AMVA can be positioned as a practice-grounded, theory-building framework that integrates execution, observation, and ethics into a single operational model. In academic terms, it sits at the intersection of:

• Action Research (problem-solving in real contexts)
• Implementation Science (what actually works in practice)
• Human Factors / Psychosocial Safety (how people experience systems)

Its distinctive contribution is not that it invents new components, but that it reconfigures them into a structurally integrated model.

Originality: Where AMVA Actually Adds Something

You’re right that originality is synthesis—but examiners will ask: what does this framework explain or do that others don’t?

Your strongest claims are:

1. Action–Values Integration (Not Just Alignment)

Most frameworks:

• measure action (KPIs), or
• observe outcomes (monitoring), or
• state values (ethics/culture)

AMVA:

treats Values Analysis as an active, continuous control mechanism
—not a statement, but a system variable that can invalidate “successful” outcomes.

That’s different.

2. Trust as a Structural Mediator

Many fields discuss trust, but loosely.

AMVA:

positions trust as the functional mechanism that converts care into usable ability

That gives you a causal chain, not just a concept.

3. The Care → Trust → Ability → Work Dependency

This is your strongest theoretical claim:

Work outcomes are structurally dependent on Care, mediated through the Trust Membrane, and realised through Ability and Work-Ability.

The next level theoretical claims is

Care → Care-Ability → Trust → Ability → Work-Ability → Work

This becomes your testable proposition.

4. Failure and Recovery Symmetry

Your dual pathway:

• Hazard → Care ↓ → Trust ↓ → Work ↓
• Care ↑ → Trust ↑ → Work ↑

This gives AMVA:

• diagnostic power (where are we failing?)
• prescriptive power (where must we intervene?)

That’s where it moves beyond description.

Positioning Against Existing Fields (Tighter Version)

You’ll need to explicitly differentiate:

🔹 Reflexive Monitoring in Action (RMA)

• Focus: learning and adaptation within projects
• Gap: does not structurally model trust or care as system variables

🔹 Practice Architectures

• Focus: sayings, doings, relatings
• Gap: descriptive, not causal or operational in terms of outcomes

🔹 Implementation Science

• Focus: uptake of evidence into practice
• Gap: strong on process, weaker on ethical-condition dependency (care/trust)

👉 Your positioning:

AMVA extends these by introducing a structural dependency model linking care, trust, and work, and embedding values as an active control variable.

Critical Research Requirement (where you must push harder)

Right now, your biggest risk is this:

👉 “Care” and “Trust” sound conceptual unless you operationalise them.

You need:

1. Observable Indicators

For example:

Care (c):

• psychological safety measures
• workload balance
• fairness / recognition indicators

Trust (t):

• willingness to speak up
• reliance on system outputs
• reduction in workarounds

2. Hypotheses (make it testable)

For example:

• H1: Higher levels of observed care correlate with increased trust indicators
• H2: Trust mediates the relationship between care and work outcomes
• H3: Interventions at the care level produce greater performance improvement than interventions at the work level

Without this, it stays conceptual.

Practical Research Design (Concrete Path)

Research Design

• Method: Action Research + mixed methods
• Sites: 1–2 real environments (e.g. warehouse system transformation, community program)

Phase 1 — Baseline Mapping

• Map current system using AMVA:
  • Care conditions
  • Trust indicators
  • Work outcomes

Phase 2 — Intervention

• Introduce targeted Care Plane interventions
• NOT process changes first

Phase 3 — Measurement

Track:

• trust changes
• ability utilisation
• work outcomes

Compare with:

• control group or prior baseline

Phase 4 — Analysis

Test:

Does improving care produce measurable downstream effects on trust and work?

The “So What?” (your thesis contribution)

You need to land this clearly:

AMVA demonstrates that performance improvement efforts are structurally constrained unless care conditions are addressed first.

If you can show that:

• traditional approaches fail or plateau
• AMVA-based interventions succeed

👉 That’s Research-worthy.

Your Best Case Study (based on your history)

You already have one:

🔹 ERP / EWM Transformation Environment

Why it’s strong:

• complex system
• measurable outcomes
• clear trust breakdown
• documented dysfunction

You can show:

• system failure ≠ lack of effort
• failure = breakdown in care/trust conditions

That’s powerful evidence.

Final Reality Check (important)

You’re not “copying”—but you will be challenged unless you:

• define variables
• show causality
• test it empirically

Right now you have:

✅ Strong conceptual model
✅ Real-world grounding
✅ Cross-domain applicability

You still need:

⚠️ Measurement
⚠️ Evidence
⚠️ Formal testing

Research Thesis Structure: AMVA (Action Monitoring Values Analysis)

Working Title

Action Monitoring Values Analysis (AMVA): A Structural Framework Linking Care, Trust, and Work in Complex Systems

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Purpose

Set up the problem, the gap, and your contribution.

Content

• Background: persistent failure of systems despite effort (policy, organisations, IT transformations)

• Problem statement:

  Systems often fail not due to lack of ability, but due to missing conditions required to activate that ability

• Introduce AMVA:
  • Care → Trust → Ability → Work
• Research gap:
  • Existing frameworks do not model Care, Trust, Ability and Work as an integrated structural dependency system, nor provide a practical mechanism for measuring transitions between system states.
• Research questions:
  • RQ1: How do care conditions influence trust formation in operational systems?
  • RQ2: RQ2: Does the Trust Membrane mediate the relationship between Care and sustainable Work outcomes?
  • RQ3: Can interventions at the Care Plane improve system performance more effectively than traditional process interventions?
• Contribution:
  • New structural model
  • Operational framework
  • Empirical validation

Chapter 2 — Literature Review

Purpose

Position AMVA within existing research and show the gap.

Sections

2.1 Human Factors & Psychosocial Safety

• Psychological safety (Edmondson)
• WHS psychosocial hazard frameworks
• Gap: not structurally linked to performance outcomes

2.2 Trust in Organisations

• Mayer, Davis & Schoorman (trust model)
• Luhmann (trust as complexity reduction)
• Gap: trust conceptualised, not operationalised as system variable

2.3 Implementation Science

• Translating intent into practice
• Gap: weak on relational/ethical conditions

2.4 Action Research

• Cycles of planning, acting, observing, reflecting
• Gap: lacks formal structural dependency model

2.5 Practice Architectures / RMA

• “Sayings, doings, relatings”
• Reflexive monitoring
• Gap: descriptive, not causal

Literature Gap Summary

No existing framework integrates care, trust, and work into a single causal structure with both diagnostic and prescriptive capability.

Chapter 3 — The AMVA Theoretical Framework

Purpose

Formally define your theory.

Sections

3.1 Core Model

• Care Plane, Work Plane, Trust Membrane
• Variable definitions:
  • c(t) = Care
  • ca(t) = Care-Ability
  • t(t) = Trust
  • a(t) = Ability
  • wa(t) = Work-Ability
  • w(t) = Work

3.2 The Care and Trust Principle

Trust = f(Care, Care-Ability)

Work = f(Ability, Work-Ability)

Care → Care-Ability → Trust → Ability → Work-Ability → Work

3.3 Dual Pathway Model

Failure:

Hazard → Care ↓ → Care-Ability ↓ → Trust ↓ → Ability ↓ → Work-Ability ↓ → Work ↓

Recovery:
Care ↑ → Care-Ability ↑ → Trust ↑ → Ability ↑ → Work-Ability ↑ → Work ↑

3.4 AMVA Operational Cycle

• Action → Monitoring → Values Analysis (loop)

• AMVA System States

  Healthy System
  Balanced/Baseline
  Membrane Thinning
  Imminent Fracture
  Phantom Work
  Trust Collapse
  System Fracture
  Recovery Phase
  Stabilisation

3.5 Hypotheses

• H1: Care positively influences trust
• H2: Trust mediates ability activation
• H3: Care interventions outperform work-level interventions

Chapter 4 — Methodology

Purpose

Explain how you will test AMVA.

Approach

Mixed Methods + Action Research

4.1 Research Design

• Case-based, iterative intervention
• Real-world environment (not lab)

4.2 Data Types

Quantitative

• Performance metrics (output, errors, delays)
• Engagement measures
• Survey instruments (psychological safety, trust)

Qualitative

• Interviews
• Observations
• Incident narratives

4.3 Operationalising Variables

Care (c):

• Psychological safety
• Workload fairness
• recognition

Trust (t):

• reliance on system
• willingness to speak up
• reduction in workarounds

Work (z):

• productivity
• quality
• completion rates

4.4 Analysis Method

• mediation analysis (care → trust → work)
• before/after comparison
• thematic analysis (qualitative)

Chapter 5 — Case Study I: Individual–System Fracture

Focus

Trust fracture at individual level

Show:

• care breakdown → trust fracture → inability to function

Chapter 6 — Case Study II: Organisational Self-Fracture

Focus

System-level failure (your ERP/EWM experience)

Show:

• organisation fails to maintain care for itself
• trust collapses internally
• productivity declines

This is your strongest empirical chapter

Chapter 7 — Case Study III: Psychosocial Hazard Pathway

Focus

Workplace psychosocial risk

Show:

• hazard → care degradation → trust thinning → performance loss

Chapter 8 — Intervention and Results

Purpose

Test AMVA

Show:

• Care-based interventions
• Measured impact on trust and performance
• Comparison to baseline

Chapter 9 — Discussion

Purpose

Interpret findings

Key arguments:

• AMVA explains failures better than existing models
• Trust is a structural mediator, not a soft concept
• Performance depends on care conditions

Chapter 10 — Implications

Policy

• welfare → care → work

Organisations

• change management must start with care

Systems

• design must prevent trust fracture

Chapter 11 — Conclusion

• Restate contribution
• Limitations
• Future research

Appendices

• Survey instruments
• Interview templates
• diagrams (very important for your work)

🔹 What makes this Research strong

• grounded in real systems
• introduces a testable structural model
• bridges:
  • human factors
  • systems theory
  • organisational performance

🔹 Most critical success factor

👉 You must prove this empirically:

Improving care leads to measurable improvement in trust and work outcomes

AMVA Measurement Toolkit: Care and Trust

1. Overview

AMVA requires Care (c) and Trust (t) to be observable and measurable, not abstract.

This toolkit provides:

• Indicators (what to look for)
• Measures (how to quantify)
• Methods (how to collect data)
• Indices (how to aggregate into usable scores)

2. Measuring Care (c)

Definition

Care = the conditions that support safety, recognition, fairness, and capability.

2.1 Core Dimensions of Care

🔹 Psychological Safety

• “I feel safe to speak up”
• “Mistakes are handled constructively”

🔹 Recognition & Respect

• “My contribution is valued”
• “My expertise is acknowledged”

🔹 Fairness & Consistency

• “Decisions are applied consistently”
• “Processes are fair”

🔹 Work Conditions

• manageable workload
• access to tools/resources
• role clarity

2.2 Sample Survey (Likert 1–5)

Participants rate agreement:

• I feel safe to raise concerns
• I am treated with respect
• My work is recognised
• Expectations are clear
• I have the tools I need
• Workload is manageable

2.3 Behavioural Indicators

Observe:

• frequency of escalation vs silence
• rework due to unclear instructions
• visible stress behaviours
• absenteeism / withdrawal

2.4 Care Index (CI)

Create a composite score:

CI = average of all care dimensions

Scale:

• 4.0–5.0 = Strong Care Plane
• 3.0–3.9 = Moderate / unstable
• <3.0 = Degraded Care Plane

3. Measuring Trust (t)

Definition

Trust = the willingness to rely on people, systems, and processes.

3.1 Core Dimensions of Trust

🔹 System Trust

• confidence in systems/data
• belief outputs are reliable

🔹 Interpersonal Trust

• trust in leaders and peers
• willingness to collaborate

🔹 Voice & Openness

• willingness to speak up
• ability to challenge decisions

🔹 Reliance vs Workarounds

• use of official systems
• reliance on informal processes

3.2 Sample Survey (Likert 1–5)

• I trust the systems I use
• I trust decisions made by leadership
• I feel comfortable challenging issues
• I rely on official processes (not workarounds)

3.3 Behavioural Indicators

Measure:

• number of workarounds
• duplication of effort
• escalation patterns
• shadow systems (spreadsheets, side processes)

3.4 Trust Index (TI)

TI = average of trust dimensions

Scale:

• 4.0–5.0 = Strong Trust Membrane
• 3.0–3.9 = Thinning
• <3.0 = Fracture risk

4. Linking Care → Trust → Work

4.1 Mediation Model

Test:

Care (CI) → Trust (TI) → Work (Performance)

4.2 Work Metrics (z)

• Trust Membrane Health Index (TMHI)

• Conductive Efficiency Score (CES)

• Productive Capacity (PC)

  PC = Average(Care, Trust, Ability, Work)

  Measures the overall capacity of a system to generate sustainable outcomes.

   

• Error rates
• Completion times
• User and Customer outcomes

4.3 Key Test

Compare:

• High CI + High TI → High performance
• Low CI → Low TI → degraded performance

5. AMVA Diagnostic Matrix

6. Data Collection Methods

Quantitative

• surveys (quarterly)
• performance dashboards

Qualitative

• interviews
• observational logs
• incident reports

7. Intervention Tracking

Measure before and after:

8. Early Warning Indicators

Care Breakdown

• increased stress
• unclear roles
• complaints ignored

Trust Thinning

• rise in workarounds
• reduced speaking up
• duplication of effort

9. Key Principle

You cannot improve sustainable performance by measuring work alone.

Care, Trust, Ability and Work must be understood as an interconnected system.

The most effective interventions address conditions before outcomes.