22ā6ā2013
1
The Role of Goals in Design Reasoning
Roel Wieringa
University of Twente
The Netherlands
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 1
Outline
1. Goals
2. Design reasoning
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 2
22ā6ā2013
2
ā¢ Rethinking goals
ā¢ Background: Systems engineering, product design, marketing, some logic, some philosophy of science
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 3
Desire
ā¢ To live is to desire
ā¢ Designers produce objects of desire
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 4
22ā6ā2013
3
Fear
ā¢ To live is to have fears
ā¢ Designers produce objects of fear
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 5
ā¢ Desires and fears are feelings of stakeholders.
ā¢ A stakeholder is a biological or legal person affected by solving a problem
ā¢ Actors without desires or fears cannot be stakeholders
ā¢ Stakeholders have something to lose and to gain.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 6
22ā6ā2013
4
Stakeholder awareness and commitment
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 7
Not aware:Some possibility that
stakeholders are not aware of
Passively aware:Aware, but not important enough to do something
Aware & Committed:Resources committed to act for a
goal
Stakeholder makes resources (time, money) available
ā¢Possibility to receive satellite TV in car
ā¢ We could upgrade car DVD player to TV
ā¢Invest in car satellite TV
An event pushes the possibility into awareness
Bossworth. Solution Selling. Creating Buyers in Difficult Markets. 1995.
Possible worlds
ā¢ Technology is the creation of new possibilities
ā¢ Most stakeholders are not aware of most possibilities
ā People would get stuck in livelock if they tried to consider allpossibilities for action every time they wanted to act
ā We are creatures of habit and prejudice
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 8
22ā6ā2013
5
Valueā¢ Awareness of a possibility involves valuation of the possibility
ā Also called utility
ā Positive (desire), negative (fear) or indifferent
ā¢ Desires, fears, indifferences
ā Desires to save energy, watch TV in a car, reduce travelingtime, ā¦
ā Fears to use more petrol, get carāsick, get stuck on an airport, ā¦
ā Disinterested in saving energy, watching TV in a car, maintaining privacy, getting a small fine for speeding, socialnetworks, the latest gizmo, ā¦
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 9
Anything can be the object of desire, fearor indifference
ā¢ Desires, fears and indifference are mental states: ā They can be directed upon anything, whether real or imaginaryā Every mental state is about somethingā They can even be about desire, fear or indifference
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 10
SW components, systems
HW components, systems
People attachpositive, negativeor zero value to ā¦
Organizations
Business processes
Services Methods
TechniquesConceptualstructures
Values
Desires Goals
Norms
Resources
...Fears
22ā6ā2013
6
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 11
Artifact
SW component, system,HW component, system,Organization,Business process,Service,Method,Conceptual structure, ...
Problem context
SW components & systems, HW components & systems,
People,
Organizations,Business processes, Services,Methods, Techniques,Conceptual structures, Values, Desires, Fears, Indifferences, Goals, Norms, Resources, ...
Interaction
ā¢ Summary so far:
ā A goal of a stakeholder is a desire for which the stakeholder has committed resources (time and money) toachieve it
ā Anything can be the object of desire
ā No goals without stakeholders
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 12
22ā6ā2013
7
Conflicts
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 13
The multitude of desires
ā¢ Any one stakeholder may have infinitely manypotential desires, fears and indifferences
ā (most of which he is unaware)
ā¢ Two or more stakeholders may all have different desires, fears and indifferences
ā¢ Desires are usually bigger than reality
ā They conflict
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 14
22ā6ā2013
8
Conflicting desiresā¢ Logical conflict:
ā Analysis of the descriptions of the desires shows that both descriptionshave opposite meaning; they are logically inconsistent.
ā Spend your money and keep it
ā Stakeholder is incoherent
ā¢ Physical conflict: ā Realization of one desire makes realization of the other physically
impossible.
ā Add TV to a car and reduce weight without changing anything else
ā Stakeholder lives in a phantasy world
ā¢ Technical conflict: ā There is currently no technology to realize both desires in the same
artifact.
ā Secure and userāfriendly system
ā New technology may remove the conflict
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 15
Roel2
ā¢ Economic conflict
ā Desire bigger than the budget
ā¢ Legal conflict
ā Desire conflicts with legal norm
ā¢ Moral conflict
ā Desire conflicts with moral norm
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 16
Slide 15
Roel2 give linguistic tests to distinguish these kinds of conflicts
can we identify the conflict using the dictionary and logic only?
No; and we can do nothing about it: physical conflict
Can we do something about it? (technical or social conflict)Roel Wieringa; 11-12-2012
22ā6ā2013
9
Summary of awareness levels
ā¢ Stakeholders are not aware of most of their possible desires and fears
ā¢ They will not act on most of their other desires and fears, because:
ā Unable to choose between conflicting desires
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 17
Soft and hard goals
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 18
22ā6ā2013
10
ā¢ Desires are usually wishyāwashy
ā¢ Many goals too
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 19
Operationalization
ā¢ Operationalization of a concept is the definition of one or more indicators for it
ā¢ An indicator is a variable with a measurementprocedure
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 20
22ā6ā2013
11
Some examples of indicators
ā¢ Utility indicator: Opinion of stakeholder about utilityā¢ Accuracy indicator: domain dependent, e.g. spatial resolutionā¢ Interoperability indicator: effort to realize interface with a systemā¢ Security indicators: availability, compliance to standardsā¢ Compliance indicator: expert opinion about complianceā¢ Reliability indicators: mean time between failure, time to recoverā¢ Usability indicators: effort to learn, effort to useā¢ Efficiency (time or space) indicators: execution time, disk usageā¢ Maintainability indicators: effort to find bugs, effort to repair, effort
to testā¢ Portability indicators: effort to adapt to new environment, effort to
install, conformance to standards
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 21
See http://www.sqa.net/iso9126
Goal trees often contain operationalizations in the form of goal decompositions
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 22
Usability
Effort to learn Effort to use Number of calls to the helpdesk
22ā6ā2013
12
Criteria
ā¢ Criterion = set of desired values for an indicator
ā Depending on the scale of the indicator, you may be ableto define degree of satisfaction of a criterion
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 23
Criteria are often added to goal trees too
ā¢ Adding criteria to a goal tree makes the tree semantics more complex: it adds info about values
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 24
Usable
Easy to learn Easy to use Small number of calls to the helpdesk
22ā6ā2013
13
ā¢ Making a budget available for a desire turns it into a goal
ā¢ This is a good occassion to operationalize it
ā But this is not always done
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 25
ā¢ Operationalization is an occassion for a lot of politics
ā Stakeholders try to bend indicators and criteria in theirfavor
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 26
22ā6ā2013
14
ā¢ Operationalization is an occassion for a lot of philosophy too
ā What is the ``realāā meaning of a concept?
ā Paradox of analysis: A crisp operationalization cannot besynonynmous to a fuzzy concept.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 27
Goal decomposition
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 28
22ā6ā2013
15
ā¢ Anything can be a goal
ā To be rich and famous
ā To walk to Santiago de Compostella
ā Owning a smartphone
ā Owning a house
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 29
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 30
Current stateof theworld
Stakeholder S
W1Desirable stateof the world
W2Even more desirable state of the world
W3A desirable stateof the world
Has even higher value for S
Has higher value for Sthan the current state
Has anothervalue for S,higher than thatof current state,but incompatiblewith that of W2
Preference ordering among possible worlds
Conflict
22ā6ā2013
16
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 31
Current stateof theworld
W1Desirable stateof the world
W2Even more desirable state of the world
W3A desirable stateof the world
Has even higher value for S
Has higher value for Sthan the current state
Has anothervalue for S,higher than thatof current state,but incompatiblewith that of W2
Reachibility
Conflict
Stakeholder S
Stakeholder Siāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 32
Current stateof theworld
W1Desirable stateof the world
W2Even more desirable state of the world
W3A desirable stateof the world
Has even higher value for S
Has higher value for Sthan the current state
Has anothervalue for S,higher than thatof current state,but incompatiblewith that of W2
The goal
Conflict
GoalOf S
22ā6ā2013
17
Simplifications in this picture
ā¢ There is a preference ordering
ā But: Preferences may emerge after we experience a possible world
ā We ignore this.
ā¢ Preferences stay the same
ā But: Many preferences are dynamic
ā We ignore this
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 33
Three kinds of goal decomposition
ā¢ Decompose the meaning of the goal statement
ā Use indicators
ā¢ Decompose the goal world
ā¢ Decompose the path to the goal world
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 34
22ā6ā2013
18
ā¢ Meansāend decomposition: Tasks to be performed to reachgoal
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 35
ā¢ Png file
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 36
22ā6ā2013
19
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 37
Another meansāend decomposition
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 38
Decomposition of goal world
To achieve the goal state, three objectsmust be achieved
22ā6ā2013
20
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 39
Goal worlddecomposition
ā¢ Goal world decomposition followed by meansāend decomposition
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 40
22ā6ā2013
21
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 41
At least three kinds of goal decomposition
ā¢ By indicators. ā Variableābased view of the world
ā This decomposition defines a construct operationally
ā¢ By components. ā Componentābased view of the world
ā This shows us the elements of the goal that need to beachieved
ā¢ By meansāend. ā Processābased view of the world
ā This tells us what to do to get there
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 42
22ā6ā2013
22
Other relations in the Tropos example
ā¢ Causeāeffect
ā Change in X causes change in (probability distribution of) Y
ā This is a scientific (mini)theory of the domain
ā¢ Contribution (+ or ā) to a criterion
ā If X gets closer/further away from its criterion, then(probably), Y gets closer/further away from its criterion.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 43
Conclusions so far
Goal model containsā¢ Conceptual framework of the domain:
ā Operational definitions (decomposition in terms of indicators)
ā Decomposition of the goal state (also a kind of operationalization)
ā¢ Scientific theory of the domain: ā Decomposition of the meansāend path to the goal state
ā statements about cause/effect relations
ā¢ Statement of preferences: ā criteria, contribution relations (+ or ā)
ā¢ My unsollicited advice: Represent these in different models
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 44
22ā6ā2013
23
Outline
1. Goals
2. Design reasoning
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 45
Design reasoning
ā¢ Contribution argument
ā¢ Temporal ordering of design tasks
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 46
22ā6ā2013
24
Design
ā¢ What is design?
ā Making a decision about what to do.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 47
Websterās
transitive verbā¢ 1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to
plan : devise, contriveā¢ 2a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the
perfect crime> ā¢ 2b : to have as a purpose : intend <she designed to excel in
her studies> ā¢ 2c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book
designed primarily as a college textbook> ā¢ 3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name ā¢ 4a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of ā¢ 4b : to draw the plans for <design a building>
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 48
22ā6ā2013
25
Websterās
intransitive verb
ā¢ 1: to conceive or execute a plan
ā¢ 2: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 49
Websterās
ā¢ Origin of DESIGN
ā¢ Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from AngloāFrench & Medieval Latin; AngloāFrench designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from deā + signare to mark āmore at sign
ā¢ First Known Use: 14th century
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 50
22ā6ā2013
26
Elements of the concept of design
ā¢ Making a decision about what to do.
ā¢ Documenting that decision
ā¢ Decisions can be executed
ā¢ To achieve goals
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 51
Historical note
ā¢ 14th century architects were illiterate.
ā But they could read a sketch
ā And use the sketch to coordinate their work
ā¢ Designers were builders until Josiah Wedgwood separated the two roles in the late 18th century
ā Mail order catalog of porcelain
ā Reproducibility
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 52
22ā6ā2013
27
The contribution argument
ā¢ Artifact X Context āGoals
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 53
stakeholder
goal
value
norm
desire
fear
Artifact
Otherartifact
Socialentity
Software entity
Hardware entity
Defeasible implication
The contribution argument
ā¢ Artifact X Context āGoals
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 54
stakeholder
goal
value
norm
desire
fear
Artifact
Otherartifact
Socialentity
Software entity
Hardware entity
ContextInteraction
22ā6ā2013
28
The contribution argument
ā¢ Artifact X Context āGoals
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 55
stakeholder
goal
value
norm
desire
fear
Artifact
Otherartifact
Socialentity
Software entity
Hardware entity
ContextInteraction
Example: Industrial design
ā¢ Design assignment:
ā Given a context C and desired outcomes O
ā Find an artifact such that Artifact X Context āæO
ā¢ Design deliverables:
ā Artifact
ā Contribution argument Artifact X Context ā Desiredoutcomes
ā¢ E.g. design a dish washer for use in sailing boats
ā¢ Roozenburg & Eekels. Product design: Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley 1995.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 56
Causes
22ā6ā2013
29
Example: organization design
ā¢ Technological ruleā In this class of problems in Context, use this type of Intervention,
which will produce through these Mechanisms these directOutcomesā.
ā¢ Van Aken. ``Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for FieldāTested and Grounded Technological Rulesāā. Journal of Management Studies 41:2 March 2004
ā¢ Pawson and Tilley. Realistic Evaluation. 1997.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 57
Context Artifact
Outcomes
Intervention = Inserting the artifact in the context
Mechanisms
that satisfy goals
Example: Software engineering
ā¢ W ā§ S ā Rā¢ M ā§ Pā Sā¢ Gunter, Gunter, Jackson, Zave. ``A reference model for
requirements specificationsāā . IEEE Software, may/june 2000
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 58
W R S P M
World, Requirements, Specification, Program, Machine
Context ArtifactGoals
22ā6ā2013
30
KAOS
ā¢ Artifact X Context āGoal
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 59
Goal
Context
Allocated toartifact
The contribution argument
ā¢ Artifact X Context āGoals
ā Widespread (universal?) design reasoning
ā Artifact and Goals are actually part of Context
ā ā is defeasible: We may predict that goals will beachieved, but something else may happen
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 60
22ā6ā2013
31
ā¢ Design science looks not only for outcomes, but alsofor
ā Mechanisms that produce them
ā Goal satisfaction of outcomes
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 61
Extended conclusions
Goal model containsā¢ Conceptual framework of the domain:
ā Operational definitions of variables in terms of indicators
ā Operational definjition of goal state of the goal state in terms of components
ā¢ Scientific theory of the domain: ā Decomposition of the meansāend path to the goal state
ā statements about cause/effect relations
ā Mechanisms that produce outcomes
ā¢ Statement of preferences: ā criteria, contribution relations (+ or ā)
ā Goal satisfaction of outcomes
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 62
Definitions
Value satisfaction
Causes, mechanisms
22ā6ā2013
32
Mechanisms
ā¢ Mechanism is interaction between components
ā To identify a mechanism, you need a componentābasedconceptual model of the domain
ā¢ Contrast with causality
ā Causeāeffect is a relation between variables
ā Assumes a variableābased view of the domain
ā¢ Mechanisms may explain causeāeffect relations
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 63
ā¢ Glennan ā ``Mechanisms and the nature of causationāā. 1996
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 64
22ā6ā2013
33
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 65
ā¢ Glennan ā ``Mechanisms and the nature of causationāā. 1996
ā¢ Bechtel & Abrahamsen ā ``Explanation; a mechanistic alternative.āā 2005
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 66
22ā6ā2013
34
ā¢ Bechtel & Abrahamsen ā``Explanation; a mechanisticalternative.āā 2005
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 67
ā¢ Mechanisms, defined in terms of components, canexplain causeāeffect relations between variables
ā¢ Some causeāeffect relations do not have knownmechanisms
ā Gravity
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 68
22ā6ā2013
35
Elements of the concept of design
ā¢ Artifact X Context ā Outcomes
ā Effect theory: Theory of the mechanisms that producethese outcomes
ā Value theory: Theory that predicts contribution (+ or ā) of outcomes to goals
ā¢ Goal models often contain (fragments of) both kinds of theory
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 69
Design reasoning
ā¢ Contribution argument
ā¢ Temporal ordering of tasks
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 70
22ā6ā2013
36
Temporal ordering of tasks in creativedesign
ā¢ Cross. ``Design Cognition: Results From Protocol And Other Empirical Studies Of Design Activityāā 2001
ā¢ Cross. ``Creative cognition in design: processes of exceptional designersāā. 2002.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 71
Problem goals Artifact requirements
Relevant first principles:ā¢ Principle of operationā¢ Mechanismsā¢ Theories
Solution conceptProblem frame
Time
Tension
Resolution
Feasibility
Explored to establish
Used to identify Realized in
To satisfy
ā¢ Context x ArtifactāGoal
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 72
Initially knownvaguely as somegoal plus anintended context of use
Initially specifiedby means of a few requirements
Thenconceptualized
Then connectedand mechanized
Thenconceptualized
Problem understandingand artifact design are refined in parallel,
maintaining goal satisfaction
22ā6ā2013
37
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 201373
Systems engineering
ā¢ Iteratively reduce uncertainty about the problemā¢ Once the goals are clear enough, reduce risk of choosing the wrong treatment
Illāunderstood problem
Better understood problem
Treatment idea
Validation
Even betterunderstood problem
Treatment specification
Validation
Still betterunderstood problem
OperationalTreatmentspecification
Validation
Goals and requirementsOperational concept
Feasibility
Prototype
Time
Clear problem, clear goals Solution1 spec Validation Implementation1 Eval
Clear goals, risky treatment Solution2 spec Validation Implementation2 Eval
Clear goals, acceptable risk Solution3 spec Validation Implementation3 Eval
Early requirements Validation
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 201374
Systems engineering
ā¢ Iteratively reduce uncertainty about the problemā¢ Once the goals are clear enough, reduce risk of choosing the wrong treatment
Illāunderstood problem
Better understood problem
Treatment idea
Validation
Even betterunderstood problem
Treatment specification
Validation
Still betterunderstood problem
OperationalTreatmentspecification
Validation
Goals and requirementsOperational concept
Feasibility
Prototype
Time
Clear problem, clear goals Solution1 spec Validation Implementation1 Eval
Clear goals, risky treatment Solution2 spec Validation Implementation2 Eval
Clear goals, acceptable risk Solution3 spec Validation Implementation3 Eval
Early requirements Validation
Problem understandingand artifact design are refined in parallel,
maintaining goal satisfaction
22ā6ā2013
38
Agile development
ā¢ The same
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 75
Nonmonotonic refinement
ā¢ During the design process, the designer may revisebeliefs about the context, stakeholders and goals,
ā¢ And may revise his or her design
ā Nonmonotonic process
ā¢ System development methods are a way to constrainand control nonmonotonicity.
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 76
22ā6ā2013
39
Rational reconstruction
ā¢ After the design is finished, you can present the contribution argument as if it has been conceivedlike that from the beginning.
ā Rational reconstruction of history (Lakatos)
ā Constructing accountability (Suchman)
ā Faking rationality (Parnas)
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 77
Discussion
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 78
22ā6ā2013
40
Implications for GORE notations
ā¢ GORE notation as an artifact
ā Used in which context?
ā By whom?
ā For which goals?
ā¢ Desire to include everything in the notation may bethe result of lack of clarity of about the goals of the notation
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 79
Implications for GORE notations
ā¢ If we know what the context of use is:
ā¢ What to express?
ā Conceptual framework of the domain: definitions, operationalizations, decompositions
ā Effect theory: statements about causes, mechanisms
ā Value theory: criteria, preference ordering, contributions
ā¢ Cannot all be represented in the same model
iāstar'13 Workshop Ā© Roel Wieringa 18th june 2013 80