Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

SSBMG Theory of Change: Market, Ecosystem, Design Principles and Methodology v0.42+

A theory of change for the SSBMG, including all the parts of the market, ecosystem, design principles and methdology and how they relate. Includes details from SSBMG meeting March 13, April 10, 2012 and subsequent discussions.
by

Antony Upward

on 6 June 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of SSBMG Theory of Change: Market, Ecosystem, Design Principles and Methodology v0.42+

Version 1.x:
Tool: Paper based canvas
Method: None supplied
Patterns: None supplied
Case Studies: Embdeded in thesis
Documentation: Masters / PhD Thesis
Training: None Possible Content of Toolkit, by version: Version 2.x:
Tool: Paper based canvas
Method: Initial - from general experience
Patterns: Initial - from general experience
Case Studies: Initial - from general experience
Documentation: Practitioner Book
Training: Train the Trainer Version 3.x:
Tool: App (web, iPad, Android, etc.) - prototyping & simulating
Method: Improved - from specific experience
Patterns: Worked examples - from specific experience
Case Studies: Examples with expected benefits
Documentation: Updates via Web
Training: Train the Trainer Version 4.x:
Tool: App integrated method support
Method: Refined - from specific experience
Patterns: More Worked examples - from specific experience
Case Studies: More examples with measured benefits
Documentation: Updated Book
Training: Train the Trainer Initial Thoughts on Toolkit Business Model Design Parameters Toolkit business model must itself be strongly sustainable, i.e.
Minimize resource use
Travel, paper, etc.
(i.e. the BMC business model of globe trotting won't work)
Use of Cradle to Cradle thinking - e.g. Durabook
Maximize use of tool to create strongly sustainable businesses
"Reasonable" financial rewards across all players in the eco-system
Licensing & revenue model must take this into account
Understand Investment requirements related to value of asset being created
Adhere to LOIS not TINA
Includes support of other local businesses (part of "giving back"?)
"Radical transparency" with appropriate "protection"

Must be inclusive of existing Business Model Canvas originator and community

Must consider differences in world-view of users - "profit-first" to "strongly sustainable" in channels and value propositions

