Deriving Concepts for Modeling Business Actions

  • Peter Rittgen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


We outline a procedure called communicative and material functions analysis that can be used to derive business modeling concepts. It is rooted in the language-action perspective on organizations and has its point of departure in Business Action Theory, an empirically grounded framework for modeling business processes from an action perspective. We apply this procedure to enhance an existing method, the Situation-adaptable work and Information systems Modeling Method. This extended method is then used to analyze a business situation in order to follow up the commitments that are made in the course of a business process with the ultimate aim of detecting flaws in that process.


Business Process Communicative Function Modeling Business Process Business Action Interaction Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Auramäki, E., Lehtinen, E., Lyytinen, K.: A Speech-Act-Based Office Modeling Approach. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6(2), 126–152 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1962)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelsson, K., Goldkuhl, G., Melin, U.: Using Business Action Theory for Dyadic Analysis. In: 10th Nordic Workshop on Interorganisational Research, Trondheim, August 18-20, pp. 18–20 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denning, P.J., Medina-Mora, R.: Completing the Loops. Interfaces 25(3), 42–57 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Understanding and modeling business processes with DEMO. In: Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Métais, E. (eds.) ER 1999. LNCS, vol. 1728, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Habing, N.: The Notion of Business Process Revisited. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3290, pp. 85–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Generic business frameworks and action modelling. In: Dignum, F., Dietz, J., Verharen, E., Weigand, H. (eds.) Communication Modeling – The Language/Action Perspective, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Communication Modeling, Electronic Workshops in Computing. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldkuhl, G.: The six phases of business processes - business communication and the exchange of value. In: 12th biennial ITS conference ”Beyond convergence” (ITS 1998), Stockholm (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Anchoring scientific abstractions – ontological and linguistic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism. In: European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management (ECRM 2002), Reading, April 29-30 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M.: Developing e-interactions – A framework for business capabilities and exchanges. In: 12th European Conference on Information Systems, Turku, Finland, June 14-16 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldkuhl, G., Melin, U.: Relationship Management vs Business Transactions: Business Interaction as Design of Business Interaction. In: 10th International Annual IPSERA Conference, Jönköping International Business School, April 9-11 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kethers, S., Schoop, M.: Reassessment of the Action Workflow Approach: Empirical Results. In: Schoop, M., Quix, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling LAP 2000, pp. 151–169. RWTH Aachen University, Germany (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lehtinen, E., Lyytinen, K.: An Action Based Model of Information Systems. Information Systems 11(4), 299–317 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lind, M., Goldkuhl, G.: Generic Layered Patterns for Business Modelling. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2001), Montreal, Canada, July 21-22 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lind, M., Goldkuhl, G.: Designing business process variants. In: Business Process Design Workshop at the Third International Conference on Business Process Management, Nancy, France, September 5-8 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, K., Sun, L., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G.: Modelling dynamic behaviour of business organisations - extension of DEMO from a semiotic perspective. Knowledge-Based Systems 16(2), 101–111 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F.: The Action Workflow Approach to Workflow Management Technology. In: Turner, J., Kraut, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 1992. ACM Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., Rolland, C.: Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M., et al. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 95–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Reijswoud, V.E.: The Structure of Business Communication: Theory, Model and Application. PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands (1996) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Reijswoud, V.E., Dietz, J. L.G.: DEMO Modelling Handbook, vol 1. TU Delft (1999) (Online version), available at:
  22. 22.
    van Reijswoud, V.E., Lind, M.: Comparing two business modelling approaches in the language action perspective. In: Proceedings of Language Action Perspective (LAP 1998), Stockholm (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Reijswoud, V.E., Mulder, H.B.F., Dietz, J.L.G.: Communicative action-based business process and information systems modelling with DEMO. Information Systems Journal 9(2), 117–138 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts, An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London (1969)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Searle, J.R.: Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press, London (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verharen, E.: A language-action perspective on the design of cooperative information agents. PhD thesis, KUB, Tilburg (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weigand, H., van den Heuvel, W.J.: Meta-Patterns for Electronic Commerce Transactions based on FLBC. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 1998). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Rittgen
    • 1
  1. 1.University College of BoråsBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations