ME.16:11 - SoTA-Echoing
| Source | Disposition and contribution | Transfer limit and practitioner implication |
|---|---|---|
| Yildirim, Campean, and Uddin, function-modeling evaluation in industry practice | Adopt: training, expert assistance, four-to-six-month workplace projects, later report analysis, application variety, limitations, and direct/indirect contribution as separate introduction and observation positions. | One automotive OEM, retrospective reports, and SSFD within a broader methodology establish neither isolated causality nor universal transfer or capability. |
| Tsai, Zdravkovic, and Söder, DBE-design Method action research | Adapt: prioritization followed by three plan-perform-evaluate cycles as a naturalistic revision structure. | The evaluation is ex ante and case-specific and does not establish long-term organizational effect, causal superiority, or transfer. |
| Schønheyder and Nordby, design-Method use and evolution in professional practice, and Hiort af Ornäs et al., drivers and barriers in methodology spread | Adapt: observed modifications, project and skill conditions, identified organizational conditions where recoverable, drivers, and barriers as observation and revision questions. | One firm and one interview study supply neither a universal programme nor causal proof of spread. |
| Proctor et al., Outcomes for Implementation Research | Adapt: keep acceptability/rejection, appropriateness/fit, feasibility, enactment/fidelity, burden/cost, reach, and sustainment as decision-relevant observation positions distinct from the outside result. | Reject: health-service/client ontology, adoption as an FPF cultural fact, a compulsory outcome set, and any automatic stage order. Use only positions that can change the bounded decision. |
| Stirman, Baumann, and Miller, FRAME | Adapt: for a Method-related target, record what changed, when, planned/proactive or unplanned/reactive status, decider and authority, affected level, reason and conditions, and whether Method semantics, description, support, or local use changed. | Reject: fidelity labels as Method identity or admission, and do not import healthcare intervention kinds. Return each target modification to its particular maintained claim or local decision. |
| Miller et al., FRAME-IS | Adapt: distinguish modifications to the introduction strategy from modifications to the Method-related target; for the strategy, record the changed component or function, nature, timing, participants in the modification decision, rationale, and scope. | Reject: healthcare intervention and implementation-strategy ontology, automatic Method admission, and a compulsory reporting module. Record the introduction strategy’s status and keep its description, any WorkPlan, performed Work, and affected maintained result separate. |
| Damschroder et al., updated CFIR | Adapt: ask which context and determinant observations can explain anticipated or actual success or failure. | Reject: a universal determinant inventory, success score, maturity ladder, or inference from a determinant label to an obtaining FPF relation. |
| Skivington et al., 2021 MRC complex-intervention framework | Adapt: identify key uncertainty, context interaction, refinement, stakeholder perspective, and comparative resource/outcome consequence; permit repeat, reconsider, or stop. | Reject: a compulsory phase sequence or gate. The source neither admits FPF Methods and Work nor supplies causal support; C.28 remains conditional. |
| Moore et al., MRC process-evaluation guidance, and Jolles et al., core functions and forms | Adapt: connect the proposed explanation to observations of implementation, mechanisms, context and outcomes; distinguish a contribution’s function from its concrete form. | These are developed comparison sources, not a universal mechanism inventory. Recover the subject-specific function and the evidence for its preservation; an observed benefit does not confirm the originally proposed mechanism. |
Current FPF A.3.1, A.3.2, A.15.2, A.15.1, A.13, A.2.2, E.23.CDI, A.3.4, A.10, C.28, and direct relation governors | Adopt: Method admission, MethodDescription identity, WorkPlan identity, Work admission, Agent basis, capability, capability development, bounded transformation, evidence, causal-use boundary, and relation semantics. | ME.16 contributes the typed attempt, later observations, target-versus-strategy adaptation record, conditional causal branch, and local revision decision; it does not redefine those governors. |
Reopen the pattern when practitioners cannot separate target subjects and accounts, introduction strategy and status, description, any separate WorkPlan, performed Work, relation occurrences, observations, and receiving actions; when stronger cross-domain evidence changes the observation or adaptation positions; when repeated introductions reveal an independent organizational-change problem; or when current FPF Method, description, plan, Work, relation, capability, evidence, or causal-use semantics change the action.