The Concept of "Enterprise"
The concept of "Enterprise" refers to the subjective dimension of social life: a long-term, self-determined trajectory of actions.
by Oliver Ding
On October 3, 2025, I added the Weave-the-Life model (v1.0) to the Life as Activity approach (see the diagram below). This model aims to bridge the "Activity as Project Engagement" level and the "Life-History Topology" level, explaining how the former unfolds into the latter.
On October 13, 2025, I revisited the Weave-the-Life Model and developed a series of frameworks that together form the Weave-the-Life Framework Family:
- Weave-the-System
- Weave-the-Project
- Weave-the-Case
These three frameworks create a nested structure, providing a scalable way to connect the meso-level and the micro-level analysis. Further details are available in Life-as-Activity: The Weave-the-Life Framework (v2.0).
On November 11, 2025, I designed a new abstract diagram to represent the deep structure of the Weave-the-Life Framework.
The new model integrates four dimensions: Subjective, Objective, Part, and Whole. The Subjective–Objective dimensions capture diachronic aspects of life, while the Part–Whole dimensions capture synchronical aspects. Together, these dimensions weave individual and collective life within an evolving structural, cultural, and historical landscape.
The model defines four Weave-Points, where one synchronical dimension intersects with one diachronic dimension. Concepts from v1.0 are positioned at these points: Self, Enterprise, Project, and Activity.
- At the Part dimension, the Self–Project connection represents "Project Engagement," where an individual participates in a specific project.
- At the Whole dimension, Activity refers to the aggregation of individual projects, while Enterprise encompasses a series of self-directed actions that extend beyond immediate projects.
The distinction between Subjective and Objective reflects the dual aspects of life: individual experience versus collective existence. The Part–Whole distinction reflects the structural depth of life. These four dimensions are continuously interwoven in lived experience, forming the fabric of both personal biography and social reality.
The framework operates bidirectionally. In the forward direction, individual actions crystallize into enterprises that transcend personal will. In the reverse direction, social structures and historical events enter individual life through activities and projects. This bidirectional dynamic illuminates both individual agency and structural constraints, demonstrating how otherness—aspects of social reality beyond immediate intersubjective negotiation—becomes incorporated into personal life.
By incorporating the concept of Enterprise, the Weave-the-Life Framework emphasizes the subjective dimension of social life: a long-term, self-determined trajectory of actions.
More details about the Life as Activity Approach can be found in The Life as Activity Approach (v3.2, 2025).
Theoretical Activity vs. Theory as Enterprise
Over the past few years, I have worked on connecting theory with practice and developing knowledge frameworks. Eventually, I also studied how theorists develop their theories. While theorists always deal with abstract ideas, what they do can be considered a type of activity. I call this special type of activity Theoretical Activity, which encompasses activities such as building theories, theoretical curation, theory integration, and theorizing. I also distinguish between the individual cognitive level of theoretical projects and the collective, collaborative level involved in building a theoretical enterprise. Both levels belong to Theoretical Activity.
The diagram above provides an abstract model of Theoretical Activity, applied at both the individual and collective levels. It visualizes how theoretical work unfolds across cognitive and social dimensions, offering a conceptual map for understanding the structure and dynamics of theorizing as an activity.
There are many types of knowledge elements within theoretical approaches. For the Weave-the-Theory framework, I focus on the following four:
- "Principles"
- "Concepts"
- "Models"
- "Themes"
They are assigned to four weave-points, providing a mapping tool for further case studies.
A theoretical approach is formed by a set of core concepts, while principles describe how these concepts interact.
Both concepts and principles are located at a higher, more abstract level, so I placed them at the "Unification" line, associated with Curativity.
In contrast, themes and models are located at a lower, more concrete level, associated with Creativity on the "Proliferation" line.
More details can be found in Creativity, Curativity, and Theoretical Activity.
In June 2025, I developed the Theory as Enterprise Framework.
The “Theory as Enterprise” theme refers to 1) Theory as Thematic Enterprise, which offers a new perspective on Theory, treating it as a dynamic, collaborative, and developmental process; 2) Using the metaphor of Business Enterprise to understand the structural complexity of an evolving knowledge enterprise.
The “Theory as Enterprise” theme can be seen as a new version of the “Evolving Knowledge Enterprise” theme. While the term “Knowledge” is broad, the term “Theory” is narrower than it. Not all knowledge is theory, but all theory is a form of knowledge.
How did the “Evolving Knowledge Enterprise” theme come?
In the case study The “Mapping Network of Enterprises” Journey (2020–2025), I reflected on the influence of Howard E. Gruber on my creative journey exploring creative work.
Howard Ernest Gruber (November 6, 1922 — January 25, 2005) was an American psychologist and a pioneer of the psychological study of creativity. His ideas and career deeply influenced my creative trajectory between 2020 and 2025.
I have long been fascinated by creativity and discovery. Since 2017, Howard E. Gruber has been my role model in my intellectual journey. His role as a historical-cognitive psychologist inspired me to launch the Slow Cognition project in January 2022, which explores the long-term cognitive development processes of professionals. Later, the project led to what I now call Creative Life Theory.
One of the central concepts in Gruber’s Evolving Systems Approach to Creative Work (1974, 1989) is the Network of Enterprises — a framework I adopted from 2019 to 2021 to manage my own creative activities. In 2022, I transitioned to the Knowledge Center model, which eventually evolved into the Evolving Knowledge Enterprise approach.
Projects, Enterprise, and Activity
A central issue in both Gruber’s approach and my own exploration of different ways to manage creative work is the hierarchy of creative life. Though we use different terms, we share the same focus on its hierarchical aspect.
Gruber’s evolving systems approach has long served as a valuable resource in my creative journey. However, I have never treated it as a fixed framework to inherit or extend. Instead, I engage with it dialogically, using it as one resource among many in an open-ended creative process.
Gruber’s approach uses the structure of “Task — Project — Enterprise — Network of Enterprises” to understand a creative person’s work:
- Task
- Project
- Enterprise
- Network of Enterprises
This structure appears different from the hierarchy in Activity Theory, namely “Operation — Action — Activity,” originally developed by Leontiev. However, in recent developments, Activity Theorists have introduced the concept of an “Activity Network” as an additional level, resulting in a four-level hierarchical structure:
- Operation
- Actions
- Activity (Activity System)
- Activity Network
There are several different ways in which Leontiev’s original three-level model has been expanded into a four-level hierarchy. My own models also use four levels; however, their internal structure differs from Leontiev’s version. The structure is as follows:
- Action / Task
- Project
- Journey / Landscape / Anticipatory Activity System
- Activity / Enterprise
Below the Project level is a lower tier that corresponds to Action, or what Gruber calls Task. Above the Project level, there are several ways to organize a series of Projects into a meaningful whole.
At a more abstract and universal level, the totality of these three levels can be understood as Activity and Enterprise. As mentioned above, the former emphasizes an objective perspective, while the latter focuses on a subjective one.
Thus, Activity and Enterprise are two sides of the same coin: the cultural–historical process of Project Engagement.