Work Systems Paradigm and Frames for Fractal Architecture of Information Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 204)


Contemporary information systems have to satisfy needs of agile and viable enterprises. They shall include mechanisms of business intelligence, business process management, information technology infrastructure management, and alignment between business and computer systems. The mechanisms for business process handling and computer systems handling are similar, and the mechanisms for their continuous integrated improvement also are similar, therefore the architecture of information systems components that support these processes also can have a measure of similarity if considered at a particular level of abstraction. The paper, focusing on aforementioned similarities, uses St. Alter’s work systems paradigm for constructing fractal architecture of information systems that can be used for supporting agile and viable enterprises. The architecture includes predefined frames of processes, a frame for virtual agents, frames of information flows in viable systems, and a frame for information flows in the enterprise architecture that help to derive requirements for introducing continuous changes in information systems.


Work systems Fractal systems Viable systems Information systems Continuous change 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Big Data Transforms Business, EMC2 (2013).
  3. 3.
    Rudzajs, P.: Towards automated education demand-offer information monitoring: the system’s architecture. In: Niedrite, L., Strazdina, R., Wangler, B. (eds.) BIR Workshops 2011. LNBIP, vol. 106, pp. 252–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asnina, E.: Essentiality of changes in business models. In: Kirikova, M., Lazdane, G., Grabis, J., Lace K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Business and System Conference BSC 2013, pp. 44–51. RTU Press (2013).
  5. 5.
    Alter, St.: Defining information systems as work systems implications for the IS field. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 448–469 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoverstadt, P.: The Fractal Organization: Creating Sustainable Organizations with the Viable Systems Model. Wiley, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Espejo, R., Reyes, A.: Organizational Systems. Managing Complexity with the Viable System Model. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rios, J.P.: Design and Diagnosis for Sustainable Organization. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirikova, M.: Towards flexible information architecture for fractal information systems. In: Kusiac, A., Lee, S. (eds.) The Proceedings of the International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management, eKNOW, pp. 135–140. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirikova, M.: Towards multifractal approach in is development. In: Barry, C., Conboy, K., Lang, M., Wojtkowski, G., Wojtkowski, W. (eds.) Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory and Education, vol. 1, pp. 295–306. Springer, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fryer, P., Ruis, J.: What are fractal systems: a brief description of complex adaptive and emerging systems (2006). Accessed 14 April 2007
  12. 12.
    Klonowski, W.: Signal and image analysis using chaos theory and fractal geometry (2000). Accessed 14 April 2007
  13. 13.
    Tharumarajah, A., Wells, A.J., Nemes, L.: Comparison of emerging manufacturing concepts. Syst. Man Cybern. 1, 325–331 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiva-Gomez, R.: Repercussions on complex adaptive systems on product design management. Technovation 24, 707–711 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryu, K., Jung, M.: Fractal approach to managing intelligent enterprises. In: Gupta, J.N.D., Sharma, S.K. (eds.) Creating Knowledge Based Organizations, pp. 312–348. Idea Group Publishers, Hershey (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramanathan, Y.: Fractal architecture for the adaptive complex enterprise. Commun. ACM 48(5), 51–67 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hongzhao, D., Dongxu, L., Yanwei, Z., Chen, Y.: A novel approach of networked manufacturing collaboration: fractal web based enterprise. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 26, 1436–1442 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabriel, R.P., Goldman, R.: Conscientious Software. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2006, pp. 433–450. ACM (2006). 1-59593-348-4/06/0010Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sprice, R., Kirikova, M.: Feasibility study: new knowledge demands in turbulent business world. In: Nilsson, A.G., Gustas, R., Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, W.G., Wrycza, S., Zupancic, J. (eds.) Advances in Information Systems Development: Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Industry, vol. 2, pp. 131–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ashby, W.R.: Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1(2), 83–99 (1958)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ArchiMate 2.1 Specification. (2014)
  22. 22.
    Kirikova, M., Pudane, M.: Viable systems model based information flows. In: Catania, B., et al. (eds.) New Trends in Databases and Information Systems. AISC, vol. 241, pp. 97–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirikova, M.: Viable systems model based requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of REFSQ-2014 Workshops, Doctoral Symposium, Empirical Track, and Posters, co-located with the 20th International Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2014), Essen, Germany, vol. 1138, pp. 143–144. (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Artificial Intelligence and Systems EngineeringRiga Technical UniversityRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations