Bringing Order into Chaos

Building an Integrated School Management Information System — A Case Study from Germany
  • Angelina Lange
  • Andreas Breiter
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 292)


How can a public educational organization deal with new information requirements from outside the organization when there are problems with the internal data flows? The German school system is currently changing towards data-driven decision-making for school improvement and accountability. Data becomes an important asset and building large-scale information systems becomes a necessity. In other countries and especially in corporate organizations data warehouses have already been implemented to support analytical data processing for high-level decision-making. These existing approaches will be used to transfer some findings to the German education system. Based on the methodology of information needs analysis, we will introduce a case study from the German State of Bremen. Its department of education is under way of building an integrated school management information system. With the help of qualitative interviews and ethnographic methods, we elicited the requirements and suggested a step-by-step participatory design approach to combine information demand and supply.


Integrated school management information system case study information needs analysis interoperability data warehousing organizational problems 


  1. Breiter, A., Lange, A., & Stauke, E. (2006). Introduction and Analytical Framework. In A. Breiter, E. Stauke, N. Büsching & A. Lange (Eds.), Educational Management Information Systems – Case Studies from 8 Countries (pp. 5–16). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
  2. Breiter, A. (2008). School information systems and data based decision making. Berlin et al.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, S. & F. Gibb (1998). “The information audit: An integrated strategic approach.” International Journal of Information Management 18(1): 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2007). The information audit: Role and scope. International Journal of Information Management, 27(3), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). Actors and systems: the politics of collective action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, G. B. (1982). “Strategies for information requirements determination.” IBM Systems Journal 21(1): 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2004). European Interoperability Framework for Pan-european eGovernment Services. Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  8. Van der Veer, H. & A. Wiles (2006). “Achieving Technical Interoperability – the ETSI Approach” ETSI White Paper No. 3, October 2006, European Telecommunications Standards Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Fung, A. C. W. & Ledesma, J. (2001). SAMS in Hong Kong Schools: A Centrally Developed SIS for Primary and Secondary Schools. In A. J. Visscher, P. Wild & A. C. W. Fung (Eds.), Information Technology in Educational Management. Synthesis of Experience, Research and Future Perspectives on Computer-Assisted School Information Systems (pp. 39–53). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Gorry, G. A., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1989). A Framework for Management Information Systems. Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
  11. Inmon, W. H. (1996). Building the Data Warehouse. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. KMK (2006). Zur langfristigen Sicherstellung der Datenbasis für die Bildungsberichterstattung. Frankfurt a.M.: Konsortium Bildungsberichterstattung.Google Scholar
  13. Kubicek, H. (2006). Informationsfreiheitsgesetze vor einem weiteren Paradigmenwechsel. In D. Klumpp, H.Google Scholar
  14. Kubicek, H. & R. Cimander (2007). Three dimensions of organizational interoperability. Online proceedings of the eGovInterop ’07 Conference, Paris 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Mentzas, G., D. Apostolou, . (2003). Process and Product Approaches in Knowledge Management. Knowledge Asset Management: Beyond the Process-centred Approaches. London, Springer: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nolan, C. J. P., Brown, M. A. & Graves, B. (2001). MUSAC in New Zealand: From Grass Roots to System-Wide in a Decade. In A. J. Visscher, P. Wild & A. C. W. Fung (Eds.), Information Technology in Educational Management. Synthesis of Experience, Research and Future Perspectives on Computer-Assisted School Information Systems (pp. 55–75). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Philip, G. (2007). “IS Strategic Planning for Operational Efficiency.” Information Systems Management 24(3): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rau, K. G. (2004). “Effective Governance of IT: Design Objectives, Roles, and Relationships.” Information Systems Management 21(4): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Selwood, I. (2008). Managing with ICT in Education. In: Breiter, A., Lange, A., & Stauke, E. (Eds.) School information systems and data based decision making (pp. 71–80). Berlin et al.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  20. Spielvogel, B., & Pasnik, S. (1999). From the School Room to the State House: Data Warehouse Solutions for Informed Decision-Making in Education. New York: EDC/Center for Children and Technology.Google Scholar
  21. Thorn, C. A., & Meyer, R. H. (2006). Longitudinal Data Systems to Support Data-Informed Decision Making: A Tri-State Partnership Between Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  22. Visscher, A. J. (2001). Computer-Assisted School Information Systems: The Concepts, Intended Benefits, And Stages of Development. In A. J. Visscher, P. Wild & A. C. W. Fung (Eds.), Information Technology in Educational Management: Synthesis of Experience, Research and Future Perspectives on Computer-Assisted School Information Systems (pp. 3–18). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Visscher, A. J. (2002). A Framework for Studying School Performance Feedback Systems. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School Improvement Through Performance Feedback (pp. 41–72). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  24. Visscher, A. J. & Bloemen, P. P. M. (1999). Evaluation of the Use of Computer-Assisted Management Information Systems in Dutch Schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wild, P., Smith, D. & Walker, J. (2001). Has a Decade of Computerization Made a Difference in School Management. In C. J. P. Nolan, A. C. W. Fung & M. A. Brown (Eds.), Pathways to Institutional Improvement with Information Technology in Educational Management. IFIP TC3/WG3.7 Fourth Working Conference on Information Technology in Educational Management, Auckland, NZ (pp. 99–120). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Winter, R., & B. Strauch (2003). A Method for Demand-driven Information Requirements Analysis in Data Warehousing Projects. Journal of Data Warehousing, 8(1), 38–47.Google Scholar
  27. Winter, R. & B. Strauch (2004). Information requirements engineering for data warehouse systems. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing. Nicosia, Cyprus, ACM: 1359–1365.sGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelina Lange
    • 1
  • Andreas Breiter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenInstitute for Information ManagementBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations