Two-Dimensional Organizational Analysis

Overview

To understand an organization ontologically (to know what kind of entity it actually is, requires analyzing two complementary dimensions:

1. Descriptive dimension: The structure of units, subunits, and their relationships
2. Normative dimension: The duties, obligations, and authorities that animate the structure

Neither dimension alone is sufficient. Together, they explain both what the organization looks like and why it persists and functions.

The Descriptive Dimension

Uses Granular Partition Theory to model organizational structure:

• The organization is a maximum cell (partition containing all others)
• Departments and teams are subcells nested within
• Individual roles are minimum cells (atomic units)
• The projection/location relationship connects the partition to people in reality

This explains how org charts work: they’re granular partitions projected onto the world, with real people located in the cells.

Critically, organizational units are fiat objects: they exist by human demarcation, not natural boundaries. A “Marketing Department” has no existence independent of the cognitive and documentary acts that create it.

The Normative Dimension

Uses Document Acts Theory to model obligations:

• Duties and responsibilities are social generically dependent continuants: they exist by being borne by people and sustained by documents
• Document acts (signing contracts, issuing policies, filing reports) create, transfer, and revoke these obligations
• The normative layer persists because documents provide temporal extension that speech acts lack

This explains why organizations are non-summative aggregates: they preserve identity through member changes because the normative structure (encoded in documents) persists independently of any particular person.

When to Use This Framework

Organizational knowledge management: When modeling what an organization “knows,” distinguish between descriptive knowledge (structure, membership) and normative knowledge (policies, responsibilities, authorities).

Information architecture for enterprises: When designing taxonomies or ontologies for corporate content, the two dimensions suggest separate but linked classification systems.

System integration: When connecting HR systems (descriptive) with compliance/policy systems (normative), this framework clarifies why they need different data models that reference each other.

Limitations

The framework is more analytical than operational. It tells you what to model but not how to model it in any specific technology. The formal ontology approach (BFO) that underlies it is rigorous but heavyweight for most practical applications.

The line between descriptive and normative can blur. Is a “job title” descriptive (a position in the org chart) or normative (a set of responsibilities)? Both, which suggests the dimensions are orthogonal axes, not separate categories.

Related: 06-molecule—document-acts-organizational-architecture