See Bob Willards approach: http://www.sustainabilityadvantage.com/bcorp.html Who? / Stakeholders? Individauls
Business Model Designers - aka Innovators, Entrepreneurs, Business Architects, Managers, Venture Capitalists, Policy Advisors, Management Consusltants, Strategists
Organizations
International
Existing participants in Business Model Canvas ecosystem
B-Labs
The Natural Step
Business Architects Association
New Economics Institute
International Institute of Business Analysis
Certified Management Consultants
Authentic Leadership in Action (ALiA) / Shambhala)
Bioinspired / Biomimicry
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
USA
Business Alliance for Local Living Economies
B-Corporations
Canadian
Green Enterprise Toronto v.20 and Equivelent
B-Corporations
NGOs
Foundations
Design with Dialogue
UK
Transition Towns Movement How? / Channels & Revenue Streams? Web - blogs, twitter
Communications by all Stakeholders
"Strongly Sustainable Business Model Generation" Book
"Strongly Sustainable Business Model Generation" Website Possible Next Steps to Make Toolkit Real Book Proposal (inc. eBook and DuraBook Technical Nutrient a la "Cradle to Cradle") http://melcher.com/series.php?id=36#131
PhD Thesis via thesis or multiple publications
Define Toolkit Creation / Update Collaboration Platform
Working group to define method requirements and review candidates for method
Identify if / how YorkU "Knowledge Mobilization" (Michael Johnny) and / or YorkU "Technology Transfer" (Sarah Howe) might be able to help
Explore trademarking of SSBMC, SSBMO, SSMBTK
Register domain names related to SSBM Overall Concerns with Ecosystem Model v0.4 Not many balancing loops - missing risks and mitigation activities!
Peter Jones provided the following feedback 2012-5-25: I can also see where we could add a few Balancing loops (regulatory feedback in the Ecosystem is probably a – not a +) as well as in the toolkit/process. The toolkit describes tacit/explicit knowledge – since these are flows, we could more precisely indicate the SECI (Nonaka) flows – or whether a socializing (tacit – tacit) Externalizing (T-Explicit), Communicating (E-E) or Internalizing (E-T).
Perhaps we need to assume we will only work with leaders - i.e. we preselect to remove the risk
Need to think about the relationship of the strongly sustainable organizational design principles and the components of the toolkit Applied Research Research can be conducted in any way about any element in the ecosystem, some examples are:
Content
What are the necessary constructs and their relationships, how are they defined, how are the best represented, operationalized etc.
Current known content weaknesses (known unknowns) include:
bio-physical stocks
eco-system service flows
tri-profit / measurement / metrics - particularly for non $
time
business webs
scale / level of detail
What constitutes a sufficiently rigourous SSBM?
Generalizability
Size of business
Location of business
Nature of business - industry type etc.
New vs. Existing Business
Case Studies of
Use of toolkit
Businesses instantiations based on SSBM Toolkit designs and method
Patterns of SSBMs Theoretical Research Theory can be developed in any way about any element in the ecosystem, some examples are:
What is the theory of strongly sustainable business?
...etc. (Research Outputs to be used in Toolkit Continuous Improvement - blue arrow) Possible Key Academic Disciplines
& Research Methods Disciplines / Fields etc.
Innovation
Strategy
Sustainability
Information Systems
Ethics Research Methods
Design Science
Action Research
Participative Action Research
etc. Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit: Market, Ecosystem, Design Principles and Methodology Analysis v0.42+
...to increase the number of small / medium businesses with strongly sustainable business models that will produce strongly sustainable outcomes... Overall Objective of SSBMG Requires...
...an increase in the number of business model designers who are actively using the SSBM Toolkit Overall Objective of SSBMG Requires...
...it is necessary to make the SSBM toolkit "attractive", "easy" to use and then communicate widely about all aspects of the Toolkit To increase the number of business model designers who are using the SSBM Toolkit...
...will cause a large number of people to gain experience using the toolkit, establishing / improving businesses designed using the toolkit. Learning* from this experience is the basis for the continuous improvement of the toolkit. Overall Objective of SSBMG...
...requires that the new tacit knowledge of practitions and new formal knowledge from academic research be continuously intergrated into improved versions of the Toolkit. Overall Objective of SSBMG...
...also requires that academia plays its role in generating new explicit knowledge about any and all aspects of SSBMs and their use... Overall Objective of SSBMG... Versions 0.42 and earlier (c) Antony Upward / Edward James Consulting Ltd 2012 with input from members of the SSBMG (credited by name). Later versions co-created by the SSBMG members. Process for effective and efficient utilization of the Toolkit
Is it "easy to use"
Design of SSBMs
Instantiation of SSBMs
Improvement of SSBMs
Testing: Confirmation of utility of SSBM toolkit - "does it work?"
Formal testing of utility of SSBMO and Method
Comparison of SSBM Toolkit to other Sustainability Design Tools
e.g. "Fit" to The Natural Step etc.
e.g. "Fit" to existing strategy and innovation tools MaRS DD and Other members of the Ontario Network of Excellence (ONE) and Equivelent Nationally
Social Innovation Generation (SIG)
Centre for Social Innovation CSI Toronto and Equivelent Nationally Possible Foundations for Method: Structured Dialogic Design - http://www.slideshare.net/SoCoDesign/structured-dialogic-design Theory-U - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-procedure_and_Theory_U#Theory_U The Natural Step - ABCD / Backcasting - http://www.naturalstep.org/~natural/backcasting
Robinson, J. B. (1990). Futures under glass: A recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures, 22(8), 820-842. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(90)90018-D
Robinson, J. B. (2003). Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures, 35(8), 839-
856. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00039-9 Soft System Methodology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology Academic
OCADU MDes SFI
DesignWorks @ Rotman
York Faculty of Environmental Studies + Schulich
Green Programs at Ryerson, Sheridan, Seneca, etc.
DESRIST Conference
ISSS Conference
Network for Business Sustainability (NBS) Hard and Soft System Dynamics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
Including "Dance of Change" and "Presence" Team Syntegrity / VSM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntegrity Hoverstadt - Fractal Organization - Creating Sustainable Organizations with the VSM - http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/65/04700605/0470060565-1.pdf
...to increase the number of small / medium businesses with strongly sustainable business outcomes...
...to increase the number of small / medium businesses with strongly sustainable outcomes... Strongly Sustainable Business Ecosystem Three reinforcing "change loops" (1. Research, 2. Social Change, 3. Toolkit) have been identified which together describe how, over time, more businesses might produce strongly sustainable outcomes - e.g. integrated delivery of profit / benefit environmentally, socially and financially. These change loops provide the context for a Toolkit to help businesses design and operationalize strongly sustainable business models. Overall Objective of SSBMG is... Overall Objective of SSBMG is...
...This loop is the focus of the rest of this prezi... Holling - Panarchy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy#Panarchy_in_systems_theory Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit Market Analysis In discussion with members of the SSBMG (Prof. Peter Jones and Prof. Jeremy Bowes) and Sarah Howe in the YorkU Technology Transfer group the following understanding of the components of the market for the Toolkit has started to be developed. This requires further discussion and refinement, including sizing. 1. Size of Organization Large
Medium
Small
Micro 2. Nature of Organization For Profit
NGO/Mission/Charity
Government 3. Nature of Design
Activity New - i.e. no existing business
No "baseline" business model
Add - i.e. new strategy which is creating a new business unit, product, etc.
Adding to existing "baseline" business model
Improve - i.e. perceived problem with existing business, its strategy or product
Changing existing "baseline" business model 4. World-View of
Decision Makers Range of possibilities concieved as between:
Profit First vs. Strongly Sustainable (Integrating environmental, social and financial results) (linear scale)
or between
Environmental, Social and Economic (circle or triangular scale) Possible Method Design Goals Attract people to use the tool ("diagnostic") and subsequently use the tool successfully (i.e. high quality strongly sustainable business model - reliable, consistent, effective produced efficiently)
Work irrespective of location in market (see top left of this prezi)
Work irrespective of level of belief of designer in strongly sustainable organizational design principles (see top right of this prezi) 5. Number of Designers /
Decision Makers / Stakeholders Sole Entrepreneur
Groups of Entrepreneurs
Facilitated Groups (by consultants)
Individual Leaders / Managers
Groups of Leaders / Managers
Groups of Decision Makers and other Stakeholders Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit Ecosystem Analysis An analysis of
The market and ecosystems in which the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Group* objective will be achieved: to increase the number of small / medium businesses with strongly sustainable outcomes...
The design principles for the creation of, and the methodology to successfully create, strongly sustainable business models and hence businesses
Changes since last major revision indicated with this symbol:
Zoom out to see all the changes * For more on the SSBMG see http://slab.ocad.ca/the-strongly-sustainable-business-model-group-ssbmg This analysis uses Causal Loop Diagrams to illustrate the dynamic feedback loops which will drive and hinder the achievement of the objective - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop_diagram TBD - Which segments of the market is the toolkit going to target first and later? Drilling down into the third of the three loops - the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit Ecosystem... * Learning will be informal and formal (via academic research on any and all aspects of the toolkit and its use) 3. Toolkit 1. Research 2. Social Change Drilling down to look at the dimensions of the market of organizations who could consider becoming strongly sustainable... Socio-Technical Systems Design - Eric Trist - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociotechnical_system Defining & Measuring the Strongly Sustainable Organization In discussion with Dr. Bob Willard, Brendan Seale from The Natural Step Canada on May 29, 2012 and members of the SSBMG the following understanding is emerging of the need to define a "gold-standard" (to use Bob's term) or "design principles" for a strongly sustainable organization and then describe how the achievement of this gold-standard can be determined - i.e. setting a standard and its measures.

The following ideas for strongly sustainable organizational design principles are given as a potential starting point based on my own work: Drilling down into the first of the three loops - the Research on what might constitute a strongly sustainable organization and how this might be measured... Definition of Organizational Strong Sustainability "An organizational is strongly sustainable when all of its behaviours and all the behaviours of all other relevant social, economic and biophysical actors lead to the possibility that human and other life will flourish on the planet forever." Derived from p8 of Ehrenfeld, J. (2008). Sustainability by design: a subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Discussed in my Essay: "Towards a Definition of Organizational Sustainability" http://www.slideshare.net/AntonyUpward/term-paper-aupward-v20b This definition isn't directly operationalizable by CEOs individually. But the reason why it's not is critically important and not a "weakness" or a "mistaken" part of this definition. It is fundamental truth / paradox that we must deal with: a single organization can't ever be unilaterally strongly sustainable!

Trying to help CxO's operationalize this definition is one of the drivers of the work to define a Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit. "Design Principles" / "Gold Standard"
for Strongly Sustainable Business Models
Suggestions of What This Might Mean In Practice
(Based on Sources Above) From Lawn / Ecological Economics: The organization must abide by these macro-economic goals:
Limiting the absolute flow of all bio-physical materials through the organization (all its value system / network partners, i.e. all other stakeholders).
Doing everything possible to maximize distributional equity of monetary flows for all the organization's stakeholders.
Maximizing the use of the market and market pricing mechanisms to achieve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. From The Natural Step: The organization must abide by The Natural Step System Conditions:
Through its behaviours and the behaviours of all other relevant social, economic and biophysical actors a sustainable organization does not subject nature to systematically increasing:
Concentrations of substances extracted from the earth's crust - Nothing Disappears… Ever
Concentrations of substances produced by society – Everything Spreads Everywhere
Degradation by physical means - There is value in existing structure
and, further none of the these behaviours create conditions that systemically undermine anyones capacity to meet their needs Adapted from: Lawn, P. A. (2001). Scale, prices, and biophysical assessments. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 369-382. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00172-0 Adapted from: http://www.thenaturalstep.org/en/the-system-conditions From Supply Side Sustainability: The organization may only attempt to create the conditions in which sustainable outcomes may emerge via one or more of these three avenues:
Simplifying to a level commensurate with available energy
Finding more energy to subsidize increasing elaboration
Using energy supplies as efficiently and effectively as possible

Within these three avenues to maximize the likelihood of their outcomes being sustainable, organizations must attempt to:
Manage for productive systems rather than for their outputs
Manage systems by managing their contexts
Identify what dysfunctional systems lack and supply only that
Deploy ecological processes to subsidize management efforts rather than conversely
Understand the problem of diminishing returns to problem solving Adapted / quoted from:
Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, J. A., & Hoekstra, T. W. (1999). Supply-side sustainability. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 16(5), 403.
Allen, T. F. H. (2003). In Hoekstra T. W., Tainter J. A. (Eds.), Supply-side sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.

Summarized in http://www.slideshare.net/AntonyUpward/supply-side-sustainability-summaryupward-av102 Suggestions how the achievement of this might be measured... B-Labs B-Impact Assessment Survey v3 amended by addition of measures of Tri-Profitability within the goals provided by A. Lawn/Ecological Economics, the adherence to B. The Natural Step System Conditions and by the implementation of the advice provided by C. "Supply Side Sustainability", D. "Cradle to Cradle" and E. "Socio-Technical Thinking" An example of type of knowledge which feeds the definition and improvement of the elements of the Toolkit, like the SSBMC, includes the output from the Research Loop (The first of the three change loops described above and included in the analysis to the left).



The output from my research, summarized here, proposing a first definition of strongly sustainable organizations and how to measure them, constitutes the first input of natural, social and formal scientific knowledge into the Toolkit. This definition is an attempt at summarizing a "gold standard" or over-arching design principle for defining a strongly sustainable organization. It is quite probable, given the current prevailing world-views in the Global North, and the associated, legal, policy and social norms, that it may not be possible for any organization to currently attempt to achieve this definition "as is".

However, in order to create a "compelling vision" for a 10-40 years backcast of what an organization will need to be, it is critical we set the most aspirational goal we can, based on the best natural, social and formal scientific knowledge available today. This is what I make a first attempt to do here.

Likely this definition will be at best incomplete, and at worst badly misinformed; but assuming the future definition of organizational strong sustainability will be the same as today would definitely be unwise. My argument for the validity of this definition of Organizational Strong Sustainability is based on the these five inter / trans-disciplinary bodies of knowledge and their dependencies and interrelationships Discussions of Strong Sustainability Discussions of Macro-Economic Policies Required to Create the Conditions for Strongly Sustainable Outcomes to Emerge within Planetary Bio-physical Limits Discussions on the Implications for Defining and Measuring Organizational Success of Sustainability Discussions on our Understanding of the Purpose, Nature and Social Construction of Organizations (Required to Attempt to Create Conditions from which Strongly Sustainability Outcomes Emerge from Organizations) (Required to because existing definitions of organizational success - i.e. maximizing monetary profit - are no long sufficient) (Required to because existing macro-economic policies which pursue GDP growth while creating and/or failing to solve social and environmental problems are no longer appropriate) (Required to because currently no commonly held understanding of what sustainability is or means) Discussions of the World-View / Belief System which Individuals Need to Adopt to be Able to Act to Achieve Strong Sustainability (Required to because majority of commonly held world-views in (at least) the Global North create significant personal barriers to being able to act to create the conditions for strongly sustainability outcomes to Emerge Norms includes "belief systems" and "world views".
Expect / require a shift from "me to we" (Doppelt, 2012) A Definition of
Strong Sustainability World-View Macro-Economic
Goals Tri-Profit Organizational
Purpose 1 2 3 4 5 To act on this understanding of strong sustainability will require a change in our individual and collective... To put this world-view into place will require a new macro-economic goal for society, or at least people willing to act to achieve this goal even if "official" policy isn't aligned To achieve this new macro-economic goal will require a re-conceptualizing of organizational success and its measurement from solely the maximization of monetary profit to integrated achievement of "tri-profit" To design and instantiate organizations which can reliably achieve tri-profitability requires the most up-to-date understanding of organizations produced by management scholars Strong Sustainability Simplistically, Strong Sustainability is what separates Ecological Economists from (in order of increasing "distance") environmental economists, natural resource economists and neo-classical economists** (i.e. the vast majority). I summarize the idea of strong sustainability as follows:
"Strongly Sustainable" is a term used by Ecological Economists to indicate the impossibility of substituting natural capital with human, manufactured, social or financial capital in time frames which might help mitigate the worst effects of climate change and other anthropomorphic impacts as described by the IPCC and other bio-physical science. This implies the need for organizations to balance the achievement social, environmental and monetary goals. Neumayer, E. (2010). Weak versus strong sustainability :exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms (3rd ed.). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar.
A shorter exploration of this topic, although a decade older is Ayres, R. U., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Gowdy, J. M. (1998). Viewpoint: Weak verses Strong Sustainability. Discussion paper TI, 98-103/3. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Tinbergen Institute. Retrieved from: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/9295/1/98103.pdf; Other Social and Natural Science Definitions of Sustainability Paradoxically, sustainability is:
"An active condition requiring choice, not a passive consequence of doing less"
“The interplay between a continuously evolving state of nature and a continuously changing state of mind”, not “a (static) ecological condition”
An emergent property of the system of systems comprising the environment, society and the economy - knowable only with hindsight From Cradle-to-Cradle: Adapted from: McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things . New York: North Point Press. The organization must attempt to:
Create a net increase in well-being, natural and human capital, e.g.
Homes, offices and factories
Produce more than they consume
Purify air, soil and water
Products and services
During use contribute to wellbeing and eco-system health
At end of life: 100% biodegrade (biological nuterients), or reused (technology nutrient) Quoted / summarized from:
Allen, T. F. H. (2003). In Hoekstra T. W., Tainter J. A. (Eds.), Supply-side sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.
Summarized in http://www.slideshare.net/AntonyUpward/supply-side-sustainability-summaryupward-av102 “The possibility that human and other life will flourish on this planet forever.”, i.e. sustainability is about creating conditions where outcomes with economic, environmental and social effectiveness will emerge. Enduring not failing
Diversity not homogeneity
Happiness not worry
Confidence not uncertainty and distrust Possibilities for:
Abundance not limits
Everyone and everything forever not just me, now
Flourishing by being not surviving by having
Positively contributing not doing less damage Quoted / summarized from:
Ehrenfeld, J. (2008). Sustainability by design: a subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McDonough, W. (2002). In Braungart M. (Ed.), Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press. Social and Natural Science Reviews of Planetary Limits to Scale of Human Society and Economy In order for the human economy to be sustained within the planets bio-physical limits the following policies must be adhered to, in the following order of priority:
1. Limit physical flows in absolute terms (NOT relative or in $s);
2. Ensure Distributional Equity within these limits
3. Use the market to achieve Allocative Efficiency within the above Bio-physical planetary limits: 9 planetary systems have been identified and attempts made to measure their current state: the 7 have been measured and tipping points determined: Climate change, Ocean Acidification, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Nitrogen Cycle, Phosphorus cycle, Fresh Water, Change in Land Use,; for 2 the knowledge for this assessment doesn't yet exist (Atmospheric Aerosol Loading, Chemical Pollution...including plastics) Summarized from:
Rockström, J. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472.
The longer version of the article is here: Rockström, J., & et. al. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Quoted / summarized from:
Lawn, P. A. (2001). Scale, prices, and biophysical assessments. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 369-382. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00172-0
See also:
Victor, P. A. (2008). Managing without growth : slower by design, not disaster. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
A summary of the book can be viewed in the presentation Peter gave at the 2010 NetImpact conference at Schulich.
Video: http://msl.stream.yorku.ca/mediasite/Viewer?peid=a823e501-cc27-4d50-9b02-c9ee2e953cfe
Slides: https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B0f5DaRd14UdMWMwYzRjNmYtY2FjZS00ODFkLThiOGItZjYzODIwYzcwYWQ0
CBC Radio Ideas debate "Green Growth or No Growth"
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/02/02/green-growth-or-no-growth/
http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/debate
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Buddhist Economics. Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered. (1st ed., pp. 56-66). London: Blond and Briggs. Natural Laws of Sustainability from Doppelt, B. (2012). From me to we : the five transformational commitments required to rescue the planet, your organization, and your life. Sheffield: Greenleaf. (p.147) Unless a business model designer's world-view aligns to these "natural laws", and hence their definition of "success" for a business would be bounded by these laws, then I believe there is little chance of them designing a business model which might help to bring about strongly sustainable outcomes.

This is NOT a small hurdle in its own right; it implies a need to consider carefully how to explain the strongly sustainable business model design principles. Until people's world-views are substantially aligned with these natural laws it seems improbable that they will react positively to these design principles for organizational strong sustainability.

A humble, friendly attitude and respectful listening dialogue is required - not gurus prescribing solutions; for change today we need co-operation and shared ownership for responsibility and power. Last paragraph inspired by Ray Anderson's introduction to Robèrt, K. (2002). The natural step story: seeding a quiet revolution. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. Profit as money remains a thin, highly precise, independently distinct value. In leaving it as such, pluralists have no means of integrating or reconciling it with other measures when it comes to conflicts in thick contexts, such as strong sustainability.

"Say [CEOs and Shareowners] forgo talk about long-term profit maximization
through enlightened interest and turn instead to an appreciation of the genuine conflicts that can take place between sometimes incommensurable values, that fundamental that they purport to be so sensitive to. It is such conflicts which lead, at times, to the inescapable need to compromise some or all of the conflicting values. If pluralists truly appreciate this, as we might expect they would, then we could indeed say that for them the corporation should be, to some extent, really accountable to all of its stakeholders and so that it should try to meet their needs even though this will often mean forgoing real profit, in both the short and long term. But there is a problem with taking this route as well. For what, we might ask, of the competitive realities of the market? [...] There are, at least in the United States, numerous forces at play which encourage managers to maximize profit by allocating resources efficiently, not to mention disciplines against inefficient behaviour. Indeed, as many have argued, managers in that country are so directed toward short-term profits as a way of maintaining the value of a company's stocks that important long-term considerations are often neglected by necessity. Managers may wish to recognize the requirements of values other than profit, but often this has to remain but a wish. After all, if the business environment is so competitive that attending to stakeholders other than shareholders threatens the very survival of the firm, then surely the manager will have to act accordingly. Indeed, with the increasing globalization of the market economy accompanying the expansion of free trade, we might expect this to apply to all corporations, not just those in the United States. It seems, then, that the pluralist who would take this route comes up against the bars of what Weber famously referred to as the 'iron cage' of modern capitalism." Adapted / quoted from:
Blattberg, C. (2000). Welfare: Towards the Patriotic Corporation. From pluralist to patriotic politics: putting practices first (ch. 6 - pp. 172-184). New York City, New York, United States of America: Oxford University Press. See also my work on "tri-profitability" - a "thick context," non-pluralistic inclusive approach to the definition of profit which starts to answer the question: how do we make it as easy for a manager / decision maker to figure out if they are environmentally and socially profitable as it is for them to figure out if they are monetarily profitable. revenue - cost = profit is an EASY formula - both in terms of data gathering and calculation compared to anything we have in the social or environmental today
http://prezi.com/zxdosyc5ukxu/tri-profitability-a-challenge-for-discussion/?auth_key=950b94cd5d46aedd09ff66b001fef5cef0cf714a Tri-Profit Russell Ackoff's PhD student Jamshid Gharaedaghi extended Ackoff's ideas of "organizations as purposeful systems" to claim that organizations are multi-minded purposeful systems" arising from a voluntary agreement by the multiple-minds some of whose purposes will be met by through their association with the organization. These agreements are at the "why" level - with disagreement possible about "what" and "how".

Only with an understanding of this socially constructed reality of organizations can managers effectively deal with the implications of choice and thus dissolve the inevitable conflicts amongst the organizations various stakeholders through dialogue. Adapted / quoted from:
Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity : a platform for designing business architecture (3rd ed.). Burlington, Mass.: Morgan Kaufmann. See also these works:
Cavaganaro, E., & Curiel, G. H. (2012). The Three Levels of Sustainability. United Kingdom: GreenLeaf.
Doig, M. (2009). Organisational Sustainability. Retrieved 12/8/2010, 2010, from http://www.unisa.edu.au/corpsocialresp/csr/sustainability.asp
Doig, M. (2003). The Nature of Organizational Sustainability. (PhD, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)). , 1-305.
Friedman, A. L. (2006). In Miles S. (Ed.), Stakeholders: theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Handy, C. B. (2002). What's a Business For? Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 49-56.
Handy, C. B. (1991). What is a company for? [Michael Shanks Memorial Lecture Delivered to the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce and on Wednesday 5 December 1990 With Bob Tyrrell, Managing Director, The Henley Centre for Forecasting Limited in the Chair] RSA Journal, (March)
Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7-18.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in a Design Science Approach. (Ph.D., l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales de l’Université de Lausanne). , 1-172.
Ostrom, E. (2008). The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(4), 8.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672. doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1), 62-77.
Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Labour.
Zott, C., Amit, R. H., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Theoretical roots, recent developments, and future research. IESE Research Papers,
Zott, C., Amit, R. H., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(3 (on-line)), 2-25. doi:10.1177/0149206311406265 A Definition of Strong Sustainability Aligned Personal World-View Aligned Macro-
Economic
Goals Success
Measured by
Tri-Profit Aligned
Organizational
Principles 1 2 3 4 5 From Socio-Technical Thinking: All the jobs within the organization and the other organizations in its value network must attempt to have the following properties: Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Labour "The Principles of work Design" summarizing the work of Fred Emery and others (pp.29-31) A B D C E Zoom
Down
for
Details / Evidence Zoom
Down
for
Details / Evidence Zoom
Down
for
Details / Evidence Zoom
Down
for
Details / Evidence Zoom
Down
for
Details / Evidence In our meeting of May 29, 2012 Dr. Bob Willard also suggested other sources of measurement standards:
Greenbiz / United Labs Environment UL880 - Sustainability for Manufacturing Organizations - http://www.greenbiz.com/ratings and http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/businesses/environment/
Standards developed by the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE)
Evaluation Questions Developed by Walmart Sustainability Initiative
Evaluation Questions Developed by TNS and Comparison International in PROBE (PROmoting Business Excellence) - http://probe-network.com/tns-training-sustainability-for-leaders/
Standards developed by the Transition Towns Movement
Interface Flor "Seven Paths to Mount Sustainability"
World Business Council for Sustainable Development Vision 2050
ISO26000
OSC standards related to corporate risk disclosure, governance and transparency Ideas for a Methodology for the Successful Use of the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit In discussions with Prof Jeremy Bowes (April 27, 2012), Prof Peter Jones and other members of the SSBMG the following ideas started to emerge concerning a methodology for the successful use of the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit.

The following ideas about the methodology record these early conversations on this topic. Drilling down to explore the early thinking about a methodology for the successful use of the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Toolkit... Why Do We Need a Methodology for the Successful Use of the Toolkit? Objective of the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology and Canvas is
"Increase the quality (reliability, consistency, effectiveness) of strongly sustainable business models (hence the businesses instantiated from these models)... and
The efficiency of the business model designers who create them."

This objective can't be met without a method to guide business model designers in the use of the Ontology / Canvas and the application of the latest natural, social and formal scientific knowledge encapsulated in the strongly sustainable organization model design principles of what constitutes a strongly sustainable business Summarizing:
Methodology... drives ...Quality... drives ... Efficiency
of outcome of designer
Reliability
Consistency
Effectiveness What is the Overall Process of Design Using the Strongly Sustainable Business Model Ontology / Canvas? Designer's knowledge of the Construct Definitions and their Relationships which form the SSBMO The Designer's Business Model(s) described using the SSBMO Questions the Designer Must Answer to Create their Business Model Knowledge of what the designer believes a "strongly sustainable business model" is Knowledge of the design principles for "strongly sustainable business model" See top right area of this prezi for more How well does the designer understand the SSBMO? Knowledge of the design principles for profit-first "business models" See Osterwalder et. al. Knowledge of their own idea Questions include:
What does each construct in the SSBMO mean to me?
What should each construct contain for my business model? Alternatively, expressing the questions using Entity Relationship Modeling Terminology:
What does this entity in the SSBMO mean to me?
What instantiations of this entity are required for my business model? Designer will filter all these sources of knowledge based on their own beliefs, world-view, willingness and ability to learn and change. Knowledge Gained through Study Knowledge Gained through Design Together these two knowledge sources define the constructs and their relationships within the Ontology i.e. All constructs contain all ideas and relationships relevant to this business model A B D C The Collective and Individual On-going Iterative Process of Learning about the Conditions from Which Strongly Sustainable Outcomes can Emerge* The Collective and Individual On-going Iterative Process of Changing* What We Believe ... Our World Views, Norms and Values On-going Iterative Generative and Evaluative Processes that Work to Change, at All Levels of Scale, all Parts and Wholes of our Biosphere State of Our Knowledge
Change Loop State of "Nature" Change Loop Our State of Mind
Change Loop ..in response to the other two loops ..in response energy from the sun and the interplay within the biosphere ..in response to the other two loops Inspired by:
Allen, T. F. H. (2003). In Hoekstra T. W., Tainter J. A. (Eds.), Supply-side sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.
Summarized in http://www.slideshare.net/AntonyUpward/supply-side-sustainability-summaryupward-av102 "Profit
First" "Society First" "Environment First" Success for Typical Organization "Strongly
Sustainable" Paths along which the Acceptable Definitions of Success may move for a specific organization over time ...each organization's designer must determine what is an "acceptable" definition of success for that organization (using steps 1-3 at left).

Compared to the then current "strongly sustainable organizational design principles" (SSx) there will be a "gap" to each organizations "acceptable" definitions of organizational success (AS1, AS2, AS3, ASn).

The size of the gap is likely to be related to how closely the world-view of the stakeholder's of the organization with decision making power over their organizations definition of "acceptable" success relates to the evolving strongly sustainable organizational design principles.

The gap will always be largest between a typical organization (today an organization whose definition of "acceptable" success is as much monetary profit as possible [AS0]) and the current definition of "strongly sustainable organizational design principles" (SSx). Three Change Loops Drive Business Model Designer's Conceptions of "Acceptable" Definitions of Organizational Success 1 Less willing to learn the lower the liklihood of a strongly sustainable business model being created What is the "acceptable" definition of success for my organization? Who are the actors who I believe might be involved, and what are their needs (+ve & -ve)? A Business Model Designer's Awareness of the Current State of the Change Loops Informs their Sense of an "Acceptable" Definition of Success for the Organization they
are Designing... 2b Which actors do I believe play a role as one or more of my organization's stakeholders? What are my ideas for the value my organization will create (+ve & -ve)? Which of my stakeholders have what rights to decide what is a legitimate definition of success for my organization? ...then the Designer Creates their Organizations Specific Definitions of "Acceptable" Success by Synthesis of the Answers to These Four Questions* and (hopefully) Involvement of the Stakeholders Determined to have Decision Rights 3 Designer will filter all these sources of knowledge based on their own beliefs, world-view, willingness and ability to learn and change. Less willing to learn the lower the likelihood of a strongly sustainable business model being created * Each Question is Related to the following constructs in the SSBMO: "Actor", "Need", "Stakeholder", "Criteria", "Relationship" and / or "Decision" , A Business Model Designer's awareness of the current state of the Change Loops informs their understanding of their Baseline business model 2a The nature of the baseline will change depending on whether a new organization is being designed, or an existing organization is being redesigned. A Business Model Designer then formulates their compelling vision of their future state business model based on their overall awareness and definition of organization success 4 This will be a "typical" iterative business model design process - as recommended by Osterwalder: "Sketch", "Prototype", "Simulate" - but using the SSBMC

Also this step will need to document the "acceptable" definition of success (Mission, Vision, Values) 4 a.
b,
c,.. A Business Model Designer then builds a plan to instantiate* their preferred business model design and executes that plan 5 * Make real / Bring into Existence Within this overall four step process, a designer creates a strongly sustainable business model using the principles of Backcasting (below) whilst proceeding through the following 5 steps (right and below) Backcasting / Interactive Design, unlike forecasting, helps the designer imagine a future, informed by the strongly sustainable design principles unencumbered by today's world-view and limited by today's constraints. Gharajedaghi's Systems Design Methodology - http://interactdesign.com/JGsystems.pdf based on Ackoff's Interactive Planning / Design and Warfield's Interactive Management 2 A Business Model Designer's awareness of the current state of the Change Loops informs the whole design process SSx AS0 AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 ...the changing state of the change loops creates an evolving set of definitions of success for organizations attempting to create the conditions for strongly sustainability outcomes to emerge (SS1, SS2, SS3, SSn) - i.e. the strongly sustainable organizational design principles / "gold-standard" "gets better / stronger" over time as our understanding develops via the change loops (see top right of this prezi for current design principles).

In turn, each organization's definition of "acceptable" success will improve (ASx-Iteration1, ASx-Iteranation2, ASx-I3, ASx-Iy etc.) in response to
Its own learning
Changes in its immediate environment (incl. its economic marketplace, social and bio-physical environments), and
Its understanding of the evolving "stronger" definition of strong sustainability.

This implies that for any specific organization the gap between the current strongly sustainable organizational design principles (SSx) and an organization's current "acceptable" definition of success (ASn-Iy) may grow or (hopefully) shrink overtime (Gx-t1 > Gx-t2 > Gx-tn) Gap for
Org #1 Acceptable definitions of success for organization #1 Based on current definition of Organization Strongly Sustainability design principles Gap for Org #2 From "Profit First"
(SS0 = PF!) Towards "Fully Integrated" Achievement of Monetary, Social and Environmental Profit (i.e. Maximum Tri-Profit) Iterations 1 thru y of Organization 1's Definition of "Acceptable" Success over time compared to Evolution of Strongly Sustainable Organizational Design Principles AS1-I1 AS1-I2 AS1-I3 AS1-Iy SS1 SS2 SSn Time (t) AS1-I0 = AS0 at t=0
"Acceptable Success" is monetary profit
Large gap to SS1 (G1-t0) at t=1
"Acceptable Success" for organization #1 has shifted somewhat towards SS1
Gap starts to close (G1-t1) at t=2
The 2nd Iteration "Acceptable Success" for organization #1 moved closer to SS1
Gap reduces (G1-t2) * Includes learning / changing from using SSBMToolkit! between t=0 & 2
current strongly sustainable organizational design principles are here at t=3
current strongly sustainable organizational design principles get more integrated / stronger and move here at t=3
The 3rd Iteration "Acceptable Success" for organization #1 responds to improvements in SS2
Gap grows (G1-t3).
Subsequently Iteration y of "Acceptable Success" for organization #1 responds to improvements in SSn
subsequent strongly sustainable organizational design principles get even more integrated / stronger Evolution 1 thru n of the Strongly Sustainable Organizational Design Principles, reflecting the current state of the change loops G1-t0 G1-t1 G1-t2 Gap AS & SS G1-t3 These change loops will impact the design principles for strongly sustainable organizations and the "acceptable" definition of success for each organization attempting to improve its ability to create the conditions for strongly sustainable outcomes to emerge both at any given point in time (upper red arrow) and over-time (lower red arrow) At any given point in time... Over time... Whiles the process 1-4 appears to be required given the nature of the of the SSBMO.

The steps 1-5 are strongly suggested based on my experience of how people react to prescriptions on what to do (i.e. badly), particularly when the definition of what is required is going to change overtime, and the benefits of the backcasting / interactive design approaches.

However, within this there is a great deal of room for methodological innovation to help businesss model designers reach of the objectives of the SSBMG as quickly and at the greatest scale possible. The following are potential sources of methodological innovation which have come up in my research and in discussion with members of the SSBMG: Once the designer has determined the "acceptable" definition of success for an organization they can begin to design the organization's compelling vision.
(Likely the organization design - step 4 - and acceptable definition of success - step 3 - will develop iteratively. Further, if the designer is closely adhering to the design principles, it will be a transparent process which engages with all the organizations expected stakeholders) Overall ABCD Backcasting Process for Designing and Planning to Bring About Compelling Visions of the Future Adapted From http://www.naturalstep.org/en/abcd-process From the methodology in Strongly Sustainable Business Model Generation New in
v0.4 New in
v0.4 New in
v0.4
Email of May 16, 2012 21h33 EST Peter Jones Said the following had good ideas for design principles particularly relating to governance
Evaluative principles p.26: Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672. doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Design principles p.14: Ostrom, E. (2008). The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(4), 8.
Perhaps these are more "value system" design principles - how do managers of members of a value system most effectively "play their part in system outcomes" when designing their single organization's business model?
Also need to look at concepts from Participative Democracy
Email of June 20, 2012 12h15 describing posting to http://bioinspired.sinet.ca on "BioInspired Organizational Design Principles" in the Literature Exchange forum - Giles Hutchins / Biomimicry for Creative Innovation (BCI) (http://www.businessinspiredbynature.com) business principles:
http://nbs.net/lessons-from-the-environment-help-firms-evolve
Six Goals: Resilient, Optimizing, Adaptive, Systems-based, Values-led, Life supporting,
http://nbs.net/transforming-towards-the-firm-of-the-future
"Redesign for resilience" - four behaviors are given in the article to achieve the six goals
Also see pattern lanaguage ideas at
http://reliablepropsperity.net and http://sinet.ca/patterns/index.php/Main_Page More Ideas for Additional Design Principles/ Measurement Approaches New in
v0.42 New in
v0.41 New in
Vx.y Strategic Foresight - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_foresight Appreciative Inquiry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Team Spirit - http:TBD (mentioned by Peter Jones) Dotmocracy - http://dotmocracy.org/ and National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation - http://ncdd.org / International Association for Public Participation - http://iapzcanada.org and Canadian Community for Dialogue and Deliberation - http://ippanetwork.org and http://c2d2.ca TRIZ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ Participative Democracy - http:TBD New in
v0.42 For an individual organization, as they adopt more of the strongly sustainable business model design principles they can move up the levels of the "maturity model" as defined by Bob Willard

For new organizations, by adopting a significant number of the strongly sustainable business model design principles from the start they can "start" at "level 5"

The Measurement system should be able to connect an individual organizations performance to these maturity level as both a diagnostic and for (continuous improvement and inspirational) goal setting. A Maturity Model for Organizational Sustainability
(Bob Willard) More in
v0.42 Design
Business Model Instantiate*
Business Model Run & Change
the Organization * Bring into being, make real, create in practice SSBMToolkit - method, tools, design principles, patterns Another perspective on the "use loop" Version 1.x:
Tool: Paper based canvas
Method: None supplied
Patterns: None supplied
Case Studies: Embdeded in thesis
Documentation: Masters / PhD Thesis
Training: None Version 2.x:
Tool: Paper based canvas
Method: Initial - from general experience
Patterns: Initial - from general experience
Case Studies: Initial - from general experience
Documentation: Practitioner Book
Training: Train the Trainer Version 3.x:
Tool: App (web, iPad, Android, etc.) - prototyping & simulating
Method: Improved - from specific experience
Patterns: Worked examples - from specific experience
Case Studies: Examples with expected benefits
Documentation: Updates via Web
Training: Train the Trainer Version 4.x:
Tool: App integrated method support
Method: Refined - from specific experience
Patterns: More Worked examples - from specific experience
Case Studies: More examples with measured benefits
Documentation: Updated Book
Training: Train the Trainer
Full transcript