Static vs. Dynamic Information Systems Modeling: A Cooperation Based Approach

  • Maurizio Panti
  • Alessandro Cucchiarelli


Today’s approaches to information systems modeling are based on different views of the communication process with respect to the office organizational levels (i.e., top, middle, and operative). These views imply different constraints on information access (rigid and predefined for the lowest level, free and unstructured for the highest) and justify the need for a large set of not homogeneous and not fully integrated information processing tools. This paper, by considering that modeling the information system means modeling the office system, shows how a model of office activities founded on a cooperative approach can unify the communication process between the various organizational levels and can capture the dynamic aspect of the information interchange process in a natural way. In our perspective, the unifying paradigm is communication and not activities because activities are not homogeneous characteristics. The proposed model takes into account the functional characteristics of the sender/receiver in the office communication system. This means that the communication links must match the dynamic characteristics of the office. In this way, we overcome the static constraints imposed by the structural approach.


Decision Module Agent Interface Office System Negotiation Mechanism Task Solution 
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. Aiello, L., Nardi, D., and Panti, M., 1984, Modeling the Office Structure: A First Step Towards the Office Expert System, ACM-SIGOA, Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, R. N., 1965, Planning and Control System, A Framework Analysis, Harward, U.P., Cambridge. Barber, G., 1983, Supporting Organizational Problem Solving with A Workstation, ACM-TOIS, Vol. 1, No. 1.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenthal, S. C., 1969, Management Information Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  4. Bracchi, G., and Motta, G., 1986, Sistemi informativi ed imprese,Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, G. D., 1974, Management Information Systems. Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, R., and Smith, R. G., 1984, Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1984.Google Scholar
  7. Forrester, J., 1961, Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Hellis, C., 1983, Formal and Informal Models of Office Activity, Information Processing ‘83. Hewitt, C., 1986, Offices Are Open Systems, ACM-TOIS, Vol. 4, No. 3.Google Scholar
  9. March, J. G., and Simon, H. A., 1963, Organizations, Jon Wiley & Sons Inc. Panti, M., and Cucchiarelli, A., 1986, An Office Information System Model Based on a Contract Net, LASTED International Symposium of Computer and Their Application for Development, Taormina, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Tsichritzis, D., Fiume, E., Gibbs, S,. and Nierstrasz, 0., 1987, KNO’s: Knowledge Acquisitions, Dissemination, and Manipulation Objects, ACM-TOIS, Vol. V, No. 1, January 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Woo, C. C., and Lochovsky, F. H., 1986, Supporting Distributed Office Problem Solving in Organizations, ACM-TOIS, Vol. 4, No. 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Panti
    • 1
  • Alessandro Cucchiarelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Facoltà di Ingegneria, Istituto di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di AnconaAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations