Part I - Expanding Technotope Circles

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 - The Technotope Individual

Chapter 3 - The Technotope Team

Chapter 4 - Sustainable Development Tasks in the Technotope

To Part I - II - III - IV - V-Annexes - VI-References

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 - Global Challenges in a Planetary Context
1.2 - Towards Digitally Empowered People
1.3 - Unparalleled capabilities in Partner Journeys, built on the achievements of a generation
1.4 - Awareness of the Assets and Gaps that underpin the Theory of Change
1.5 - Outline of the Book
1.6 - Tools and Resources

To Part I (Chapter 1 - 2 - 3 - 4) _ II (5 - 6 - 7) _ III (8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - (no 13)) _ IV (14 - 15) _ V (Annexes) _ VI (References)

1.1 - Global Challenges in a Planetary Context

The global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the national and local action plans that will be launched in relation to it, will need to influence the decisions, investments and operational choices of many partners: governments, businesses and households. Successful implementation of the agenda will require improved services for decision making, investment, technology adoption and data and information sharing at all levels and in all parts of society.

In order to reduce the perceived complexity of the global problem space, and to compare values that people will refer to when making decisions, it is useful to distinguish three orders:

• The natural order: the natural environment in which humanity lives. It includes aspects such as time, land, climate, biotope and people. It includes material, those material resources that humanity exchanges with the natural environment.
• Social order: the institutional arrangements and socio-cultural networks that humanity has developed to govern relationships and interactions with each other and with the natural order. It is the order in which produced assets and content come into play. Produced assets are non-financial and non-content assets created as outputs of production processes and as inputs of consumption processes and services. Produced assets consist of fixed assets, inventories and valuables. Contents are non-tangible resources such as those that could be protected by intellectual property rights, authored works (in the public domain), data, etc.
• Techno-order: institutional arrangements and actor networks related to constellations and interactions involving complex produced assets, complex content collections and multiple institutional arrangements.

In these orders, entelechy proceeds through interactions in biotope, sociotope and technotope.

Biological and physical systems come together in the biotope, which is an area of uniform environmental conditions that provides a living space for a particular assemblage of plants and animals. Biotope is almost synonymous with habitat, but whereas the subject of a habitat is a species or population, the subject of a biotope is a biological community.

Physical, chemical and biophysical interactions in the natural order. These are studied in dedicated sciences and are not specifically addressed here. However, the findings of these sciences should be taken into account when making decisions.

Climate change, which is a global process of the natural order, threatens humanity’s biosphere.

Humanity’s response to challenges such as climate change involves socio-technical interactions in the social order and the techno-order.

The patterns of these interactions affect how effectively and efficiently we deal with the challenges.

More generally, entelechy or becoming in sociotope and technotope is based on biological and physical systems, but involves additional systems such as legal systems, businesses and agencies and the products and services they provide to society.

A sociotope is a defined space that is uniform in its use values and social meanings. It can be described as the collective life-world of a place, its uses and meanings, in a particular culture or group of people. The sociotope is defined in the real world, where it is shaped by a variety of lifestyles, trades, regulations and services associated with a specific place, which may be local, national, regional or global.

For the group of social actors, the sociotope typically includes a number of regimes and a public sphere.

A technotope is an external space that is uniform in its use values, social meanings and technological uses. It can be described as the collective life-world of a sociotope enhanced by cyberspace, its uses and meanings, in a specific culture or group of people. The technotope exists simultaneously in the real world and in cyberspace, where it is shaped by a variety of lifestyles, trades, rules and services associated with a specific place, which may be local, national, regional or global, and which involve technical artefacts such as smart phones, computers, digital service platforms, and so on.
Note that the term sociotope, as defined in Wikipedia, also covers the term technotope. This book introduces a distinction to reflect the digital revolution we have been experiencing since the 1960s.

Thus, three interrelated systems are of interest for our decision making:

• the natural system in the biotope,
• actors in the sociotope, and
• digitally empowered actors in the technotope.

Improved use of modelling and modelling tools is proposed as an essential skill for people to participate as decision makers in the technotope, and as a key skill for participation in the social order.

For the social actors, the technotope typically includes regimes that also include elements of the techno-order.

To the chapter

1.2 - Towards Digitally Empowered People

As a wide range of actors learn about the Agenda and commit to making a contribution to improving society’s resilience, they will embark on a partnership journey that will take years, involve diverse teams and include episodes of awareness, advocacy, analysis, design, conflict, implementation and monitoring Global Task Force of Local and Regional Governments.

These journeys will take place in a society with a complexity that no one can comprehend alone, with multiple interdependencies for all, and with multiple initiatives running simultaneously.

Peace, in spirit and in reality, requires a fragile equilibrium that includes both some control over our natural environment, oversight of actions that affect everyone, and trust in others, both near and far. Trust is needed both in people who speak our language and share our culture, and in people who speak different languages and hold different views.

In this book we refer to an open portfolio, program and project management method and use modelling techniques to present key ideas about public and private initiatives, resource use and their interdependencies.

The purpose of these methods and models is to break out of the rigidities that limit our ability to individually and collectively deal with contemporary problems, from climate change, conflict and poverty to failures of democratic governance and justice.

The challenge in presenting this is that both the subject, the methods and the modelling approach are quite complex and multifaceted.

On the one hand, one can present and explain each of a number of content slices with a limited number of different concepts, and on the other hand, one can establish relationships between the slices, from a small number to the public-private chains that are typical of contemporary society.

To bring to life the interactions between concepts in a small number of slices (or dimensions), we will use a number of cases and describe them, first in each of the slices, and then use elements from different slices in the analyses.

Mapping the partner journeys for the partners at different socio-technical levels helps us to develop content sharing services and resources that better manage the interdependencies and complementarities between initiatives worx.wiki/Initiative Management than conventional approaches to communication, decision-making, development and conflict resolution.

We aim to provide partners with model- and data-driven decision making, capacity building, analysis and design, and negotiation techniques, even in the face of frequent environmental change and where many actors are involved.

A first starting point for shared services and shared capabilities for partners is the Common Approach to the US Federal Enterprise Architecture, which emphasises a set of general principles and a collaborative planning methodology to explicitly look outside the agency to address new requirements. In our case, it is partners looking to the partnership for solutions and shared capabilities.

The launch of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015 provided an important opportunity to promote and explain collaborative approaches to partnership as the basis for effective sustainable development, from global to local scale.

As the requirements for successful initiatives become more challenging in each successive stage of the Partner Journey - from awareness, advocacy, analysis, design, implementation and monitoring – we present the touch points, tools and resources that will strengthen partnership:

• by raising awareness of sustainable development and each other;
• by advocating for local ownership and change;
• by facilitating synergy in the analysis of information ecosystems;
• by designing interoperable digital solutions;
• by enabling joint implementation; and by
• by jointly operating and monitoring systems.

The partnership is enabled by a practical model-based approach to decision-making. We use the decision-making framework described by John Adair (2009) and rely on open source tools Archi and Modelio for sharing models in ArchiMate, BPMN, and UML, the three most popular modeling standards.

To the chapter

1.3 - Unparalleled capabilities in Partner Journeys, built on the achievements of a generation

Today, we have the advantage of unparalleled capabilities that build on the achievements of a generation.

There are a number of open source modeling tools covering various dimensions of public and private decision making. These are available to all.

There are also Open PM² guides on portfolio, program, project and agile management and principles of digital capability. These are also available to all.

We will also look at Administration, Commerce and Transport messages and the UN/CEFACT modeling methodology (UMM) to support Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) between trading partners in administration, commerce and transport.

We will also look at John Adair’s presentation of an important yet simple decision-making framework. There are five steps. Define the goal, gather information, develop options, evaluate and decide, and implement. And there are three circles: accomplish the task, build the team, and develop the individual.

We have the methods, tools, and modeling concepts to support each step in the framework and transform work in each of the three circles. We will achieve the SDGs and related United Nations initiatives, despite a wide range of opinions, both informed and uninformed, as shared via Twitter (now X) and other social media.

The Common Approach to US Federal Enterprise Architecture clearly recognizes the relationship between the level of scope and the mission impact and planning detail of enterprise architecture.

The steps of joint planning and investment using the Societal Architecture will vary according to the demands on resources typical of the actors at each of these levels. By clearly defining the principles and constraints that guide these claims, we will achieve balanced reuse practices and services that empower actors to construct sustainable and equitable futures that align with resource endowments and societal values at the individual, community, national, and global levels.

Enterprise architecture as it is practiced in organizations, this is at the micro level, is transferred and elaborated as a multi-level knowledge infrastructure, with the reference levels of pico, micro, meso, and macro. The generic term “technotope” is used to describe the object system at the various levels, from the techno-globe, as coined by Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, to the techno-house that implements domotics.

Within the operational unit’s journey, strategic investment planning utilises practical thinking, the functions of the mind, the five-point plan and decision drivers as described by Adair (2009). These themes and their relationships are modelled in the figure below.

In the figure, note Adair’s three interactive circles (C1 - building the team in the lower part of the figure, C2 - developing the individual in the middle, and C3 - achieving the task in the upper part), the five-point plan for achieving tasks, the functions of the mind and practical thinking that individuals bring to the process, and the (public sector) decision drivers that influence the building of the team.

To the chapter

1.4 - Awareness of the Assets and Gaps that underpin the Theory of Change

Figure 1.2 distinguishes three fundamentally different types of assets in society:

• Intellectual assets that serve semiotic flows,
• Financial assets that enable the financial flows, for instance for investing and “pay for use” of “delivered services”
• The planet and its biosphere that provide a context for material flows, such as ecosystem, infrastructure and commercial services (biotope, sociotope and technotope)

Each kind of flow is home to specific drivers, gaps, barriers, goals and outcomes.

While a comprehensive macro-level problem analysis for “humanity on planet earth” is beyond the scope of this e-book, awareness of the three flows and the positioning of drivers, gaps, barriers, goals and outcomes in specific flows will help to assess the utility of a societal architecture.

In the material flows domain, mankind has to cope with drivers such as pollution, erosion, and climate, and the UN has proposed Sustainable Development Goals. Greed is an important driver affecting financial flows and contributing to financing gaps for many. Semiotic paralysis and mind traps contribute to local know-how gaps.

To implement and deliver materially inclusive capabilities and services in the material flows domain, we must use intellectual and financial assets and will create financial liabilities.

Societal architecture must address flow-specific gaps: the solutions gap in material flows, the financing gap in financial flows, and the local know-how gaps in the semiotic flows.

The strategy level narrative of the Theory of Change is that societal architecture will directly address key barriers and gaps in semiotic flows, which will then reduce financing needs and greed. Reduced barriers and gaps in semiotic and financial flows together will enable us to reduce the gap in sustainable development solutions.

To the chapter

1.5 - Outline of the Book

The second chapter explains the role of conceptual modeling in the development of the technotope individual. Here, the focus here is on new languages and tools of human cognition.

The third chapter explains how technotope individuals will build teams. New ways of forming teams, and the expansion of these teams will have implications for funding gaps.

The fourth chapter describes how these teams will collaborate to accomplish tasks at various levels of scale. Humanity will be empowered to address the solution gap.

The fourth chapter lists the building blocks for accomplishing sustainable development tasks in the technotope and also introduces the cases used to illustrate the application of collaborative planning and societal architecture.

Part II, comprising chapters 5 through 7, explains how collaborative planning and societal architecture support the four “semiotic” points in Adair’s five-point plan for practical thinking.

• Chapter 5 on An Asset-Aware Collaborative Planning and Investment Methodology (CPIM)
• Chapter 6 on A Societal Architecture for the Techno Globe
• Chapter 7 on A Societal Architecture Repository enabling CPIM Phases

Part III, comprising chapters 8 through 12 elaborates for each phase in CPIM, how societal architecture will be shaping them in the technotope. In each of these chapters, we link one of Adair’s five points to a step in the Collaborative Planning and Investment Methodology (CPIM) or to a step in conceptual modeling. Using the running cases, the cognitive means that can be reused for each CPIM step are illustrated. The general principles, as well as the characteristics and constraints of the resources being used, have implications for how the various stakeholders can best engage with the resources, including the use of appropriate tools.

• Chapter 8 on Identify and Validate in the Technotope
• Chapter 9 on Research and Leverage in the Technotope
• Chapter 10 on Define and Plan in the Technotope
• Chapter 11 on Invest and Execute in the Technotope
• Chapter 12 on Perform and Measure in the Technotope

Part IV looks at stakeholders and global portfolios in more detail, elaborating on the implications of using a societal architecture for actors, members of the global partnership, at each of the socio-technical levels, for pico, micro, meso and macro journeys:

• Chapter 14 on Agents
• Chapter 15 on The Global Tax Cooperation Portfolio
• Chapter 16 on The Global Content Portfolio will be added in a later version of this e-book.

In this part, the material is presented in an accessible, step-by-step, low-hurdle manner that allows stakeholders to extend the architecture documentation for their own initiatives.

Part V Annexes and Part VI References conclude the book. Annex 13 - Not an ordinary e-Book explains some navigational features that are used extensively in this book and in the #tagcoding manuals and wikis.

Given that the 2030 Societal Architecture is a first attempt (to my knowledge) to translate and extend enterprise architecture practices and lessons to a global partnership, I am aware of numerous shortcomings in this book. I intend to correct these. Feedback from readers is very welcome and will be acknowledged.

To the chapter

1.6 - Tools and Resources

After reading this book, you will be able to apply Societal Architecture and CPIM in the stakeholder role and for the partnership episodes you are familiar with, using the Archi or Modelio models that accompany this e-book. By applying the suggested activities for one episode of the partnership journey, you will build the skills to move to the next episode with the partnership you have recruited. Value creation and the prevention of value erosion will create virtuous and viral cycles in support of high-priority sustainable development goals.

You will be able to apply Societal Architecture and CPIM effectively if you master the tools and have the resources you need, including the extensive systematized online content that accompanies this book.

Before I conclude this introductory chapter, I want to draw your attention to some resources and tools that will be useful throughout the book.

If you familiarize yourself with these tools and resources as you read this e-book, you will learn the skills faster.

Hashtags that digitally support local discourse

Hashtags that support a local development discourse in social media and web use are listed on the country initiative pages as part of the Actor Atlas: Enabling the Sustainable Development Debate in the Digital Public Sphere. The hashtags are also introduced in the #tagcoding handbook.

Open source modeling tools

• Archi for ArchiMate.
• Modelio for ArchiMate, BPMN and UML.

Repositories

To be completed

To the chapter

Chapter 2 - Develop the Technotope Individual

2.1 - Skills to be developed by individuals
2.2 - Modeling and Conceptual Modeling
2.3 - Modeling as an Enabler for Change by Design
2.4 - Conceptual Models in a Learning Society
2.5 - System, Ecosystem and Social Totalities
2.6 - Models and Model Layers
2.7 - The technotope individual

To Part I (Chapter 1 - 2 - 3 - 4) _ II (5 - 6 - 7) _ III (8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - (no 13)) _ IV (14 - 15) _ V (Annexes) _ VI (References)

2.1 - Skills to be developed by individuals

In the following pages you will find guidance, tools and models for the development of practical wisdom, wisdom that can be applied in different roles in society, as it evolves towards a Technotope.

It is a journey on which this e-book can be your companion.

In Adair’s five-point plan of decision making, four of the points involve semiosis.

Four of the five steps in Adair’s five point plan can be considered specializations of the value chains that are part of the semiotic flows.

These interactions involve the taking in as content (i.e. words, drawings, numbers, models) by an interpretant (e.g. a person or a computer with a sensor) of (properties of) real-world phenomena and situations, or the interpretation of content as (current, future or past) real-world phenomena or situations.

A semiotic interaction involves a person or a sensing/actuating system (the interpretant), a sign (often content on an information carrier, from simple signs to complex models with thousands of elements and relationships), and a referent (what is denoted by the sign), again as a sign. Open source modeling tools help to make complex models understandable to ordinary people like you and me.

Elementary semiotic interactions are joined into socio-semiotic interactions, as studied for instance in Feez (2007) and the knowledge conversions of Nonaka (Nonaka et al., 2000), and as denoted by the term industrial semiosis (Goossenaerts, 2000).

Industrial semiosis illustrates for each of Adair’s four points that new tools and models open up unseen possibilities for the mind, individually and as stepping stones to collaborative or collective intelligence.

Modern open source tools also allow us to create and browse models, so making sense of such tools and the models and the possible meanings they convey is a key area for the development of the individual.

A second skill relates to understanding the nature of social entities and learning in society. Tony Lawson’s Social Positioning Theory is used to explain a theory of the social domain that supports the social constitution that would result from adopting a societal architecture.

To the chapter

2.2 - Modeling and Conceptual Modeling

Modeling is a technique for representing situations or systems (economic, military, mechanical etc.) by means of something else, usually at a smaller scale. Modeling is helpful because it allows us to take a good look at something that is too big or impractical to see otherwise.

Conceptual modeling is the development and use of representations to capture the features of both:

• the real-world domain, or work system, that an information system is intended to support (Wand and Weber, 2002)
• the context in which the information system will be created, and within which it will operate and evolve.

Conceptual modeling offers significant advantages throughout the information system lifecycle (ISLC), from initial requirements gathering to system development and ongoing maintenance. Here are some key benefits (summary generated by Gemini for prompt “what are the key benefits of conceptual modeling in the information system lifecycle” , but scope of use enlarged to ecosystem rather than a business or system, and to portfolios rather than projects):

• Improved Communication and Understanding: A conceptual model acts as a shared language between stakeholders (work and eco-system users, analysts, developers) by visually representing the work system’s entities, relationships, attributes, and processes. This clarity fosters better communication, reduces misunderstandings, and ensures everyone is on the same page about information and work system functionality.
• Early Identification of Issues: During conceptual modeling, potential problems or inconsistencies in requirements can be surfaced and addressed early in the development or change process. This is much more efficient and cost-effective than discovering issues later in the development or change cycle, when modifications become more expensive to implement.
• Reduced Development Time and Costs: A well-defined conceptual model serves as a blueprint for system development and planning. It provides a clear roadmap for decision-makers and developers, minimizing the need for rework or last-minute changes due to unclear requirements. This can lead to faster decision and development times and reduced overall portfolio, program, project and iteration costs.
• Stronger Ecosystem Foundation: A robust conceptual model lays the groundwork for a more robust work system and maintainable information system. It ensures the system is designed to handle the core functionalities and data structures required by the work system. This makes the work system more adaptable to future changes and the information system easier to maintain over time.
• Enhanced Data Quality: The process of defining entities, attributes, and relationships in the conceptual model helps to identify and address data quality issues. This can lead to cleaner, more consistent data within the system, which ultimately improves the accuracy and reliability of information used for decision-making in the work system.
• Documentation and Training: The conceptual model serves as valuable documentation both for the information system and its role in the work system. It provides a clear understanding of the system’s functionality for future reference and can be used for training purposes, helping users understand how to interact with the system effectively, and helping other stakeholders to plan engagements.

Here’s a table summarizing the key benefits:

In conclusion, conceptual modeling is a crucial aspect of the (information) system lifecycle. By investing time and effort in creating well-defined conceptual models, stakeholders can reap significant benefits throughout the development process and ensure the resulting and evolving systems meets their joint and specific needs effectively.

The various model elements and model layers of ArchiMate®, and the tool support for it, offer a very good starting point for appreciating the diversity and versatility of conceptual models. Key stakeholder benefits of using ArchiMate® in a portfolio, program or project include:

• Improved Understanding: Visual representation of the complex relationships between different components of the domain and the context.
• Enhanced Decision Making: Better-informed decisions about investments, resource allocation, prioritization, and risk management.
• Increased Transparency: Clearer communication of the tax convention’s architecture to stakeholders.
• Facilitated Change Management: Easier identification of the impact of changes on the overall architecture.

At present most professional modeling literature targets a specific specialized professional group, for instance architects, engineers or programmers.

In this book we want to demonstrate the usefulness of conceptual models and their tool support for a much broader group of mindful users, the technotope individual, who can be anyone who seeks an “untrapped” mind in journeys at any of the socio-technical levels macro, meso, micro, and pico.

To the chapter

2.3 - Modeling as an Enabler for “Change by Design”

For analysts and designers in a wide variety of decision making situations, the use of modeling often is related to the design or improvement of a product, a service or of the operational processes executed by service or manufacturing systems.

In policy making, modeling can be used with the purpose to improve regulations, or to enact new regulations.

But why change the operations of an existing work system? And in the “work system” of the democratic society, why change or add new regulations?

In general terms change “by design” in a work system or a stakeholder constellation can be due to three different causes: problems, directives and opportunities (Whitten et al, 2004)(Figure 2.2):

• Problems: undesirable situations that prevent a system or constellation from fully achieving its purpose, goals, and/or objectives.
• Opportunities: chances or possibilities to improve the system or constellation even in the absence of identified problems.
• Directives: new requirements or constraints that are imposed by management, government, or some external driver.

Emerging technologies, such as information and communication technologies (ICT) can offer a wide range of opportunities. Work systems for which one seizes these opportunities may become ICT-reliant work systems.

In many cases, problems occur or are perceived as a consequence of (implicit) objectives, which often also indicate desirable solutions for the problem.

Some problems can be solved directly by many people (with suitable tools available) (left hand side arrow in Figure 2.2). An example is repairing a flat tire of a bicycle.

Other problems appear new, or are indeed new. Problem analysis, root cause analysis and solution search may involve the use of models (i.e. simplified representations) of both elements of the systems and the factors that influence the problems and possible solutions. By using models it becomes possible to study some reality and possible changes to it, without actually intervening in, or disturbing that reality.

For instance in the case of production systems (assembly systems, job shops, warehouses, supply chains,…) computer models make experimental examinations possible which otherwise would have a high time and money expense. Furthermore simulation models allow quick and extensive parameter changes which are not possible using physical models.

Mathematical models are usually used in those cases where the behaviour of a system with respect to a problem can be fairly well described by means of mathematical equations that can be solved exactly or by using approximation techniques.

In many situations in which mathematical solutions are not (yet) possible it is still possible to make other models. In addition to mathematical models many other models exist (right hand branch in Figure 2.3).

Modeling is used to describe and analyze the behaviour of systems or products, ask “what if” questions about the real system, and aid in the design of real systems and products. Both existing and anticipated systems can be modelled.

Modeling is indispensable in problem-solving methodologies for many real-world problems. It is a highly interdisciplinary field since it is widely used in all aspects of industry, government and academia. One can find the teaching of modeling in almost every academic department from economics and social science to engineering and computer science (Fishwick, 1994).

To the chapter

2.4 - Conceptual Models in a Learning Society

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

2.5. - System, Ecosystem and Social Totality

2.5.1 - Social Totality
2.5.2 - Social Positioning Theory as a Social Ontology
2.5.3 - Biotope, Sociotope and Technotope
2.5.4 - Types and Tokens
2.5.5 - Classes of Agents
2.5.6 - The Range of possible Collaborations

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

2.5.1 - Social Totality

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

2.5.2 - Social Positioning Theory as a Social Ontology

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

In Annex 12 - Conceptual Models of the Social Positioning Theory the principles and concepts of the SPT are depicted by means of conceptual models.

2.5.3 - Biotope, Sociotope and Technotope

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

2.5.4 - Types and Tokens

The distinction between types and tokens is fundamental in conceptual modeling.

Types are abstract entities representing a category or class. They are universal in the sense that they exist independently of their instances. Types are shared by multiple instances. A single type can be instantiated multiple times.

In contrast, tokens are concrete instances of a type. They are particular and individual. Each token is unique. In an epistemic commitment, tokens belong to a specific type.

Example: Someones pet cat is a token of the type “cat”.

Understanding the type-token distinction is crucial for building conceptual models and using them in describing life-world situations and creating prescriptive norms for them. It helps define the structure of knowledge and how to represent it computationally. By clearly differentiating between general categories and specific instances, we can create more accurate and precise models.

2.5.5 - Classes of Agents

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

2.5.6 - The Range of possible Collaborations

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

2.6 - Models and Model Layers

Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8 are examples of a conceptual model. Before using more complex conceptual models, let’s explore the utility of models in general.

A model is an abstract representation of reality in any form (including mathematical, physical, symbolic, graphical, or descriptive form) to present a certain aspect of that reality for answering the questions studied (ISO 15704).

Depending on the kind of questions studied, we can use different kinds of models. Law & Kelton (2000) mention the question of model validity: does the model accurately reflect the system for the purposes of the decisions to be made?

A (geographic) map is one kind of model that helps us in finding the road from one place to another place. If the map pretends to show the roads in the covered geographic area, then validity means that the existing roads are indeed included in the map.

A map without a directions service (calculating the optimal or feasible roads between any two points on the map) is useful, as at least one can figure out a feasible route from one point to another, for any combination of (reachable) points (in the geographic area). But in combination with a geographic positioning system (GPS) a road planner service can be offered that supports driving decisions as we progress in a trip. A distinctive feature of a map in combination with a GPS and a road planner is that it supports decision making for all possible travel needs of people within the geographic area, if they have access to the services.

Also professional disciplines are characterized by their own culture, their own viewpoint including an approach to knowledge, a range of concerns, and a way of thinking and problem solving. These are supported by specific modeling and problem solving techniques.

The need for system models of operational processes is driven by questions on the performance and behaviour of alternative designs of the relevant processes. The modeling techniques are then used to predict and analyse performance and costs.

For instance, when studying an elevator, we may be interested in the possible states of this elevator or in the possible state changes. For the first question we might define a UML class diagram to characterize the state variables, and an instance diagram to describe the different states of the elevator that is studied. A process model might then be used to describe the possible state changes.

Model Driven Architecture: Model Layers

For businesses, during the past fifty years several modeling languages and techniques have been applied as organizations have externalized their structure and operating procedures, especially with a focus on computer support for improved operations. These trends have already given rise to the large-scale use of enterprise models and the use of several dimensions to manage the complexity of enterprises applying ICT.

As consolidated models are available for the operational processes, any project or decision option will deliver a “delta-specification” to realize a particular new scenario (stylistic objective) in a given operational process (or socio-technical context). The models at the three OMG MDA layers (Miller and Mukerji, 2003) (computation independent, platform independent and platform specific) result from different development phases, each of which offers its own contribution to the reduction of risks (Dick and Chard, 2003) and to the system design (Figure 2.11).

The Computation Independent Model (CIM) shows the system in the environment in which it will operate, and thus helps in presenting exactly what the system is expected to do. Useful as an aid to understanding a problem and for communication with the stakeholders, it is essential to mitigate the risks of addressing the wrong problem, or disregarding needs. Domain models are solution-independent descriptions of a problem domain produced in the analysis phase.

Often the term “conceptual model” is used as a synonym of “domain model”. However, in the modeling literature there are diverging proposals how to define the term “conceptual model”, contrast for instance (Guizzardi & Wagner, 2012) and (Robinson, 2011). A domain model may include both descriptions of the domain’s interacting entities and exchanged objects and descriptions of its events and processes.

Domain or conceptual models are “computation-independent models” in the sense that they are not concerned with making any target system choices (for instance, simulation, electronic document interchange, shop floor operations, database management) or with other computational issues. Rather, they focus on the perspective and problem solving attitudes of the subject matter experts for the domain under consideration, and on solution choices that they can make independent of the target implementations. The idea is that one redesigns the process prior to automating (certain steps in) it.

The Platform Independent Model (PIM) describes the system in reference to a particular architectural style (e.g., agent based, micro-services or client/server) but does not show details of platform use. The structure of this model might be quite different from the structure of a CIM layer model of the same system. In this book we will not use platform independent models. In specific cases, such as distributed supply chain simulations in which the links want to participate in the (federate) simulation without disclosing their decision criteria or data to the other simulation participants, a PIM model offers a valuable common model for all participants. Each participant must refine the PIM model to reflect own choices, and then implement it by mapping it to a Platform Specific Model for its IT platform.

Various Platform Independent Models can be created for a single CIM. For instance both the tables in a database system and the messages that trading partners will exchange.

The Platform Specific Model (PSM) is produced from the PIM by further transformation. It specifies how the system makes use of the chosen platform and technologies. A PSM may provide more or less detail, depending on its purpose. A PSM will be an implementation, if it provides all the information needed to construct a system and to put it into operation, or it may act as a PIM that is used for further refinement to a PSM that can be directly implemented. The PSM is coded in the programming language and artefacts of the target platform. After testing and debugging, the implemented solution is then deployed in a target environment.

Each model layer has its own role in the life cycle of project results as depicted in the figure 2.11. In this book we will articulate CIM layer domain and process models as a means to scope initiatives and to ensure the validity and credibility of the project work. We use Archimate, UML class diagrams and BPMN to express information and process models and their integration for simulation and system processing.

Models in a project, versus those of a portfolio

Models are used a lot, yet in many initiatives as CIM and PIM are not maintained after the systems have been implemented, deltaCIM and deltaPIM are made for a specific request, and after a solution has been delivered, they are forgotten, while the PSM + deltaPSM models remain as code. The CIM and PIM models that correspond to the PSM+deltaPSM models are not or poorly maintained.

One outcome of this situation is that subject matter “experts” often know less about the legacy systems than the experienced functional and technical analysts and software developers working at the system.

Another risk is that the subject matter experts don’t know what the CIM level equivalents are of “out-of-the-box” technical artefacts such as the EDIFACT messages. As a result poor re-use is made of those artefacts, even though a lot of analysis has gone into their definition.

A poor use of CIM modeling in analysis exposes organizations to risks such as poor decision making, poor re-use and high costs that are avoidable.

Further in the book this point will be illustrated for some EDIFACT messages, but in general terms one could expect that in a Portfolio aware Collaborative Planning and Investment Methodology the CIM and PIM models of the ecosystem, sociotope or technotope would be maintained and made available at the landscape portfolio level, for instance as digital commons.

See Annex 13 - Types of Systems, Models, Representations and Simulation for further possibilities of using models.

To the chapter

2.7 - The Technotope Individual

The technotope individual is someone who can use modeling tools to read, interpret, and manipulate conceptual models and use them in complex decision-making situations. He or she is aware that the creation of such models is a collaborative effort and brings social savings.

To the chapter

Chapter 3 - Building the Technotope Team

Because decisions often involve multiple elements, architecture is a key factor in structuring the shared problem space and organizing the drivers and decision alternatives of multiple stakeholders working as a team.

Architecture is a discipline that is closely related to innovation. Construction, product development, enterprise and information systems development have each seen the emergence of an architecture discipline, and these disciplines have been key to the creation and evolution of increasingly valuable products, services, systems and infrastructures: houses and community buildings, transportation infrastructure, vehicles, aircraft, telecommunication networks, computers and communication devices, software, digital service platforms, and so on.

Following the emergence and consolidation of Enterprise Architecture as a discipline that supports the creation and evolution of business and IT systems “within organizations”, Societal Architecture is proposed as an extended discipline to support collaborative socio-economic development in any territory, from local to global, and by any team in society, including small businesses and households.

Today, the ArchiMate modeling elements and layers are widely used within organizations, and this book illustrates how they can be scaled out. In essence, such scaling out is a collaboration of minds in teams, for which open access to digital content is a key and fair prerequisite (see also Goossenaerts et al, 2007a).

In the societal architecture, we extend the ‘intra-enterprise’ use of elements to ‘society at large’. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, provides an appropriate outcome framework for the articulation of the societal architecture. In support of this global agenda, we propose the 2030 Societal Architecture.

Sustainable development is knowledge-intensive. Applying and expanding a societal architecture as part of a collaborative planning and investment methodology for sustainable development is a way to improve open access to increasingly complex economic and political institutions to promote both political and economic competition and development within the limits of the Earth, our collective resource endowment.

3.1 - Societal Capabilities for Team building
3.2 - Enterprise Capabilities and Team building in the Technotope
3.3 - Partnership Interactions
3.4 - Implications for the decision making
3.5 - Operations
3.6 - Monitoring and evaluation
3.7 - Change
3.8 - Partnership and capability development
3.9 - Towards a Talent Explosion

To Part I (Chapter 1 - 2 - 3 - 4) _ II (5 - 6 - 7) _ III (8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - (no 13)) _ IV (14 - 15) _ V (Annexes) _ VI (References)

3.1 - Societal Capabilities and Team building

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.2 - Enterprise Capabilities and Team building in the Technotope

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.3 - The Potential of the Digital Commons

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.4 - Partnership Interactions

The partnership interactions in the framework of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda involve actors at the four “socio-technical” levels of the societal architecture:

• pico, individuals who are members of households,
• micro, organizations, including companies,
• meso, associations of organizations in the same sector or with similar interests, and
• macro, institutions with cross-cutting, landscape-wide responsibility;

Each of the three following sections is dedicated to one three interaction areas that are relevant to all actor journeys:

• 3.5 - Operations
• 3.6 - Monitoring & Evaluation
• 3.7 - Change

In each section we take a look at these aspects for the interaction area:

• their material and substantive scope, covering many economic activities and government functions,
• the economies of scale, scope, and quality that they imply, and
• the desirability of collective action.

When challenges are complex or involve the communication with many stakeholders these are some of the approaches that could be adopted:

• the use (for instance in the blueprint description or “TO BE”) of wiki-based durable content (as explained in Durable Content Actants (Actant Dictionary);
• the provision of systematized digital commons;
• the use of structured hashtags (Actor Atlas Tag Pivot) when sharing content via social media, in order to achieve a discourse that is both inclusive, convergent and resistant to disinformation;
• low barrier access to open data, such as for instance provided by the World Data Atlas(Knoema).

To the chapter

3.5 - Operations

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.6 - Monitoring and evaluation

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.7 - Change

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.8 - Partnership and Capability Development

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

3.9 - Towards a Talent Explosion

To the chapter

Chapter 4 - Accomplishing Sustainable Development Tasks in the Technotope

4.1 - What next in Societal Portfolios: Transition Planning?
4.2 - An abstract Partner Journey
4.3 - Values for a Societal Agenda
4.4 - Stakeholders, Initiatives & Reporting
4.5 - Access characteristics of resources
4.6 - Digital Principles
4.7 - The Principles of Doing Development Differently
4.8 - Work systems and drivers for change
4.9 - Case materials

To Part I (Chapter 1 - 2 - 3 - 4) _ II (5 - 6 - 7) _ III (8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - (no 13)) _ IV (14 - 15) _ V (Annexes) _ VI (References)

4.1 - What next in Societal Portfolios: Transition Planning?

It is the author’s hope that the United Nations will sooner or later adopt and endorse the Societal Architecture as an Unsollicited Proposal (USP), (this is an exception to the public initiation of infrastructure public-private partnerships). Such an adoption would facilitate and accelerate the growth of the Societal Architecture and its subsequent phases: Opportunities and Solutions, Transition Planning, Implementation Governance, and Architecture Change Management.

While this book is aimed at professionals involved in portfolios, programs and projects in both the public and private sectors, I have also produced reference works for the general public in which #tagcoding hashtags are defined for all topics in relation to which public or private portfolios, programs and projects might seek change or communication.

The #tagcoding guide is available in e-book versions in English, French, Spanish and Tagalog, and online versions in several other languages, including Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Swahili, Russian, Japanese, Hindi, Telugu, German, Ilonggo and Dutch. #tagcoding supports communications in social media platforms for all kinds of initiatives in global to local social portfolios.

When it comes to communication in the public sphere, the principles of Societal Architecture lead to the creation of distinctive communication channels where everyone can publish and everyone can consult. A channel is needed for every important topic at every level of scope and in every language. To create such a communication infrastructure, #tagcoding hashtags play a key role.

One of the purposes of this book is to recruit practitioners in a Societal Architecture Infrastructure Public-Private Partnership.

To the chapter

4.2 - An Abstract Partner Journey

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

4.3 - Values for a Societal Agenda

But what problems might a (democratic) society or one of its members want to solve?

To answer this question, one must first consider what a society values.

The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet (Synthesis report of the Secretary General on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda, December 4, 2014) proposes six values as essential elements for delivering on the sustainable development goals:

• Dignity: to end poverty and fight inequalities
• People: to ensure healthy lives, knowledge and the inclusion of women and children
• Prosperity: to grow a strong, inclusive and transformative economy
• Planet: to protect our ecosystems for all societies and our children
• Justice: to promote safe and peaceful societies and strong institutions
• Partnership: to catalyse global solidarity for sustainable development

The figure below shows these values in their “official” graphical form.

A second figure shows the values using the Archimate value model element.

This second figure is less attractive to the eye, but the advantage of it is that the model elements are captured in an Archimate modeling tool that allows us to use the element in many more views.

One of those other views is the one in which the association between the values and the sustainable development goals are depicted.

To the chapter

4.4 - Stakeholders, Initiatives & Reporting

The organizational or external roles that take responsibility for object system operations and reflective activities and assets are also called stakeholders. In portfolios, programs, and project studies, specific tasks are performed to support communication with these stakeholders. In addition, these stakeholders will have specific interests regarding the study; they may have a say in the go/no go decision regarding the initiative and study.

In an enterprise architecture described according to the ArchiMate framework, the stakeholders (for the enterprise architecture against which the service solution will be positioned) are included in the motivation extension. The rationale for their involvement will often be related to their role in the business collaboration to be supported by the service solution.

Hands-on users (of the product for which requirements are being collected) are addressed as part of the Active Structure aspect: the Business Actor would include the Stakeholder descriptive elements and the Business Role would include the User Role.

Stakeholders of the stakeholder class “Interfacing Technology” are called “Application Components” and are described as part of the Application layer of the framework; the rationale for their involvement will often be related to their role in an application collaboration between “Services”.

In Chapter 14 - Agents we gather insights on these stakeholders from global to local societal portfolios, stakeholders that will drive the talent explosion for sustainable development.

• Citizens and households
• Global Partnership
• Firms
• National Government
• Local Authorities
• Schools
• UN Country Teams
• Publishers and right holders
• Libraries
• Aid and international organizations

The global societal portfolios considered in detail are:

• The Global Tax Portfolio
• The Global Content Portfolio (to be added)

Since both portfolios are relevant for all listed stakeholders, we pay special attention to stakeholders who are beneficiaries of several initiatives at the same time.

The governance activity determines the outcomes of the object system (of projects) that need to be monitored and evaluated. Whenever a redesign or change is proposed, it must be evaluated in terms of its impact on system outcomes as well as its fit with other initiatives.

You cannot set indicators before you set outcomes, because it is the outcomes-not the indicators-that will ultimately produce the benefits.

Corporate triple bottom line reporting is being harmonized through the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The GRI distinguishes between three categories of indicators to achieve more aligned reporting for companies on results in the context of global challenges:

• economic: The economic dimension of sustainability addresses an organization’s direct and indirect impacts on the economic circumstances of its stakeholders and on economic systems at local, national and global levels.
• environmental: The environmental dimension of sustainability concerns an organization’s impacts on living and non-living natural systems, including ecosystems, land, air and water.
• social: The social dimension of sustainability concerns an organization’s impact on the social systems in which it operates. Social performance can be measured by analyzing the organization’s impact on stakeholders at the local, national, and global levels. In some cases, social indicators affect the organization’s intangible assets, such as its human capital and reputation.

Indicators are only relevant if they measure against a goal. Thus, the measurement of indicators will show the progress made towards achieving the intended goals. Decision makers and stakeholders are in a position to make the intended outcomes of the object system as explicit as possible. Articulating outcomes is critical to achieving stakeholder ownership.

Indicators are the quantitative or qualitative variables that provide a simple and reliable means of measuring achievement, reflecting changes associated with an intervention, or helping to assess the performance of an organization or object system in relation to the stated outcome. Indicators are needed to monitor progress with respect to inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals. In complex systems, progress needs to be monitored at all levels of the system to provide feedback on areas of success and areas that may need improvement.

For each of the stakeholders affected by the expected outcome of a portfolio, progress reports should identify the relevant aspects.

For each of the organization’s asset components (see “Assets” in Figure 1.4), progress reports should identify the changes in the component. For example, consider the job descriptions for employees, performance measurement requirements, reporting activities, etc.

To the chapter

4.5 - Access characteristics of resources

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

4.6 - Digital Principles

The principles of digital capability have had little visibility in the description of the decision-making context and activities.

Yet digital capabilities are among the defining characteristics of our time. So what is their impact?

To understand this impact, we look briefly at the Principles for Digital Development, which have been coined by an international consortium and are widely applied.

A Societal Architecture is proposed as a coherent way to apply these digital principles across a wide range of initiatives.

Figure 4.9 illustrates how the Digital Capability Principles relate to the value streams of CPIM and to the resources that make up the Business Model Sustainability Toolkit.

A key aspect of using the Principles for Digital Development is working with models and data:

• #dp1 - Design with people
• #dp2 - Understand the existing ecosystem
• #dp3 - Design for inclusion
• #dp4 - Build for sustainability
• #dp5 - Establish people-first data practices
• #dp6 - Create open and transparent practices
• #dp7 - Share, reuse, and improve
• #dp8 - Anticipate and mitigate harms
• #dp9 - Use evidence to improve outcomes

Specifically for the public sector, the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) proposes the principles shown in Figure 4.10.

Design with people

Design with people

Good design starts and ends with people that will manage, use, and ideally benefit from a given digital initiative.

• To design with people means to invite those who will use or be affected by a given technology policy, solution, or system to lead or otherwise meaningfully participate in the design of those initiatives.
• In all cases, there will be more than one group of relevant stakeholders (including those who ideally benefit from the initiative and those who will maintain/administer the initiative), each of whom need to participate and engage in the initial design phase and in subsequent iterations. The specific stakeholders will need to be defined separately for each initiative.
• Initiatives can encourage meaningful participation by creating opportunities for people to innovate on top of products and services; establishing avenues for feedback and redressal that are regularly monitored and addressed; and committing to agile methods that allow for continual improvement.

Otherwise, initiatives are unlikely to gain trust of and adoption of the communities they seek to reach.

Understand the Existing Ecosystem

Understanding the existing ecosystem.

Trust starts with a thorough understanding of the dynamic cultural, social, and economic context in which you are operating.

• Digital ecosystems are defined by the culture, gender and social norms, political environment, economy, technology infrastructure and other factors that can affect an individual’s ability to access and use a technology or to participate in an initiative.
• Understanding the existing ecosystem can help determine if and how we should engage, as ecosystems can have both positive and negative dynamics.
• Through this understanding, initiatives should adapt in order to support, to the extent appropriate, existing technology, and local actors who are already working to tackle key challenges. This includes understanding existing government policies, national visions, sector policies/priorities/strategies, and efforts to expand foundational digital public infrastructure.
• This also includes understanding existing access to devices, connectivity, affordability, digital literacy, and capacity strengthening opportunities so that initiatives are designed to accommodate or strengthen these realities.
• When initiatives do not first understand the ecosystem they are operating in, it can hinder uptake, adoption, and trust. It can also lead to unintended consequences, such as exclusion, loss of trust, or reinforcement of harmful power dynamics, and putting the safety and security of stakeholders at risk.
• Digital ecosystems are fluid, multifaceted and ever-changing, requiring that digital development practitioners regularly analyze the context to check their assumptions.

Design for inclusion

Design for inclusion.

Consider the full range of human diversity to maximize impact and mitigate harm.

• When leveraged intentionally and to its fullest potential, technology can overcome, rather than exacerbate, existing inequality. To design for inclusion is to seize the opportunity for digital initiatives to drive social progress by dismantling systemic barriers related to gender, disability, income, geography, and other factors.
• Regardless of the size of their intended audience, technology initiatives should be designed to be accessible and usable for a diverse range of people, including those with disabilities, low digital literacy, those who speak different languages, who face obstacles to device access/affordability/connectivity, and those from different cultural backgrounds.
• This can be achieved by adopting iterative methodologies (such as agile) and by leveraging redressal systems to quickly identify – and address – challenges that negatively impact certain groups of people.
• Designing for inclusion can include considering how the benefits of an initiative accrue even to those who are not online.
• Designing for inclusion requires considering the opportunity to strengthen capacity for those who do not have the skills or tools necessary to benefit from a given initiative, as well as the affordability of devices and services (in the short and long-term).

Without following inclusive practices in the design of digital initiatives, we risk amplifying existing inequalities, creating unforeseen harms, and excluding segments of the population from participation and opportunity.

Build for Sustainability

Build for Sustainability.

Build for the long-term by intentionally addressing financial, operational, and ecological sustainability.

• Sustainability here is defined broadly to account for financial, operational, and ecological sustainability, all of which are important to avoid service disruptions for people.
• Building for sustainability means thinking about leveraging the inherent scalability of digital technology solutions early on. Decide on the desired scale of your initiative and prepare accordingly from the start.
• Building for sustainability means presenting the long-term cost of ownership–both technology licenses, operations and maintenance, capacity building, etc.–and clearly indicating how initiatives will be paid for in the future, by donors, host governments, or commercial means.
• Ecological sustainability requires considering an initiative, solution, or system’s potential to help people and communities adapt to the changing climate. At the same time, they should seek to minimize the environmental impact of any initiative, solution, or system, particularly the CO2 emissions generated by any hardware or software during the entire lifecycle from production to disposal.

Building for sustainability does not mean that all products, services, or policies will last forever. Optimizing for sustainability may result in consolidating services, transferring knowledge, software, and/or hardware to a new initiative, planning for the secure transfer (or deletion) of data at the end of a project, or helping clients to transition to a new, more relevant product or service.

Establish people-first data practices

Establish people-first data practices

People-first data practices prioritize transparency, consent, and redressal while allowing people and communities to retain control of and derive value from their own data.

• Digital services and initiatives generate, rely on, and/or use data derived from people or their assets. This principle emphasizes the need to avoid collecting data that is used to create value (financial or otherwise) for a company or organization, without delivering any direct value back to those people from whom the data is derived.
• It is thus critical to consider people and to put their rights and needs first when collecting, sharing, analyzing, or deleting data. In this context, ‘people’ includes those who directly interact with a given service, those whose data was obtained through partners, and those whose are impacted by non-personal datasets (such as geospatial data.)
• When collecting data, it is important to consider and follow relevant data standards and guidelines set at the international, regional, national, or local level.
• People-first data practices include ensuring that people can understand and control how their data is being used; obtaining explicit and informed consent from people before collecting, using, or sharing their data; and investing in people’s capacity to navigate the tools, redressal systems, and data practices.
• People-first data practices also include sharing data back with people, so that they have agency to use this data as they see fit, and providing access to individual, secure data histories that people can easily move from one service provider to the next.

When this principle is violated, people may be subject to undue and unpredictable harms, stemming from data breaches, exclusion from services, or discrimination based on their digital data trail.

Create open and transparent practices

Create open and transparent practices

Effective digital initiatives establish confidence and good governance through measures that promote open innovation and collaboration.

• To establish and maintain trust in the digital ecosystem, it is necessary for all people—whether or not they are directly impacted by a given initiative—to have confidence in digital policies, services, and systems and the associated data handling. This confidence is nurtured through open and transparent practices, which in turn foster accountability.
• Open and transparent practices can include but are not limited to: clear and accountable governance structures that define roles and responsibilities; open and proactive communication, decisions, policies, and practices; mechanisms that allow stakeholders to provide feedback, ask questions, and raise concerns; and quick and transparent responses to feedback.
• In terms of technical design, open and transparent practices can include the use of agile methodologies, open standards, open data, open source, and open innovation.

When organizations do not prioritize transparency and openness, it results in a lack of or loss of trust. Trust is critical to encourage participation, and without it, people will rationally choose to avoid the risks associated with engaging with digital services and sharing their data – thus foregoing any potential benefits.

Share, reuse, and improve

Share, reuse, and improve

Build on what works, improve what works, and share so that others can do the same.

• Avoid innovation for the sake of innovation
• To share, reuse, and improve is, in essence, to collaborate. Collaboration is essential to achieving our shared vision of a more equitable world. We have the most impact when we share information, insights, strategies, and resources across silos related to geographies, focus areas, and organizations. By sharing, reusing, and improving existing initiatives, we pool our collective resources and expertise, and avoid costly duplication and fragmentation. Ideally, this leads to streamlined services for people.
• This can apply to technology products, services, research, or policies.
• This requires organized and accessible documentation, and is greatly facilitated by adopting open standards, building for interoperability and extensibility; using open source software; and contributing to open source communities.
• Following this principle can save time and money, promote collaboration and the sharing of knowledge, and lead to better products and services through continuous improvement.

Forgoing this principle in favor of do-it-alone approaches leads to wasted resources (particularly problematic in the case of public donor funds), limited innovation and improvement, and undue burden on people that can hinder trust and participation.

Anticipate and mitigate harms

Anticipate and mitigate harms

Harm is always possible when it comes to technology. To avoid negative outcomes, plan for the worst while working to create the best outcomes.

• Technology is now part of our everyday lives: no program or technology solution operates in isolation. Therefore, to live up to the commitment to do no harm, policymakers and practitioners need to anticipate and work to mitigate harms, even those that originate outside of a given initiative.
• There are a number of potential harms that may arise from any given digital initiative, and any list offered here will prove to be insufficient. Examples of harms include enabling digital repression (including illegal surveillance and censorship); exacerbating existing digital divides associated with, for example, disability, income, or geographic location; technology-facilitated gender based violence; undermining local civil society and private sector companies; amplifying existing, harmful, social norms; and creating new inequities.
• While harms are present with all technology, these harms are particularly relevant, and the impacts are less known, when it comes to machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI).
• Harm mitigation is context-specific, and requires a multi-faceted approach that integrates technical, regulatory, policy, and institutional safeguards. Effective harm mitigation takes a long-term approach, considering how current challenges and inequities will be amplified by unknown developments.

Without these types of safeguards, specific groups of people may decide to disengage or systems may be used to intentionally target certain groups of people, undermining all sustainable development goals.

Use evidence to improve outcomes

Use evidence to improve outcomes

Evidence drives impact: continually gather, analyze and use feedback.

• Over time, good practices in understanding monitoring and evaluation of technology initiatives have evolved to emphasize outcomes on people and communities, rather than just access and usage.
• To understand outcomes for people and communities, it is necessary to use a variety of methods – both technology-enabled and analogue – to gather, analyze, and use feedback to get a holistic view of the impact of technology on people and communities.This also includes providing redressal channels for people to submit feedback and complaints, which are regularly monitored, addressed, and analyzed.
• Understanding outcomes is critical to an agile or iterative design approach through which digital policies, systems, and solutions are continually updated and improved.
• Involve people in the design and implementation of the monitoring and measuring of outcomes as well, so that the outcomes being measured are relevant and meaningful to them.

Otherwise, initiatives may meet efficiency and outreach goals, but fail to see lack of impact, harmful impacts, or opportunities to improve positive outcomes on people and communities.

To the chapter

4.7 - The Principles of Doing Development Differently

Source: The Doing Development Differently Manifesto:

• (#ddd1) - Focus on solving local problems: Initiatives focus on solving local problems that are discussed, defined, and refined by local people in an ongoing process.
• (#ddd2) - Legitimized at all levels and locally owned: Initiatives are legitimized at all levels (political, managerial and social), building ownership and momentum throughout the process to be ‘locally owned’ in reality (not just on paper).
• (#ddd3) - Local conveners mobilize everyone with a stake in progress: Initiatives work through local conveners who mobilize all those with a stake in progress (in both formal and informal coalitions and teams) to tackle common problems and bring about relevant change.
• (#ddd4) - Rapid cycles of planning, action, reflection, and revision: Initiatives link design and implementation through rapid cycles of planning, action, reflection and revision (drawing on local knowledge, feedback and energy) to promote learning from both success and failure.
• (#ddd5) - Manage risk by making ‘small bets’: Initiatives manage risk by making “small bets”: pursuing activities with promise and dropping others.
• (#ddd6) - Foster real results: Initiatives promote real results - real solutions to real problems that have real impact: they build trust, empower people, and promote sustainability.

These principles suggest the use of multiple iterations in development initiatives.

To the chapter

4.8 - Work system and drivers for change

This content is not available in the sample book. The book and its extras can be purchased from Leanpub at https://leanpub.com/socarch.

4.9 - Case materials

This book is ambitious and aims to prove that broad principles can indeed be linked to interdependent decision making in a wide range of practical situations. To do this, we provide and apply models that are characteristic of the different levels of planning addressed in the Collaborative Planning and Investment Methodology (CPIM): open portfolios, programs, projects, and iterations.

After introducing the methodology in Chapter 4 and the Societal Architecture in Chapter 6 (Part 2 of the book), we are ready to illustrate the use of models for each of the four planning levels for a number of cases:

• Planning Level 1 - Open Portfolios
• Planning Level 2 - Programs
• Planning Level 3 - Projects
• Planning Level 4 - Iterations
• Case 1 - 2030 Agenda
• Case 2 - Library Services
• Case 3 - The Gas Station Case
• Case 4 - The Port Case

The value framework for driving change in the cases is derived from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is also presented as a model in an open portfolio. The overall methodology includes executable models and experiments that are not elabo- rated in the current version of this e-book. For such models, we refer to simulation and programming courses and manuals, as well as platforms such as Camunda. To the cases - To the chapter

Case 1 - 2030 Agenda

In the 2030 Agenda, models at the four levels of planning are relevant to stakeholders at the different socio-technical levels. Models in portfolios are relevant to the Global Partnership, which includes national governments, local authorities, UN country teams and aid agencies and international organizations. Programs would typically involve multiple members of the Global Partnership setting rules and patterns for the landscape, as well as Schools, Publishers and Rightsholders and Libraries operating within the “regulated” landscape.

• CPIM01 - Identification and Validation in the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM02a - Scope and Variables in the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM02b - Conceptual Models and the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM02c - Executable Models for the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM02d - Experimentation and the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM03 - Define and Plan for the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM04 - Invest and Execute for the 2030 Agenda
• CPIM05 - Perform and Measure for the 2030 Agenda

Case 2 - Library Services

Library services would include works from Publishers and Rightsholders as well as digital public goods, encouraged by the global digital public goods portfolio that the Digital Public Goods Alliance manages and advocates for.

Projects and iterations would involve Citizens and Households, Schools, Publishers and Rightsholders, and Libraries.

Publishers and rightsholders could develop their own portfolio for making copyrighted works available in libraries, especially digital works.

Again, models at the four planning levels are important at the different socio-technical levels, in this case especially from meso (publishing organizations and library organizations) to micro (libraries and publishers) to pico (authors and library users).

• CPIM01 - Identification and Validation for Library Services
• CPIM02a - Scope and Variables of Library Services
• CPIM02b - Conceptual Models and Library Services
• CPIM02c - Executable Models for Library Services
• CPIM02d - Experimentation and Library Services
• CPIM03 - Define and Plan for Library Services
• CPIM04 - Invest and Execute for Library Services
• CPIM05 - Perform and Measure for Library Services

Case 3 - The Petrol Station

The owner of the petrol station has the feeling that some potential clients are leaving the station because there is no place to wait for service. But he doesn’t know to which extend this assumption is true. So he would like to know what is the influence of the capacity size of the pump on the percentage of cars leaving without being served. In the current situation, three cars at most can wait for petrol filling at the petrol pump. The cars in the queue follow a First In First Out Rule (FIFO).

This case is situated at the micro level and illustrates the possible scope of a project or iteration.

• CPIM01 - Identification and Validation at a Petrol Station
• CPIM02a - Scope and Variables in the Petrol Station Case
• CPIM02b - Conceptual Model of Petrol Station Operations

This case has been part of a course on the Simulation of Operational Processes that colleagues and me have been teaching between 2004 and 2008.

Case 4 - A Harbour

A harbour can host two types of ships; Small and Big ships. Small ships arrive with an interarrival time exponentially distributed with a mean of 5,5 hours. Big ships arrive with an interarrival time exponentially distributed with a mean of 6,7 hours. There are two docks (dock1 and dock2) at this harbour where ships can be unloaded. Small ships are unloaded at dock1 with a service time uniformly distributed between 3 and 7. Big ships are unloaded at dock2 with a service time uniformly distributed between 2 and 8. If dock1 is empty and there are Big ships waiting at dock2 then a Big ship can go to dock1 and is served with 1,5Uniform(2,8). If dock2 is empty and there are Small ships waiting at dock1 then a Small ship can go to dock2 and is served with 2Uniform(3,7). For both docks the queue discipline is SPT (Shortest processing time first). The management team of the harbour wonders if closing dock1 to Big ships and dock2 to Small ships would improve the mean expected throughput time of ships at the harbour. Another question is if it is better to use simply a FIFO rule (First In First Out) instead of the SPT rule? How can we help the management team to get answers to their questions?

This case is situated at the meso level and illustrates the possible scope of a project or iteration. This is a typical case from a simulation course.

• CPIM01 - Identification and Validation at the Harbour
• CPIM02a - Scope and Variables in the Harbour Case
• CPIM02b - Conceptual Model for the Harbour Case

This case has been part of a course on the Simulation of Operational Processes that colleagues and me have been teaching between 2004 and 2008.

To the chapter