Advertisement

The variety engineering method: analyzing and designing information flows in organizations

  • Christoph RosenkranzEmail author
  • Roland Holten
Original Article

Abstract

In every organization, various decisions have to be made continuously, from the simple choice, which customer order to be processed next, to the serious question, whether to select a new supplier or to cancel an existing one. All of these decisions are supported by the provision of relevant information. Therefore the efficiency of a value chain is strongly influenced by the accurate setup of information flows. To make organizations more effective and efficient, one needs to understand what information flows are currently available and how information flows should be designed for a given organization. However, there is hardly any methodology available in order to analyze and redesign information flows in organizations in a structured way. Using the design science research framework, we develop a method for the analysis and design of information flows in organizations. Our research on the Variety Engineering Method (VEM) attempts to develop a method to analyze, diagnose and design information flows. VEM is built based on systems theory and cybernetics, especially the Viable System Model. VEM has been tested internally, and evaluated externally through field studies. In this paper, we present VEM in detail and discuss some general issues involved in its development, including the application of concepts form method engineering and evaluation in field studies.

Keywords

Organizational design Business engineering Viable system model Variety engineering Conceptual modeling Method engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the guest editors and the anonymous reviewers for very helpful feedback and advice. In addition we would like to thank Bastian Beck, Harald Kolbe, Marcus Laumann and Abdelghani Zafa for their contribution to this work. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research funded parts of this work within the scope of the research project “Mind-Bau” under record no. 01FD0611.

Supplementary material

10257_2010_127_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (355 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 355 kb)

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1999) Re-creating the corporation: a design of organizations for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Mutari SG, Burns ND, Backhouse CJ (2005) Using a viable system model as a diagnostic tool for small-sized companies. Intl J Service Oper Manage 1(3):220–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Algathbar K, Farkas C, Wijesekera D (2006) Securing UML information flow using FlowUML. J Res Practice Inf Technol 38(1):111–120Google Scholar
  4. Anderson P (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Org Sci 10(3, Special Issue: Application of Complexity Theory to Organization Science):216–232Google Scholar
  5. Anderton R (1989) The need for formal development of the VSM. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Chichester, UK, pp 39–50Google Scholar
  6. Anupindi R, Chopra S, Deshmukh SD, Van Mieghem JA, Zemel E (2006) Managing business process flows. Principles of operations management, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implication for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1(2):83–99Google Scholar
  8. Ashby WR (1964) An introduction to cybernetics. University Paperbacks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashby WR (1973) Some peculiarities of complex systems. Cybern Med 9(2):1–7Google Scholar
  10. Avital M, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K (2009) Introduction to designing information and organizations with a positive lens. Inf Org (in press, corrected proof)Google Scholar
  11. Backlund A (2002) The concept of complexity in organisations and information systems. Kybernetes 31(1):30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bar-Yam Y (1997) Dynamics of complex systems. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  13. Bar-Yam Y (2004) Multiscale variety in complex systems. Complexity 9(4):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bar-Yam Y (2005) Making things work: solving complex problems in a complex world. NECSI Knowledge Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun AIS 2(19)Google Scholar
  17. Batini C, Ceri S, Navathe SB (1992) Conceptual database design: an entity-relationship approach. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  18. Becker J, Dreiling A, Holten R, Ribbert M (2003) Specifying information systems for business process integration—a management perspective. Inf Syst e-Bus Manage 1(3):231–263Google Scholar
  19. Becker J, Niehaves B, Pfeiffer D (2008) Ontological evaluation of conceptual models—a linguistic interpretivist approach. Scand J Inf Syst 20(2):83–110Google Scholar
  20. Beer S (1966) Decision and control. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Beer S (1979) The heart of enterprise. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Beer S (1981) Brain of the firm, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Beer S (1985) Diagnosing the system for organizations. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Beer S (1989) The viable system model. Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester, pp 11–37Google Scholar
  25. Beer S (1994) Towards the cybernetic factory. In: Harnden R, Leonard A (eds) How many grapes went into the wine: Stafford Beer on the art and science of holistic management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 163–225Google Scholar
  26. Bititci US, Carrie AS, McDevitt L (1997) Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide. Intl J Oper Prod Manage 17(5):522–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Blecker T, Kersten W, Meyer CM (2005) Development of an approach for analyzing supply chain complexity. In Blecker T, Friedrich G (eds) Mass customization. Concepts—Tools—Realization. Proceedings of the international mass customization meeting 2005 (IMCM’05), Klagenfurt, Austria, pp 47–59Google Scholar
  28. Boulding KE (1956) General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Manage Sci 2(3):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Braa K, Vidgen R (1999) Interpretation, intervention and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information systems research. Account Manage Inf Technol 9(1):25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Braun C, Wortmann F, Hafner M, Winter R (2005) Method construction—a core approach to organizational engineering. Paper presented at the 20th ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2005), Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 1295–1299Google Scholar
  31. Britton GA, Parker J (1993) An explication of the viable system model for project management. Syst Practice Act Res 6(1):21–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Burton RM, Obel B (2005) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: the dynamics of fit (3rd edn). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Cachon GP, Fisher M (2000) Supply chain inventory management and the value of shared information. Manage Sci 46(8):1032–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Chen PP-S (1976) The entity–relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Tran Database Syst 1(1):9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Chopra S, Meindl P (2007) Supply chain management. Strategy, planning, and operation, 3rd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  37. Christopher WF (2007) Holistic management. Managing what matters for company success. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  38. Codd EF (1970) A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun ACM 13(6):377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Codd EF (1990) The relational model for database management. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  40. Crowston K (1997) A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Org Sci 8(2):157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Curtis B, Kellner MI, Over J (1992) Process modeling. Commun ACM 35(9):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32(5):554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Daft RL, Lewin AY (1990) Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science Straitjacket? An editorial essay. Org Sci 1(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Daft RL, Macintosh NB (1981) A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Admin Sci Q 26(2):207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Davis R (2001) Business process modelling with ARIS. A Practical Guide. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. de Raadt JDR (1987) Ashby’s law of requisite variety: an empirical study. Cybern Syst 18(6):517–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. De Wolf T, Holvoet T (2007) Designing self-organising emergent systems based on information flows and feedback-loops. Paper presented at the first international conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems (SASO 2007), Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 295–298Google Scholar
  48. Dietz JLG (2006) The deep structure of business processes. Commun ACM 49(5):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Donaldson L (2001) The contingency theory of organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  50. Espejo R (1989) P. M. Manufacturers: the VSM as a diagnostic tool. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Chichester, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  51. Espejo R, Bowling D, Hoverstadt P (1999) The viable system model and the Viplan software. Kybernetes 28(6/7):661–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) (1989) The viable system model. ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  53. Flood RL, Carson ER (1993) Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Flores F, Ludlow J (1980) Doing and speaking in the office. In: Fick G, Sprague RH (eds) Decision support systems: issues and challenges. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 95–118Google Scholar
  55. Frank U, Lange C (2007) E-MEMO: a method to support the development of customized electronic commerce systems. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 5(2):93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fransoo JC, Wiers VCS (2006) Action variety of planners: cognitive load and requisite variety. J Oper Manage 24(6):813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Frost B, Schoen GS (2004) Viable communities within organizational contexts: creating and sustaining viability in communities of practice at siemens AG. In: Hildreth PM, Kimble C (eds) Knowledge networks: innovation through communities of practice. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 133–141Google Scholar
  58. Galbraith JR (1977) Organization design. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  59. Galbraith JR (2006) Mastering the law of requisite variety with differentiated networks. In: Heckscher C, Adler PS (eds) The firm as a collaborative community: reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 179–196Google Scholar
  60. Gane CP, Sarson T (1979) Structured systems analysis: tools and techniques. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  61. Gavirneni S, Fisher M (1999) Value of information in capacitated supply chains. Manage Sci 45(1):16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(5):312–335Google Scholar
  63. Gupta D, Prakash N (2001) Engineering methods from method requirements specifications. Req Eng 6(3):135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Harnden RJ (1989) Outside and then: an interpretive approach to the VSM. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester, pp 383–404Google Scholar
  65. Hatch MJ, Cunliffe AL (2006) Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Herring CE (2002) Viable software. The intelligent control paradigm for adaptable and adaptive architecture, Unpublished Dissertation. University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  67. Hevner A, March S, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  68. Hevner AR (2007) A three cycle view of design science research. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):87–92Google Scholar
  69. Hevner AR, March ST (2003) The information systems research cycle. Computer 36(11):111–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hirschheim R, Klein H, Lyytinen K (1995) Information systems development and data modeling. Conceptual and philosophical foundations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. Holten R (1999) Entwicklung von Führungsinformationssystemen. Ein methodenorientierter Ansatz, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  72. Holten R (2000) Entwicklung einer Modellierungstechnik für Data Warehouse Fachkonzepte. In: Schmidt H (ed) Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme. Proceedings der MobIS-Fachtagung 2000, vol 7, pp 3–21, GI-Fachgruppe 5.10Google Scholar
  73. Holten R (2003) Specification of management views in information warehouse projects. Inf Syst 28(7):709–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Holten R, Dreiling A, Becker J (2005) Ontology-driven method engineering for information systems development. In: Green P, Rosemann M (eds) Business systems analysis with ontologies. IDEA Group, Hershey, pp 174–215Google Scholar
  75. Hoverstadt P (2009) The fractal organisation: creating sustainable organisations with the viable system model. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  76. SO I (1990) ISO/IEC 10027: information technology. Information Resource Dictionary Systems (IRDS)-Framework, ISO/IEC Intl. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  77. Jackson MC (2000) Systems approaches to management. Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Jin Y, Levitt RE (1996) The virtual design team: a computational model of project organizations. Comput Math Org Theory 2(3):171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Jost W (1993) EDV-gestützte CIM-Rahmenplanung. Gabler, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  80. Kamlah W, Lorenzen P (1984) Logical propaedeutic. Pre-school of reasonable discourse. University Press of America, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  81. Kauffman SA (1995) At home in the universe: the search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Kawalek P, Wastell DG (1999) A case study evaluation of the use of the viable system model in information systems development. J Database Manage 10(4):24–32Google Scholar
  83. Kimball R, Ross M (1996) The data warehouse toolkit. Practical techniques for building dimensional data warehouses. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Kock NF (2001) Changing the focus of business process redesign from activity flows to information flows: a defense acquisition application. Acquist Rev Q(Spring/Summer 2001), 93–109Google Scholar
  85. Kock NF (2003) Communication-focused business process redesign: assessing a communication flow optimization model through an action research study at a defense contractor. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 46(1):35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kock NF, McQueen RJ (1996) Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: an empirircal study of fifteen business processes in three organisations. Bus Process Re-eng Manage J 2(2):8–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kolbe H, Laumann M (2008) Supply chain event management for cold chains. Supply Chain Manag 2008(1):47–52Google Scholar
  88. Kuntz JC, Christiansen TR, Cohen GP, Jin Y, Levitt RE (1998) The virtual design team. Commun ACM 41(11):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Laumann M (2008) Requirements specification for supply chain controlling—a mini case study. In: 14th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2008), Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  90. Laumann M, Rosenkranz C (2008) Analysing information flows for controlling activities within supply chains—an arvato (Bertelsmann) business case. In: 16th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2008), AIS, Galway, Ireland Google Scholar
  91. Laumann M, Rosenkranz C, Kolbe H (2007) Diagnosing and redesigning a health(y) organization—an avarto (Bertelsmann) action research study. In: 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp 1990–2001 Google Scholar
  92. Lee HL, So KCR, Tang CS (2000) The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Manage Sci 46(5):626–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Levitt RE (2004) Computational modeling of organizations comes of age. Comput Math Org Theory 10(2):127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Levitt RE, Thomson J, Christiansen TR, Kuntz JC, Jin Y, Nass C (1999) Simulating project work processes and organizations: toward a micro-contingency theory of organizational design. Manage Sci 45(11):1479–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) System requirements engineering. McGraw-Hill International series in Software Engineering, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  96. Lucas HCJ, Baroudi J (1994) The role of information technology in organization design. J Manage Inf Syst 10(4):9–23Google Scholar
  97. Malik F (1996) Strategie des Managements komplexer Systeme. Ein Beitrag zur Management-Kybernetik evolutionärer Systeme, 5th edn. Verlag Paul Haupt, BernGoogle Scholar
  98. Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv 26(1):87–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA (eds) (2003) Organizing business knowledge. The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  100. Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, Pentland B, Dellarocas C, Wyner G et al (1999) Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes. Manage Sci 45(3):425–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  102. March TS, Smith G (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Supp Syst 15(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall International Editions, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  104. Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 55:243–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Mumford E (2003) Redesigning human systems. IRM Press, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  106. Nissen HW, Jeusfeld MA, Jarke M, Zemanek GV, Huber H (1996) Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels. IEEE Softw 13(3):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Nissen ME (2007) Computational experimentation on new organizational forms: exploring behavior and performance of Edge organizations. Comput Math Org Theory 13(3):203–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Nyström CA (2006) Design rules for intranets according to the viable system model. Syst Practice Act Res 19(6):523–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Oei JLH, van Hemmen JGT, Falkenberg ED, Brinkkemper S (1992) The meta model hierarchy: a framework for information systems concepts and techniques. Technical Report 92-17, Department of Information Systems, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Retrieved 2007-06-29, from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/698351.html
  110. OMG (2009a) Business process modeling notation (BPMN) 1.2, Release date: January 2009 Retrieved 2009-05-12, from http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2/
  111. OMG (2009b) Unified modeling language specification 2.2. Retrieved 2009-10-21, from http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modeling_spec_catalog.htm#UML
  112. Osborn RN, Hunt JG, Bussom RS (1977) On getting your own way in organizational design: an empirical illustration of requisite variety. Org Admin Sci 8(Summer/Fall):295–310Google Scholar
  113. Parnas DL (1972) On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun ACM 15(12):1053–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manage Inf Syst 24(3):45–77Google Scholar
  115. Pentland BT (2003) Sequential variety in work processes. Org Sci 14(5):528–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Pfeiffer D, Niehaves B (2005) Evaluation of conceptual models—a structuralist approach. Paper presented at the proceedings of the European conference on information systems (ECIS 2005), Regensburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  117. Poluha RG (2007) Application of the SCOR model in supply chain management. Cambria Press, YoungstownGoogle Scholar
  118. Powell SG, Schwaninger M, Trimble C (2001) Measurement and control of business processes. Syst Dyn Rev 17(1):63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Räkers M, Rosenkranz C (2008) Organizational impact on project management in financial data warehousing: a case study. In: 16th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2008), 9–11 June, AIS, Galway, Ireland Google Scholar
  120. Ralyté J, Deneckère R, Rolland C (2003) Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. Paper presented at the 15th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2003), Klagenfurt/Velden, Austria, pp 95–110Google Scholar
  121. Ranganathan A, Campbell RH (2007) What is the complexity of a distributed computing system? Complexity 12(6):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Recker J (2008) Understanding process modelling grammar continuance: a study of the consequences of representational capabilities. Queensland University of Technology, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  123. Reijswoud VE, Dietz JLG (1998) DEMO modelling handbook. Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  124. Ribbers PMA, Schoo K-C (2002) Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Eng Manage J 14(2):45–52Google Scholar
  125. Ríos JP (2006) Communication and information technologies to enable viable organizations. Kybernetes 35(7/8):1109–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rivett P (1977) The case for cybernetics. A critical appreciation. Eur J Oper Res 1(1):33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rosenkranz C (2009) Analyzing information flows in service networks. In: Thomas O, Nütgens M (eds) Dienstleistungsmodellierung. Methode, Werkzeuge und Branchenlösungen. Proceedings of the Dienstleistungsmodellierung, Physica-Verlag, Berlin, pp 35–52Google Scholar
  128. Rosenkranz C, Feddersen C (2007) Managing virtual communities—a case study of a viable system. In: 13th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2007), 9–12 August, Association for Information Systems (AIS), Keystone, CO, USA Google Scholar
  129. Rosenkranz C, Holten R (2007a) Combining cybernetics and conceptual modeling—the concept of variety in organizational engineering. In: 22nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2007), Seoul, Korea, pp 1228–1233Google Scholar
  130. Rosenkranz C, Holten R (2007b) Measuring the complexity of information systems and organizations—insights from an action case. In: 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp 2026–2037Google Scholar
  131. Rosenkranz C, Feddersen C (2010) Managing viable virtual communities: an exploratory case study and explanatory model. Int J Web-based Communities 6(1):5–24 Google Scholar
  132. Rosenkranz C, Holten R, Laumann M (2008) Designing IC structures by variety engineering. In: 23nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2008), ACM, Fortaleza, Brazil, pp 518–523Google Scholar
  133. Rosenkranz C, Laumann M, Holten R (2009) Diagnosing and redesigning a health(y) organisation: an action research study. Int J Inf Technol Sys Approach 2(1):33–47Google Scholar
  134. SCC (2006) Supply-chain operations reference-model. SCOR Version 8.0. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  135. Scheer AW (2000) ARIS—business process modeling. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  136. Scholtes PR (1998) The Leader’s handbook: making things happen, getting things done. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  137. Schwaninger M (2006) Intelligent organizations. Powerful Models for Systemic Management. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  138. Siau K, Rossi M (1998) Evaluation of information modeling methods—a review. Paper presented at the 21st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 1998), Kohala Coast, Hawaii, pp 314–322Google Scholar
  139. Siau K, Rossi M (2008) Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods—a review and comparative analysis. Inf Syst J Early View. January 2008. (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00255.x)
  140. Snowdon B, Kawalek P (2003) Active meta-process models: a conceptual exposition. Inf Softw Technol 45:1021–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Stoyanov E, Wischy M, Roller D (2006) Using managed communication channels in software components. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 3rd conference on computing frontiersGoogle Scholar
  142. Tongrungrojana R, Lowe D (2006) WIED: a web modelling language for modelling architectural-level information flows. J Digit Inf 5(2)Google Scholar
  143. Tran CIC (2008) Assessing the viable system model: an empirical test of the viability-hypothesis. Intl J Appl Syst Stud 2(1/2):66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Tryfona N, Busborg F, Borch Christiansen JG (1999) starER. A conceptual model for data warehouse design. Paper presented at the ACM second international workshop on data warehousing and OLAP (DOLAP’99), Kansas City, MO, USA, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  145. Tushman ML (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Admin Sci Q 22(4):587–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manage Rev 3(3):613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Vaishnavi VK, Kuechler W (2008) Design science research methods and patterns. Innovating information and communication technology. Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  148. Vidgen R (1998) Cybernetics and business processes: using the viable system model to develop an enterprise process architecture. Knowl Process Manage 5(2):118–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. von Bertalanffy L (1973) General system theory (Rev. ed.). George Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  150. Wand Y, Weber R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Inf Syst Res 13(4):363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Wiener N (1961) Cybernetics, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  152. Wilson B (1992) Systems: concepts, methodologies and applications. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  153. Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design. Ablex Publishing Corp, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  154. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  155. Zouwen Jvd (1996) Methodological problems with the empirical testability of sociocybernetic theories. Kybernetes 25(7/8):100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. zur Muehlen M, Recker J (2008) How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. Paper presented at the 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Business AdministrationGoethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations