Home · Working notes · Exploratory notes · About
Version: v0.1
Status: Exploratory Note
Last updated: 2026-01-09
This exploratory note proposes a minimal functional typology of models.
It argues that many disagreements about models do not arise from their content, but from unspoken assumptions about what a model is meant to do.
By distinguishing between orientation models, explanatory models, and application models, the note clarifies the functional role of models without introducing methodological prescriptions or hierarchical claims.
This note classifies models by their function, not by their truth, precision, or scientific status.
The typology is intended as a tool for conceptual orientation: to clarify how a model is used, what kind of questions it can answer, and which expectations are structurally misplaced.
It does not propose a theory of modeling, nor does it prescribe how models should be constructed.
Models are ubiquitous across science, engineering, management, and everyday reasoning.
They are often discussed as if they differed only in accuracy or abstraction. However, many disputes arise because models with different functions are treated as if they were interchangeable.
The decisive question is therefore not:
Is the model correct?
but rather:
What is this model meant to do?
In practice, models are frequently used outside the function for which they were constructed.
Orientation models are treated as action guides. Explanatory models are mistaken for operational tools. Application models are expected to provide conceptual clarity.
This functional ambiguity leads to recurring problems:
The issue is not the model itself, but the absence of functional typing.
To remove this ambiguity, a minimal and sufficient functional classification can be introduced.
The typology distinguishes between orientation models, explanatory models, and application models.
These categories describe use, not quality. A model may be excellent within its function and misleading outside it.
Orientation models provide situational understanding.
They answer questions such as:
Characteristics:
Orientation models do not tell actors what to do. They prevent actors from acting under false assumptions.
Explanatory models provide causal or structural understanding.
They answer questions such as:
Characteristics:
Explanatory models are often mistaken for action guides, although their primary function is understanding, not intervention.
Application models support concrete action or decision-making.
They answer questions such as:
Characteristics:
Application models require clear boundaries and explicit assumptions, as misuse carries real-world consequences.
The three model types are complementary, not hierarchical.
Orientation models often precede application. Explanatory models may inform application. Application models may generate feedback for explanation.
However, none of the types can substitute for another without loss.
Several recurrent errors arise from ignoring model function:
These errors are functional rather than substantive.
A minimal rule follows:
Before evaluating a model, its function should be made explicit: orientation, explanation, or application.
This clarification reduces conflict without constraining inquiry.
Many disagreements about models are not disagreements about reality, but about what kind of work the model is expected to perform.
Making the model function explicit resolves such disputes without requiring additional data or refinement.
This document is an exploratory note.
It intentionally avoids normative claims, methodological prescriptions, or examples tied to specific disciplines.
Its purpose is functional clarification and conceptual orientation.
Wende, A. (2026).
On the Typing of Models: Orientation, Explanation, and Application.
Exploratory Notes, systemic-effect.org. Version 0.1.
https://systemic-effect.org/exploratory-notes/typing-of-models/v0.1
systemic-effect.org
Exploratory Notes