Abstract
Virtual professional communities require a strong co-evolution of their social and information systems. To ensure that the evolutionary process of their socio-technical systems is viable, a legitimate user-driven specification process is required. Such a process helps to ensure the meaningfulness and acceptability of specification changes. A specification method supporting this process should be grounded in the neo-humanist paradigm so that subjectivist and conflict aspects receive proper attention. Two related subfields of information science that have roots in this paradigm are the Language/Action Perspective (LAP) and organisational semiotics (OS). The RENISYS method for specification of the socio-technical systems of virtual professional communities is presented. It combines aspects from both LAP and OS, by building on work done in the DEMO (LAP) and MEASUR (OS) methodologies. It thus provides an operationalization of neo-humanist ideals that can help to extend theoretical and empirical research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Auramäki E, Lyytinen K. On the success of speech acts and negotiating commitments. In: Proceedings of the First InternationalWorkshop on Communication Modelling, the Language/Action Perspective (LAP'96), July 1–2, 1996: Oisterwijk, The Netherlands, 1996:1–12.
Brooks FP. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, anniversary edition, 1995.
De Michelis G, Grasso MA. Situating conversations within the language/action perspective: The Milan Conversation Model. In: Furuta R, Neuwirth C, eds. CSCW '94, ACM, 1994:89–100.
de Moor A. Empowering communities: A method for the legitimate user-driven specification of network information systems. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University, The Netherlands, 1999.
de Moor A, Jeusfeld MA. Making workflow change acceptable. Requirements Engineering 2001;6(2):75–96.
de Moor A, Peterson R. Facilitating the evolution of electronic healthcare networks: Framing the changing socio-technical system. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management 2001;3(5/6):366–385.
Dietz JLG. Modelling business processes for the purpose of redesign. In: Business Process Re-Engineering: Information Systems Opportunities. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1994:233–242.
Engelbart D. Toward high-performance organizations: A strategic role for group-ware. Technical report, Bootstrap Institute, 1992.
Fitzpatrick G, Welsh J. Process support: Inflexible imposition or chaotic composition? Interacting with Computers 1995;7(2):167–180.
Hanseth O. Integrating information systems: The importance of contexts. In: Stamper et al. eds. Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, IFIP, 1991:133–156.
Hirschheim R, Klein HK. Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: The case for ETHICS. Management Information Systems Quarterly 1994;18(1):83–109.
Hirschheim R, Klein H, Lyytinen K. Information Systems Development and Data Modeling—Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Hollingshead AB, McGrath JE. Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In: Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995:46–78.
Kensing F, Winograd T. The language/action approach to design of computer-support for cooperative work: A preliminary study in work mapping. In: Stamper et al. eds. Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, IFIP, 1991:311–331.
Khoshafian S, Buckiewicz M. Introduction to Groupware,Workflow, andWorkgroup Computing. New York: JohnWiley & Sons, 1995.
Koh I, Heng M. Users and designers as partners—Design method and tools for user participation and designer accountability within the design process. Information Systems Journal 1996;6:283–300.
Liu K. Semiotics applied to information systems development. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, 1993.
Medina-Mora R, Winograd T, Flores R, Flores F. The ActionWork-flow approach to workflow management technology. The Information Society 1993;9(4):391–404.
Nonaka I, Reinmoeller P, Senoo D. The 'ART' of knowledge: Systems to capitalize on market knowledge. European Management Journal 1998;16(6):673–684.
Peterson RR, Smits M, Spanjers R. Exploring IT-enabled network organisations in healthcare: Emerging practices and phases of development. In: Proc. of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, Vienna, 2000:1253–1260.
Schäl T. Workflow Management Systems for Process Organizations. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1996.
Scheer A-W. ARIS. In: Bernus P, Mertins K, Schmidt G, eds. Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998:541–565.
Searle JR. Speech Acts—An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Stamper R. Language and computing in organised behaviour. In: van de Riet RP, Meersman RA, eds. Linguistic Instruments in Knowledge Engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1992:143–163.
Stamper R. Social norms in requirements analysis—An outline of MEASUR. In: Requirements Engineering: Technical and Social Aspects. Academic Press, 1994:107–139.
Stamper R. Signs, information, norms, and systems. In: Holmqvist B, Andersen PB, eds. Signs at Work. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996.
Stamper R. Newdirections for systems analysis and design. In: Filipe J, ed. Enterprise Information Systems. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000:14–39.
Stamper R. Extending LAP and focusing OS. In Liu K, ed. IFIP WG8.1Working Conference—Organizational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems, July 23–25, 2001, Montreal.
Stamper RK, Kerola P, Lee R, Lytinen K, eds. Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems. IFIP, 1991.
Suchman L. Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1994;3(2):177–190.
Talbott S. The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst. O'Reilly & Associates, 1995.
Taylor JR. The limits of rationality in communication modeling: A socio-semiotic reinterpretation of the concept of 'speech act'. In: Proceedings of the Third InternationalWorkshop on Communication Modelling, the Language/Action Perspective (LAP'98), June 25–26, 1998, Steningevik, Sweden, 1998:35–46.
van Reijswoud V. The structure of business communication: Theory, model and application. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University, 1996.
Verharen E. A language-action perspective on the design of cooperative information agents. Ph.D. thesis, Infolab, Tilburg University, 1997.
Wand Y, Monarchi DE, Parsons J, Woo CC. Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development. Decision Support Systems 1995;15(4):285–304.
Weigand H, Dignum F. Formalization and rationalization of communication. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Communication Modelling, the Language/ Action Perspective (LAP'97), Veldhoven, June 9–10, 1997, The Netherlands, 1997:71–86.
White SK. The Recent Work of J¨urgen Habermas: Reason, Justice, and Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Winograd T. A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work, report no. CSLI-87-98. Technical report, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University,May 1987.
Winograd T, Flores F. Understanding Computers and Cognition—A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Moor, A. Language/Action Meets Organisational Semiotics: Situating Conversations with Norms. Information Systems Frontiers 4, 257–272 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019946318686
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019946318686