A relationship is defined, as the interactive existence of more than one occurrence, in which there is a relative linkage marked by logic, concept, structure, or time. In this mode a relationship between occurrences is more than a proposition. For example, management and organization scientists generally define propositions on stating relationships between two or more concepts. An illustration would be the linkage between the efforts carried on R&D and the satisfaction of users of the new product, which was thus developed. When a relationship is defined beyond the propositional boundaries, it would be similar to the chain architecture of propositions, which compose an entire theory.
This flow and changeability of variables are characteristics of a process mode, in which occurrences are linked by virtue of conceptual criteria. For instance, a theory of innovation would be explained in the form of a process, where research flows into development, into testing, engineering, and marketing. Processes are to a large extent structural manifestations of theories where propositions may be ordered to form a coherent theory.
Underlying the managerial and organizational approaches to problem solving criteria are four methods: (1) parsimony; (2) simplicity; (3) closeness and realism; and (4) balance and equilibrium. Let us examine each criterion inclusive of its limitations and weaknesses.
With parsimony, the issue is to achieve economy in describing the phenomenon for the purpose of studying, modeling, and data collection.
Burton and Obel have suggested,
"Parsimonious explanations are a factor in determining the validity of computational models". (Burton R, and B. Obel, 1995)
Parsimony becomes a problem when it contributes to capricious modeling in the quest for economy. Variables that may be factors in alternative explanations should be measured and are left outside the research design for reasons beyond the logical linkage. In the transition from theory to modeling, then to experimental design, the quest for parsimony is additive, hence sequentially and deleteriously compress the universe being investigated. (Geisler, 1999)
Issues of construct validity are to be considered in non-adherence to parsimony. That is, in defense of economy and elegance it may be said that by clearly defining the phenomenon, the validity of the design increases, but at what price Largely at the expense of a more productive and comprehensive approximation to a more viable representation of the phenomenon, the result is akin to the problem of accuracy versus useful information. Parsimonious qualification of research into the managerial and organizational activities may lead to a slice of the phenomenon that is highly researchable, accurate, and elegant yet of little use as representative of the broader phenomenon.
The second methodology is the quest for simplicity. As in the case of parsimony, threats to validity are anchored in both the research desi