Advertisement

Electronic Markets

, 19:189 | Cite as

Self-organization of interorganizational process design

  • Peter RittgenEmail author
Focus Theme

Abstract

Interorganizational process design is challenged by a number of factors: There is no central governance, processes change over time and the stakeholders from the different organizations can hardly meet physically to agree on a mutually acceptable process. A process modeling session in the traditional way can therefore not be executed. In this paper we try to overcome the problems by offering an approach that allows for distributed process modeling and negotiation. Complemented by video or telephone conferencing the whole design can be done without any physical meeting. Much of the design work can even be done offline at the stakeholders’ discretion.

Keywords

Systems design and implementation Computer-mediated communication and collaboration Case studies Field experiments 

JEL

M15 IT Management 

References

  1. Aiken, M., Vanjani, M., & Krosp, J. (1995). Group decision support systems. Review of Business, 16(3), 38–42.Google Scholar
  2. Belton, V., Ackermann, F., & Shepherd, I. (1997). Integrated support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and V.I.S.A. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(3), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezdek, J. C., Li, W. Q., Attikiouzel, Y., & Windham, M. (1997). A geometric approach to cluster validity for normal mixtures. Soft Computing, 1(4), 166–179.Google Scholar
  4. Boehm, B., Grunbacher, P., & Briggs, R. O. (2001). Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: lessons learned. IEEE Software, 18(3), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G. J., & Nunamaker, J. (2003). Collaboration engineering with thinklets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 31–63.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sierhuis, M. (2003). Facilitated Hypertext for Collective Sensemaking: 15 Years on from gIBIS. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modeling (LAP'03), Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. de Araujo, R. M., & Borges, M. R. S. (2007). The role of collaborative support to promote participation and commitment in software development teams. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 12(3), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dean, D., Orwig, R., Lee, J., Vogel, D. (1994). Modeling with a group modeling tool: group support, model quality, and validation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Vol.IV: Information Systems: Collaboration Technology Organizational Systems and Technology, 4–7 Jan 1994 (Vol. 4, pp. 214-223). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dean, D. L., Orwig, R. E., & Vogel, D. R. (2000). Facilitation methods for collaborative modeling tools. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Frederiks, P. J. M., & van der Weide, T. P. (2006). Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 58(1), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information System Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  14. Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., Lindeman, L., & Proper, H. A. (2006). Capturing Modeling Processes—Towards the MoDial Modeling Laboratory. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & P. Herrero (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops—OTM Confederated International Workshops and Posters, AWESOMe, CAMS, COMINF, IS, KSinBIT, MIOS-CIAO, MONET, OnToContent, ORM, PerSys, OTM Academy Doctoral Consortium, RDDS, SWWS, and SebGIS, Proceedings, Part II, Montpellier, France (Vol. 4278, pp. 1242–1252). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., Proper, H. A., & van der Weide, T. P. (2005). Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation. In G. Goldkuhl, M. Lind & S. Haraldson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP`05), Kiruna, Sweden (pp. 139–155). Linköping and Borås: Linköpings Universitet and Högskolan i Borås.Google Scholar
  16. Meire, A. P., Borges, M. R. S., & de Araújo, R. M. (2003). Supporting collaborative drawing with the mask versioning mechanism. In J. Favela & D. Decouchant (Eds.), Groupware: Design, implementation, and use, 9th International Workshop, CRIWG 2003, Autrans, France, September 28–October 2, 2003, Proceedings (Vol. 2806, pp. 208–223). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Meire, A. P., Borges, M. R. S., & de Araújo, R. M. (2007). Supporting multiple viewpoints in collaborative graphical editing. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 32(2), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nunamaker, J. F. J., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: a discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 163–207.Google Scholar
  19. Persson, A. (2001). Enterprise modelling in practice: situational factors and their influence on adopting a participative approach. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  20. Rittgen, P. (2007). Negotiating models. In J. Krogstie, A. Opdahl & G. Sindre (Eds.), Advanced information systems engineering, 19th International Conference, CAiSE 2007, Trondheim, Norway, June 2007, Proceedings, LNCS 4495 (pp. 561–573). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Srinivasan, A., & Te´eni, D. (1995). Modeling as constrained problem solving: an empirical study of the data modeling process. Management Science, 41(3), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stamper, R. (1991). The semiotic framework for information systems research. In H. Nissen, H. Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 515–517). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., Proper, H. A. E., & van der Weide, T. P. (2006). Exploring Modelling Strategies in a Meta-modelling Context. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & P. Herrero (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops - OTM Confederated International Workshops and Posters, AWESOMe, CAMS, COMINF, IS, KSinBIT, MIOS-CIAO, MONET, OnToContent, ORM, PerSys, OTM Academy Doctoral Consortium, RDDS, SWWS, and SebGIS, Proceedings, Part II, Montpellier, France (Vol. 4278, pp. 1128-1137). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BoråsBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations