=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-237/paper-4
|storemode=property
|title=Organizational Paradigms and Organizational Modeling
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-237/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-237
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/Evermann06
}}
==Organizational Paradigms and Organizational Modeling==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-237/paper4.pdf
230 Business/IT Aligment and Interoperability
Organizational Paradigms and Organizational
Modelling
Joerg Evermann
School of Information Management, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
Joerg.Evermann@mcs.vuw.ac.nz
Abstract. This paper introduces a new dimension to the alignment be-
tween business and information technology. Besides alignment of strate-
gies, objectives, and processes, the paper argues that modelling languages
for the description of organizational domains during requirements engi-
neering must be aligned with the organizational paradigm. This paper
examines five organizational paradigms and their ontologies. Current
conceptual modelling languages are shown to be poorly aligned with
the paradigms, pointing to a need for further research into adapting or
creating suitable languages.
1 Introduction
Previous research on alignment of business and information technology or in-
formation systems has focused on strategy [1], objectives [2, 3], knowledge and
competencies [4], and the IS function [5]. On an operational level, alignment
has been discussed as the fit between business processes and the functionality
of information systems [6, 7]. This paper describes a new type of alignment, the
alignment between the organizational paradigm and modelling languages used
for describing an organizational domain.
Alignment between the business and its information systems may be in-
creased by information systems that reflect and support the business or or-
ganization (e.g. [6, 7]). Hence, it is necessary to first understand and describe
the organization. Conceptual modelling, part of requirements engineering, is the
activity of analyzing and describing organizational domains using formal or semi-
formal modelling languages [8].
The elements of the organizational domain are determined by the perspective,
point of view, or world-view of the organization, i.e. the organizational paradigm.
This paradigm, in the Kuhnian sense, encompasses an ontology, a description of
entities that exist in the organizational domain [9]. Different stakeholders may
operate in different organizational paradigms.
In order to allow a complete description of the organizational domain, the
conceptual modelling language must provide constructs for all elements of the
organizational domain, as determined by the ontology of the relevant organi-
zational paradigm. We define the alignment between the conceptual modelling
language and the organizational paradigm as the extent to which a language
provides constructs to describe the elements of the organizational ontology.
BUSITAL'06 231
Such an alignment is important to enable and foster communication during IS
development and IS usage. The importance of communication and communica-
tion skills has been recognized in the literature on IS project success [10–12] and
user satisfaction [13], and has been explored in some detail in case studies [14].
However, the depth of analysis has been limited to assessing the effectiveness
of the communication. As yet, there are no studies that analyze communication
effectiveness at the level of the languages in use, and their alignment with the on-
tology held by different stakeholders. We argue in this paper that this alignment
is an important factor in establishing effective communication: If the available
language cannot convey that what is necessary to communicate, communication
will be less effective.
In the remainder of this paper, we further discuss the notion of language-
paradigm alignment (Section 2). We identify current organizational paradigms
and their ontology, based on sociological work by Reed [15]. For each paradigm,
we discuss alignment with UML and other example languages (Section 3). The
paper concludes with an outlook to and call for further research (Section 4).
This paper should be understood as an initial, limited scope, effort. The
main purpose of the paper is to highlight the existence of different organizational
paradigms and their importance for business-IS alignment through conceptual
modelling and language-paradigm alignment. UML and other languages are used
as examples. The discussion remains informal; further research is clearly neces-
sary to examine in detail the organizational paradigms and their implications
for business-IS alignment.
2 Language-Paradigm Alignment
In section 1 we have defined language-paradigm alignment as the extent to
which a language provides constructs for describing elements of the organization.
Hence, alignment is closely related to semantics. The semantics of a language
construct is its mapping to elements of the business or organizational domain
[16]. Consequently, language constructs possess no implicit semantics.
Hence, when examining language-paradigm alignment we cannot assume ex-
isting semantics, unless mappings to the organizational domain are specified by
the language creator. This is not the case for modelling languages such as ER
diagrams or UML, when used for conceptual modeling.
However, most modellers assign intuitive semantics to language constructs.
For example, when using UML, business analysts may map the ’object’ construct
to physically existing things. However, this need not be the case, and the ’object’
construct may be mapped e.g. to software artifacts (its intended semantics), to
events, processes, actors, etc. This flexibility of assigning different semantics to
a language construct has been exploited in [17] to adapt modelling languages to
a specific domain ontology, i.e. to align them with the domain.
The approach advocated here is to examine language-paradigm alignment in
two steps. First, we establish a mapping between language constructs and orga-
nizational concepts, aided by intuitive semantics. For example, we may want to
232 Business/IT Aligment and Interoperability
represent human actors by the UML ’InstanceSpecifier’ construct, rather than
the ’Event’ construct, because the name of the construct ’Event’ evokes an in-
tuitive semantics not compatible with our understanding of human actors1 .
If the first step is successful, the second step examines the syntactic re-
strictions between language constructs, and their implications for organizational
concepts. For example, when representing actors by the ’InstanceSpecifier’ and
actors’ goals by the ’Property’ construct, UML suggests that actors may have
zero or more goals, that the goals of each actor are ordered, that goals have an
inverse goal, that goals may be composite or derived. These implications may or
may not agree with the organizational ontology of the adopted organizational
paradigm.
The large number of possible mappings between language constructs and or-
ganizational concepts, even when constrained by intuitive semantics, increases
the difficulty in establishing high alignment when using complex languages such
as UML. The alternative to this is the definition of new conceptual modelling
languages with an explicitly defined semantics, based directly on a given orga-
nizational paradigm. We return to this discussion in Section 4.
3 Organizational Paradigms
Organizational paradigms and differences between them have been recognized as
important for IS research. For example, [18, 19] discuss organizational paradigms
in the context of IS development projects. However, the alignment of modelling
languages with organizational paradigms has not been discussed.
The present research is based on work in organizational sociology by Reed
[15]. Reed identifies five perspectives from which sociologists view organiza-
tions. Reed calls these perspectives frameworks, but explicitly recognizes them
as paradigms in the Kuhnian sense, i.e. with their own distinct ontology. Discus-
sions of these paradigms are also found in [20, 21]. Since different IS development
stakeholders may operate in different paradigms [18, 19], it is important to model
an organization from all perspectives to gain a complete understanding,
The following subsections provide a brief description of each paradigm and
its ontology, based on the discussion in [15]. Ontological terminology taken from
[15] is emphasized. Each subsection also discusses the relevance of the paradigm
and its potential implications for IS development. It gives examples of language-
paradigm alignment, using example languages such as UML.
Note again that the paper is intended to raise awareness of different organi-
zational paradigms and their implications for conceptual modelling languages.
The discussion in this section remains necessarily informal and incomplete.
3.1 Organizations as Social Systems
In this paradigm, organizations are composed of social units. These social units
play roles in a system. The system has an environment that imposes constraints
1
This paper uses UML 2.0 terminology.
BUSITAL'06 233
on it. Structural relationships and structural properties of the system are de-
signed to integrate the social units into a coherent and stable organization. The
internal structures form networks of interrelated sub-systems. Organizations are
characterized by recurring properties that define the roles and the organization.
The purpose of the organization is to fulfill or satisfy environmentally derived
goals, such as profit maximization in a capitalist environment. There exist be-
havioural norms with which the social units must comply. The main issue for
organizations in this paradigm is to define the structural design that is appro-
priate to the fulfillment of functional needs. Examples of the systems paradigm
are found in [22–24], the latter also being a critique of alternative paradigms.
This paradigm of organizations as systems of rationally interacting compo-
nents corresponds well with the intuitive semantics of current conceptual mod-
elling languages, such as UML. While there is no ’System’ and ’Environment’
construct in UML, social units correspond intuitively to ’InstanceSpecifications’,
i.e. objects which can be aggregated or composed. UML also provides ’Relation-
ship’ and ’Property’ constructs, which can represent relationships and properties
of the organizational units. Stability of systems can be represented in state ma-
chines, e.g. using ’State’ and ’Trigger’ constructs. The fact that social units may
play roles can be represented either by classifying them using ’Class’ constructs,
or using the ’CollaborationRole’ construct. Behavioural norms and other con-
straints may be represented by the ’Constraint’ construct in UML. Needs and
goals of social units may be represented by the ’Property’ construct.
These brief examples show that an intuitive correspondence of UML to the
ontology of this paradigm of organizations as systems can be found. In the sec-
ond step, we need to determine whether the implications of this correspondence
are compatible with the ontology of this paradigm. For example, representing
sub-system relationships by the ’Association’ construct implies that these rela-
tionships may have opposites, may be redefined, or may be derived. Similarly,
representing roles by the ’CollaborationRole’ construct implies that these roles
are defined within a social unit that social units can play multiple roles. While
a detailed analysis remains necessary to determine the validity of all such im-
plications, current languages such as UML appear to be well-aligned with this
paradigm.
3.2 Organizations as Negotiated Orders
While the systems perspective is likely the most prevalent, it is not the only one.
When viewing organizations as negotiated orders, they are the temporary product
of the interactions between groups or individuals. This product is temporary in
the sense that it is continually re-created. An organization has no permanent
systemic structure as in the previously discussed paradigm. The attention is
on the creation and transformation through social interactions, an organization
is the temporary pattern of such interactions. A few, very basic and general,
structural conventions form the background and backbone against which the
interactions occur. Organization does not exist separately from the constant
negotiations between groups and individuals. There are no organizational goals
234 Business/IT Aligment and Interoperability
or functions, other than the individual goals and individual functions of the
actors. It is the individual interpretation and judgment that determines the
effects of any formal structures that may exist. Any power structures in an
organization are also seen as temporary patterns in the negotiation process,
arising out of conflicting interests and values of individuals. In this paradigm,
the way to understand an organization is recognizing and analyzing the processes
of negotiation and the patterns that arise out of them. A discussion of this
paradigm is found in [25] and examples are presented in [26].
When examining UML for constructs with an intuitively matching seman-
tics, we find that interactions can be expressed using ’Interaction’, ’Message’,
’Transition’, ’Signal’, and other related constructs. These appear to intuitively
fit with the ontology of this paradigm. However, a ’Message’ construct in UML
implies existence of a ’Relationship’ or ’Link’, which is explicitly denied by this
organizational paradigm. As another example, interpretation and judgment of
individuals may be represented by the UML ’Property’ construct. This however
implies that interpretation and judgment may have opposites. The opposite of
an interpretation or judgment is not an element of the domain. Other aspects,
such as emergence or temporary existence is are also difficult to express in UML.
While the above may be reasonable intuitive mappings, with those map-
pings UML cannot differentiate between all ontological concepts. For example,
interpretation and judgment are mapped to the same language construct. Fur-
thermore, as the example of the ’Message’ construct shows, the implications from
the mapping are not always compatible with the ontology of this paradigm.
Neglecting the reality of agents, their interactions and goals can lead to in-
formation systems that fail to gain acceptance and that fail to support vital
existing, but informal, interactions. This can lead to negative, disruptive effects,
e.g. informal efficient organizations may be replaced by more formal but less effi-
cient structures. For example, Yu et al. have shown benefits in the areas of work
flow design [27, 28], the analysis of trust and vulnerabilities in system design [29],
and patient care [30]. Their i* approach allows modelling individual agents with
their rationales, dependencies. It allows describing social agents and their auton-
omy, intentionality, sociality, identity, self-interest, and reflectivity. Winograd &
Flores [31] show how explicit consideration of actors and their interactions can
benefit system design. Woo et al. [32, 33] recognizes the importance of analyzing
and interactions between individual actors for workflow management systems.
3.3 Organizations as Structures of Power and Domination
In this paradigm, the only structures recognized as permanent and ontologically
real are power and power relationships. These constrain and limit the actions,
activities, and interactions of social actors. Additionally, organizations are in-
struments and mechanisms geared to the protection of power structures and
individual interests of economic or political nature. Within these power struc-
tures and constraints, individuals aim for control of techniques and resources.
Conflicts between values and interests of individuals produce tensions which
are regulated by managerial practices to sustain productivity. These practices
BUSITAL'06 235
are themselves subject to power and control struggles of individuals. At the cen-
ter of the organization is a dynamic process of actions and interactions aimed at
the control of resources and administrative and practices. Organizational struc-
tures are emergent, they are created and re-created by the dynamic processes.
These structures are tools that serve interests of some actor. Examples of this
paradigm are found in [34, 35].
