSixSigmaApproach.aspx

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 493-520.

Army Knowledge Center Website (Army Knowledge Center, 2009). Retrieved 15 May 09, from http://www.army.mil/ArmyBTKC/focus/cpi/tools3.htm

Arizona State University, Center for Service leadership (ASU CSL2009): Retrieved 10 May 09, from: http://wpcarey.asu.edu/csl/index.cfm

Balanced Scorecard Institute (BMI, 2007), A Strategy Management Group Company. Internet. Retrieved 10 May 08, 2008, from http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Definitions/tabid/145/Default.aspx

Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observation of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, pp. 78-108.

Barley, S. (1990). The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles and Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 61-1.

Borgatti, S. Analytictech Website (2006): Retrieved on 10 Oct 2007. From:

http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm

Business Management Website (2009) Internet: Retrieved on 12 May09. From: http://www.busmanagement.com/article/Developing-agile-leadership/

Business Model Community Website (BMC 2008) Online Community forPractitioners, http://businessmodelcommunity.com/

Page 208 of 216

http://businessmodelcommunity.com/

http://www.busmanagement.com/article/Developing-agile-leadership/

http://www.busmanagement.com/article/Developing-agile-leadership/

http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Definitions/tabid/145/Default.aspx

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Definitions/tabid/145/Default.aspx

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/csl/index.cfm

http://www.army.mil/ArmyBTKC/focus/cpi/tools3.htm

http://www.airacad.com/LeanSixSigmaApproach.aspx


Cameron, R & Molina-Azorin, JF 2010, 'The use of mixed methods across seven business and management fields', Justice and Sustainability in the Global Economy: 10th International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM 2010), Paris, France, 8-10 July, IFSAM.

Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002): The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidencefrom Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 529-555.

Chong, J. (2004). Structuration Theory. Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/structuration%20theory.doc

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd Edition. Thousand Okes, CA 91320, Sage Publications Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Currall, S. C.& Towler, A.j. (2003) Research methods in management and organizational research: Toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In A. Tashakkori & Teddis (eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 513-526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Joyce, M. and Schechter, B. (2004), The Lean A Management Philosophy At Lockheed Martin, Article, Retrieved from Defense Acquisition University Website 12 May 09 from: http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/AR%20Journal/arq2004/Joyce.pdf

Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S., (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 173-193.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Page 209 of 216

http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/AR%20Journal/arq2004/Joyce.pdf

http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/AR%20Journal/arq2004/Joyce.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/structuration%20theory.doc

http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/structuration%20theory.doc


Desanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.

Edmondson, A. C. and S. E. McManus (2007). "Methodological Fit in Management Field Research." Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1155-1179.

Energy Northwest.com Website (2009) Retrieved on 26 July 2009 from: http://www.energy-northwest.com/generation/cgs/documents/ColumbiaFacts.pdf

Energy Northwest, New Release, (25 June 2009) Retrieved on 26 July 2009 from Energy Northwest Website: http://www.energy-northwest.com/generation/cgs/documents/ColumbiaFacts.pdf

George, M. (2002). Lean Six Sigma Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lead Speed, McGraw Hill, New York.

George, M. (2003) Lean Six Sigma for Services, how to use Lean Speed & Six Sigma Quality to Improve Services and Transactions, McGraw Hill, New York.

Giddens, Anthony. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method, Basic Books, Hutchinson/New York.

Giddens, Anthony. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.

Giddens, Anthony. (1984). The Construction of Society: Outlined of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkley, CA

Great Systems Website (GS, 2009) Operating Excellence, Internet: Retrieved 10 May 08, 2008, from: http://www.greatsystems.com/oefaq.html#whatisoe

Gruber, T. R. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5: 199-220.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of groundedtheory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Page 210 of 216

http://www.greatsystems.com/oefaq.html#whatisoe

http://www.energy-northwest.com/generation/cgs/documents/ColumbiaFacts.pdf





Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

Glaser, B. G. (2002a). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2). [viewed 1 )ct 2004] http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/html/glaser.html

Glaser, B. G. (2002b). Constructivist Grounded Theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Retrieved October 01, 2004 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm

Glaser, B., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded Theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1315

Gilmore T., Krantz, J. & Ramirez, R., "Action Based Modes of Inquiry and the Host-Researcher Relationship," Consultation 5.3 (Fall 1986):161.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. 1989. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11: 255–274.

Hart, D. N. and S. D. Gregor (2006). Information Systems Foundations: Theory, Representation and Reality. ANU E Press. Canberra ACT 0200,Australia, The Australian National University e Press: 272.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory, Modern Symbolic And Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford Press, Systems Alignment." California Management Review 44(1): 87-108.

Hiemstra R. Website (2009) Roger Hiemstra's Web Page – Welcome: Retrieved on 10 Sep 2009 from: http://www-distance.syr.edu/glossary.html

Jokela, T. (2001) Assessment of user-centred design processes asa basis for improvement action: An experimental study in

Page 211 of 216

http://www-distance.syr.edu/glossary.html

http://www-distance.syr.edu/glossary.html

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1315

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1315

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/html/glaser.html

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/html/glaser.html


industrial settings. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 3000, FIN-90014

.Jones M., and Karsten H. (2003). Review: Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research. University of Cambridge, Judge Institute of Management: Working Papers (pp. 1-85).

Kaplan R. and Norton D. (1996). Translating Strategy Into Action, The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard School Press, Boston, MA.

Kaplan R. and Norton D. (2001). The Strategy Focused Organization, How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard School Press, Boston, MA.

Kaplan R. and Norton D. (2006). Alignment, Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Strategy, Harvard School Press, Boston, MA.

Kaplan R. and Norton D. (2008). The Executive Premium, Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage, Harvard School Press, Boston, MA.

Kolb D. (1981) The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 289-296

Kozinets, Robert V. (2002). “Utopian Consumption: Special Session Summary,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 29, ed. Susan Broniarcyk and Kent Nakamoto, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Lambert, S. (2003) Making Sense of Business Models, School of Commerce Research Paper Series 03-10, ISSN: 1441-3906, 2003. Subsequentlypublished in The Magnus Journal of Management, Vol. 1, No.1, 2005.

Lambert, S. (2006). A Business Model Research Schema, Proceedings of the 19th Bled Econference, Bled, Slovenia, June 5, Vol. 7.

Li, C.,and Bernoff J. (2008). Groundswell "Winning in a world transformed by social technologies". Boston Massachusetts, Harvard Bussiness Press.

Page 212 of 216


Lockheed Martin Corporate “About Us Website.” (2008). Retrieved November 07, 2008 from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/index.html

Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (2006). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide toQualitative Observation Analysis (3rd edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995.

MaCall, M.W., and Bobko, P. (1990), Research methods in the service of discovery. In M. D. Dunnette & L.M Hough (Eds.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.Vol. 1. Pp. 381-418). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter, Harvard Business Review, 80:3, pp 33-36.

Managing Enterprise Content Glossary ( 2009). On-line DefinitionSource for Management term’s, Retrieved on 10 May 2009 from: http://www.managingenterprisecontent.com/myweb/Glossary.htm

Marshall, G. (1998) Structuration." A Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved November 07, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-structuration.html

March S.T & Smith G. F. (1995) Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4): 251-266.

Maxwell, J. (2005, pp. 33-78). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN: 0-7619-2608-9

Moghaddam, A. (2006). Coding issues in grounded theory. Issues In Educational Research, 16(1), 52-66. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/moghaddam.html

Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.

Page 213 of 216

http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/moghaddam.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-structuration.html

http://www.managingenterprisecontent.com/myweb/Glossary.htm

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/index.html


Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.

Osterwalder, A. (2004). "The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in a Design Science Approach." Institut d'Informatique et Organisation. Lausanne, Switzerland, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC: 173.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15, Article, 39.

Osterwalder, A. (2006). Business Model Design and Innovation. Retrieved 12 May 08, 2008, from http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/2006/11/business-model-template-designing-your.html

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y (2009) Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers.

Pozzebon, M. & Pinsonneault, A. (2006, February). “Challenges in Conducting Empirical Work Using Structuration Theory: Learning from IT Research”, Organization Studies, 26 (9), pp.1353-1376, 2005. [Electronic Version]. Appalachian State University. Retrieved Mar 01, 2007, from: http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/structurationtheory.htm

QiMicro (2009) Lean Six Sigma Software, Training and Consulting, Active Member Working Website, http://www.qimacros.com/statistical-tools-excel.html

Reason, P. & Bradbury H. (2005 & 2006) Handbook of Action Research, Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA 91320

Rose, R. (2006) "A proposal for integrating structuration theory with coordinated management of meaning theory."Communication Studies.

Page 214 of 216

http://www.qimacros.com/statistical-tools-excel.html

http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/structurationtheory.htm

http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/2006/11/business-model-%09template-designing-your.html

http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/2006/11/business-model-%09template-designing-your.html


Central States Communication Association. 2006. Retrieved November 07, 2008 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147666080.html

Rubin, H., and Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN: 0-7619-2075-7

Ryan, G. W., and H. R. Bernard. 2003. Techniques to Identify Themes in Qualitative Data. Field Methods, Vol. 15, No. 1, February 200385–109, DOI: 10.1177/1525822X02239569, 2003 Sage Publications

Schneberger, S. & Wade, M. (2008). Theories Used in IS Research,Adaptive Structuration Theory [Electronic Version]. Appalachian State University. Retrieved July 02, 2008, from: http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Schonberger, R. (2008). Best Practices in Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement, A Deep Look. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books

Sewell, W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.

Six Sigma Companies Blog.com Website (2009) Retrieved 10 June 08, from http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/lockheed_martin_lm21_six_sigma_and_lean.html

Shook, J. (2008) Managing to Learn, Using the A3 management process to solveproblems, gain agreement, mentor, and lead. The Lean Enterprise Institute, Cambriuage, MA, 02142

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:Techniques and rocedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Page 215 of 216

http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/lockheed_martin_lm21_six_sigma_and_lean.html

http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/lockheed_martin_lm21_six_sigma_and_lean.html

http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147666080.html


Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Trochim, W. (2005). Research Methods: The Concise Knowledge Base, 1e., Atomic Dog Publishing, Online Book Edition Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/ research/rd.htm

Tuckett, A. G. (2004). Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), 47-61.

Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, W. (2004/5). “Design Research in Information Systems” January 20, 2004, last updated August 16, 2009. URL: http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems

WinterGreen Research, I. (2007). "WinterGreen Research, Inc." Retrieved 20 June 2007, from http://www.wintergreenresearch.com/internet_reports.htm.

Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. 2003. Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 465–481.

Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M. and Gremler, D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm,” 4th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Page 216 of 216

http://www.wintergreenresearch.com/internet_reports.htm