Organisations: Large Worlds or Small Worlds?

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 391)


Approaches for the development of enterprise information systems based on social theories such as Habermas’ theory of communicative action claim to facilitate the development of systems that support the organisational social lifeworld better than systems developed from a technical viewpoint. However, they will miss their target if the approach is leaning too much towards formalising repetitive and stable elements of the social patterns in an organisation, at the expense of the more informal and/or irregular events and processes. Such approaches run the danger that the open social organisational world is ‘frozen’ and moulded into a closed formal-rational system. This problem will be discussed in this paper as a contribution to the development of information systems for the social world of organisations.


Organisation modelling Theory of communicative action LAP DEMO 


  1. 1.
    Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1. Polity Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Habermas, J.: The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2. Polity Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kay, J., King, M.: Radical Uncertainty. The Bridge Street Press, London (2020)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacNeil, I.R.: The New Social Contract. Yale University Press, New Haven (1980)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacNeil, I.R.: Reflections on relational contract theory after a neo-classical seminar. In: Campbell, D., Collins, H., Wightman, J. (eds.) Implicit Dimensions of Contract. Hart Publishing, Portland (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koopman, C.: Pragmatism. In: Allen, A., Mendieta, E. (eds.) The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge, Abingdon (2005). Translated by C.K. OgdenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical Investigations, 4th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2009). Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker, J. SchultezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morris, C.: Writings on the General Theory of Signs. Mouton, The Hague (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carnap, R.: Introduction to Semantics and Formalization of Logic, 3rd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1968)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habermas, J.: What is Universal Pragmatics? In: Cooke, M. (ed.) On the Pragmatics of Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flores, F., Ludlow, J.J.: Doing and speaking in the office. In: Fick, G., Sprague, R.H. (eds.) Decision Support Systems: Issues and Challenges, pp. 95–118. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldkuhl, G.: LAP revisited: articulating information as social relation. Accessed 15 Dec 2019
  15. 15.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lyytinen, K.: A language action view of information systems. In: Ginzberg, M., Ross, C.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Systems, pp 13–29. TIMS/SMIS/ACM (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition. Ablex Corporation, Norwood (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lyytinen, K.: The struggle with the language in the IT – why is LAP not in the mainstream? In: Proceedings LAP 2004 (2004). Accessed 20 Jan 2020
  19. 19.
    Weigand, H.: LAP: 10 years in retrospect. In: Proceedings LAP 2005 (2005). Accessed 20 Jan 2020
  20. 20.
    Goldkuhl, G.: LAP revisited: articulating information as social relation. Accessed 20 Jan 2020
  21. 21.
    Dietz, J.L.G., Mulder, H.B.F.: Enterprise Ontology. Springer, Berlin (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology. Springer, Berlin (2006). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dietz, J.L.G. (ed.): EE Manifesto. Accessed 18 May 2020
  24. 24.
    Stamper, R.: Information in Business and Administrative Systems. Wiley, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Heusden, B.P.: The Trias Semiotica (2020, in press )Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stamper, R.: Signs, information, norms and systems. In: Holmqvist, B., Andersen, P.B., Klein, H., Posner, R. (eds.) Signs of Work – Semiosis and Information Processing in Organisations, pp 349–379. De Gruyter, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, K., Li, W.: Organisational Semiotics for Business Informatics. Routledge, Abingdon (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Checkland, P.B.: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Checkland, P.B.: Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. In: Checkland, P.B. (ed.) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, pp. A1–A66. Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vickers, G.: Appreciative behaviour. In: The Open System Group (ed.) The Vickers Papers, pp. 152–167. Harper & Row, London (1984)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Checkland, P.B., Poulter, J.: Learning for Action – A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and Its Use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students. Wiley, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cesuur B.V.VelpThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations