Advertisement

Control Organization: A DEMO Based Specification and Extension

  • David Aveiro
  • António Rito Silva
  • José Tribolet
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 79)

Abstract

In this paper we apply the Design and Engineering Methodology for Organizations (DEMO), to specify an ontological model for the generic Control Organization that we argue that exists in every organization. With our proposal, DEMO is extended so that we can specify critical properties of an organization – that we call measures – whose value must respect certain restrictions imposed by other properties of the organization – that we call viability norms. We can now also precisely specify defined resilience strategies that control and eliminate dysfunctions – violations of viability norms caused byexceptions. On top of this, we can also keep a systematic trace of the history of dysfunctions of an organization and of control acts executed to eliminate them. All of these facts are structured in a systematic manner and provided in a set of proposed tables, which are useful for a variety of purposes like (1) making control responsibilities clear and making organization agents accountable for bad control decisions, as well as (2) allowing more informed organization change decisions.

Keywords

enterprise engineering control DEMO viability dysfunction exception handling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Christensen, W.D., Bickhard, M.H.: The process dynamics of normative function. The Monist. 85, 3–29 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holland, J.H.: Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Basic Books, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bickhard, M.H.: Error dynamics: the dynamic emergence of error avoidance and error vicariants. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 13, 199–209 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M.: Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saastamoinen, H., White, G.M.: On handling exceptions. In: Proceedings of Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, pp. 302–310. ACM, New York (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mourão, H.: Supporting effective unexpected exceptions handling in workflow management systems within organizational contexts. Science Faculty of Lisbon University (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casati, F., Pozzi, G.: Modeling exceptional behaviors in commercial workflow management systems. In: Proceedings of the Fourth CoopIS - International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 127–138. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Axelrod, R., Cohen, M.D.: Harnessing complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. Basic Books, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magalhães, R., Silva, A.R.: Organizational design and engineering (ode) - ode white paper - version 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Albani, A.: Basic notions regarding business processes and supporting information systems. Requirements Engineering 10, 175–183 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Op’ t Land, M.: Applying architecture and ontology to the splitting and allying of enterprises. TU Delft (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: A world ontology specification language. In: Chung, S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 688–699. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin, T.: Object role modeling: an overview. white paper (1998), http://www.orm.net
  15. 15.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beer, S.: Brain of the firm: a development in management cybernetics. Herder and Herder (1972)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J.: Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. D. Reidel Pub. Co (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietz, J.: Is it φτ ψ or bullshit? - farewell speech. Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science. Technical University of Delft (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Aveiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • António Rito Silva
    • 2
    • 3
  • José Tribolet
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Exact Sciences and Engineering CentreUniversity of MadeiraFunchalPortugal
  2. 2.Center for Organizational Design and EngineeringINESC-INOVLisboaPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Information Systems and Computer Science, Instituto Superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations