Introduction to EMont by example
EMont describes and assesses knowing-how knowledge (expertise, behavior and (non-)human activities) and worldviews. The ontology consists of eight modeling elements, which will be introduced shortly with help of the fictitious and simplified situation of people counteracting a flooding disaster.
Capturing (human) activities
In the Expertise Management Methodology human behavior is defined as a 'human activity system’. Human activity systems, as well as activities of other types of actors (e.g. machinery), are modeled with help of the PQR formula. This formula is pivotal to EMont. It concisely captures (human) activities executed to deal with particular circumstances which are motivated by someone’s worldview, also called: nested cognitive patterns of human activity systems. The PQR formula originates from the Soft Systems Methodology where it is applied as a root definition: a statement written in a few sentences capturing the intention of someone’s worldview. The letters P, Q and R do not resemble anything, except for being subsequent letters in the alphabet. A specific meaning, however, is attached to these letters:
| PQR | Meaning | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| P | What? | Activity | What activity are we going to do, perform, execute or what process is going to happen? |
| Q | How? | Subactivity | In what way are we going to do it? |
| R | Why? | Goal | What goal do we want to achieve? |
The PQR formula reads like a sentence:
Do P by a Q in order to achieve R.
Applying the PQR formula touches upon the expertise or knowing-how knowledge of an expert, who, based on his experience, intuitively knows what to do in specific situations. In other words, an expert applies the right activity patterns almost without consciously thinking.
Example of applying the PQR formula
The PQR formula in the situation of counteracting a disaster (see figure 1) looks like: You can counteract a disaster (P) bij fighting it (Q1) or evacuating (Q2) in order to save your and your relatives' lives (R).
If a disaster strikes you should counteract the disaster (P - What) to save your and your relatives’ lives (R - Why, the goal). Then the question araises: How (Q) do we save lives? Usually, there are several options, that is, particular ways to achieving the desired goal (R). One option is to fight the disaster (Q1). Another option is to evacuate the endangered area (Q2). Which option to choose depends on the circumstances, but both can contribute positively to achieving the desired goal of saving lives (R).
The PQR formula can be applied recursively. A How (Q) can be decomposed in more specific or diverse How's (Q's). Continuing the example in figure 1: the evacuation activity can be subdivided into an evacuation by car (Q2,1) or by public transport (Q2,2). Hence, evacuation activity Q2 gets the status of an activity (P - What) for its constituents.
Generalizing from figure 1: by applying the PQR formula recursively, we can model an experts’ knowledge, that is, his behavioral patterns, at any desired level of detail. Just like activities (P), goals (R) can be decomposed in sub-goals as well.
Situations (PQR's in a particular context)
A situation is a network of actors, whether human or not, brought together to accomplish goals. Their goals may be shared or not shared. Technically, a situation is modeled as a context and the actors in the situation subsequently are modeled as sub-contexts.
The main context, i.e. situation, in example 2 is “Community resilience”. Within this situation, the community as a whole tries to cope with disturbances (what) by minimizing the effect of disturbances (main goal). From this main goal sub-goals, such as “Saving your and your relatives lives”, are derived. The overall goal can also be seen as a ‘hook’ to which more specific sub-goals can be attached. The same applies to the activity “Coping with disturbances”: it is a hook to attach more specific activities which altogether contribute to the main goal. The main activity and main goal are addressing what should be done, not yet how it can be done.
Specific roles in specific situations
Depending on the situation, humans perform specific actions to achieve the required goals. This notion is modeled as sub-roles in situations. By exploring example 2 on the situation of Community resilience a few sub-contexts were added, e.g. representing roles (sub-contexts) of Rescue worker and Civilian. From example 2 you can see how these two roles can be expressed in specific sub-situations, and in this particular example: in the situation of “Flooding”. In the situation “Flooding”, a Civilian has to deal with flooding. This may sound obvious, and it is, but something interesting is going on. The sub-context “Civilian:Civilian dealing with flooding” means that “Civilian dealing with flooding” is a sub-context of “Civilian”. At the same time, the sub-context “Civilian dealing with flooding” is also a sub-context of “Flooding”. This is just as the Civilian is contained in the sub-situation “Flooding” (see illustration of example 2). Thus, a sub-context may be captured in more than one context. This reflects the notion that humans play specific roles in specific situations.
To conclude, it can be observed that a context is used to model situations comprising of sub-situations and roles. A role in its turn may be a situation for its constituents. That is, a role can be seen as a situation made up of sub-roles and sub-situations. A typical example is an organization which has employees engaged in specific activities. For an employee, the organization may appear as a situation rather than a role. So it is all a matter of perspective from which we can abstract away by using the general concept of nested concepts.
Interdependencies (conditions)
Actors are not acting alone, they interact with each other. How and how well they interact is determined by the conditions present in the situation in which the actors are interacting. A condition describes the state of a situation, which may be influenced by the behavior of an actor. A condition is often defined in a qualified way, e.g. “the availability of rescue workers”, or “a sufficient supply of evacuation resources”. A condition can also be regarded as an internal system indicator6. A collection of conditions characterizes a system. Typically, a goal is related to a condition: a goal “contributes to” to the condition. “Contributes to” is an expression of the type of relation / interdependency the goal and condition have. In example 3, the goal “Right resources in the right place in time” contributes positively to the condition “Evacuation resources”. In other words, the condition is an indication of the extent to which the goal has been achieved. Note that a goal and a condition have deliberately been modeled as separate concepts. It is quite well possible, and in real situations frequently the case, that achieving one goal (contributing to a condition) is undermined by the achieving another goal (contributing to the same condition).
Type and quality of relations
Examples 3 and 4 are used to describe the type and quality of relations between activities, goals and conditions.
- Dependency: Activities may depend on a condition, as is the case in example 3: evacuation with public transport. Dependency between an activity and condition states the extent to which an activity can be performed depending on how well this activity is facilitated by other activities expressed in terms of one or more conditions.
- Contribution: A goal contributes to a condition. The relation “contributes to” is not as strong as the relation “depends on”. A dependency can be expressed as “contributes to” for modeling situations in which the relation between an activity and a condition is weaker.
Note regarding the general pattern of relations (example 4): by applying a condition a relation is established between Activity A and Activity B. This is an implicit relation, as by means of the condition the relation between Activity A and B is (already) established. There is no need to make the relation between A and B (as indicated by the dotted lines in example 4) explicit.
Worldview and beliefs
Up to now we have focused on a single person who, depending on the situation, carried out certain activities. However, not everyone will carry out this particular activity in the same way. These different approaches originate from the different worldviews people have. And vice-versa: the worldview of a single person may vary depending on the situation he is engaged in. Therefore, different worldviews will have to be considered, which can be included in the model similarly to how contexts were used to model roles in specific situations. Example 5 illustrates different worldviews: a Civilian can deal with flooding by helping his neighbors or deal with the disaster on his own.
A belief is considered a fixed idea, which defines a worldview. A belief is similar to a condition, but in contrast, a belief cannot be changed within the system itself. In example 5 the context “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” includes the belief “Do not trust the government”: this particular civilian does not expect anything positive from the government, no matter how hard the government tries.
Refining and creating clarity in the complex model
Creating clarity in a complex model can be done firstly by developing a main scheme presenting the big picture which includes only the most important situations (sub-contexts). Details of the different situations are provided only when “zooming in” to these, thus by developing separate schemes that only describe the situation selected. The main scheme therefore provides a more generic basis (or the so-called ‘hooks’) for deriving sub-contexts to which, depending on the type of situation you are interested to have a detailed look at, information can be added.
To the sub-contexts generated in examples 2 and 3 information can be added and removed (see example 5). For instance: specialized roles, such as “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own” and “Civilian leading the neighborhood to deal with flooding” are derived from the role “Civilian dealing with flooding”. Modeling elements can be discarded when they are not of use or add value to a particular sub-context. For instance, the context “Civilian dealing with flooding on its own”, the activity “Fight” has been removed.
The octagonal shape indicates that this modeling element happens to be used in other contexts too. In example 5 “Evacuate” is an activity occurring elsewhere in het context “Flooding” as well.
All EMont modeling elements, as discussed in the previous paragraphs, brought together in one scheme:
Concluding remarks
The strength of modeling complex situations with EMont lies in putting patterns of human/non-human (actors) behavior (PQR’s) in a context and applying these recursively. A context or situation is key to modeling roles and interactions of actors, including their different worldviews, in that particular context. The example of a flooding disaster is a simplified and incomplete illustration of a real situation. Modeling real situations can reflect reality in a comprehensive manner, but the models can also become very large. Applying contexts supports separating the main situation or processes from more detailed descriptions of the individual situations.
Subjects not discussed in this introduction to modeling with EMont include documenting good and bad practices, a sequence of activities (‘composed activities’), and modeling conceptual knowledge and its connection to PQR’s in a context. These subjects makes modeling with EMont more comprehensive, yet does not imply the introduction of significantly different elements to EMont.