In this paradigm, conceptual modelling languages and formalisms are re-
quired for describing power and control structures. For example, while it is pos-
sible to map UML ’InstanceSpecification’ to power, and ’Relationship’ to power
structures, such an interpretation is relatively broad and does not support a
deeper analysis of the organization. It would be difficult to describe the influ-
ence of actions on power structures, or the constraints that power structures
impose on them. If, on the other hand, power structure were to be mapped to
the UML ’constraint’ construct, it would be difficult to describe dynamic and
emergent power structures. Current languages also appear to fall short when
describing notions such as values and interests and their relationships to power
and control.
Failure to address power relationships and power structures in an organiza-
tion may jeopardize completion of IS development and acceptance of the IS, as
it can serve to threaten or undermine existing power positions. The IS may also
be used as a tool to cement existing power structures, rather than to improve
efficiency of the organization [36]. Power relationships are also relevant in the
context of entire industries. The impact of an IS on industry structures has been
demonstrated by Tillquist et al. [37] who explicitly analyze dependencies and
power relationships. However, their proposed language, DND, does not include
constructs for e.g. conflict, control, instruments, etc.
3.4 Organizations as Symbolic Constructions
This paradigm focuses on cultural and symbolic aspects, instead of structures
and material components. This paradigm deals with the myths, rituals, histories,
and narratives to be found in an organization. In this framework, organizations
are constantly being created, reproduced, and changed through symbolic con-
struction, interpretation, and enactment of meanings. Organizational culture is
the product of the generation of values, ideologies, rituals, and ceremonies that
make sense of the participation within the enterprise. Organizations are con-
structs of collective values and symbols. In this paradigm, the structural, tech-
nical and material components of an organization are continually interpreted
and re-interpreted and assigned shared meanings as part of the process of or-
ganization. Organizational sub-cultures, offering meaning and legitimation for
actions, are often in conflict with others, e.g. of different organizational units or
departments. Examples of this framework are found in [38, 39].
The reality of organizations as symbolic constructions has been demonstrated
by [18] and [19], who show the usefulness of metaphors in managing IS devel-
opment projects. Working with existing symbolisms, rather than being ignorant
or working against them, can increase development success. Failure to be aware
236 Business/IT Aligment and Interoperability
of the symbols, rituals, and ceremonies may cause systems to replace or restrict
their availability and thus change the existing organizational structures in a
way that is not intended or expected. Rituals and ceremonies contain meaning
and purpose that must be understood in order to capture it in IS functionality.
Rather than designing systems that hinder or restrict existing symbols, better
user acceptance may be gained by systems that support the existing symbolism.
While work by [18, 19] show the relevance and managerial implications of this
paradigm, it does not extend to the analysis of modelling languages. Current con-
ceptual modelling languages appear poorly suited to describe concepts such as
interpretation, construction and symbolism. While one could for example inter-
pret UML ’InstanceSpecifier’ (objects) as representing meaning, values, rituals,
etc. this would preclude a finer differentiation, and result in a very generic de-
scription. For example, it would be difficult to describe which meanings, rituals,
and ceremonies are related or contradict each other.
3.5 Organizations as Social Practices
In this paradigm, organizations are conceptualized as social practices that work
towards the integration of other social practices. Ultimately, these practices
serve to transform the material and ideal conditions under which social ac-
tion takes place. Organizations are continually reproduced through the design
and deployment of administrative mechanisms intended to regulate and control
performance. Examples of such mechanisms are structural entities such as hier-
archies, rules, information systems, etc. They require facilitating entities such
as ideologies and cultures for their reproduction and implementation. Structural
resources and the processual facilitators are subject to power struggles between
competing groups and individuals. Organizations consist of administrative mech-
anisms, which in turn contain resources that enable productive activities. Social
actors have modes of reasoning, calculation, and deliberation which directly de-
termine their preferred outcomes and strategies to achieve them. This frame-
work combines a number of important aspects of the previous four paradigms.
It assigns ontological reality both to organizational structures as well as inter-
pretation and symbolic meaning generating processes.
As this paradigm is an amalgamation of the ones discussed above, similar
arguments apply to the reality of the paradigm, its importance and implications
for IS development and the ability of conceptual modelling languages to cap-
ture its ontology. While the ontological reality of material and administrative
structures lends itself to an application of current description languages such as
UML, these languages offer little support for the remaining ontological elements
in this paradigm, such as power structures and power struggles, the nature of
social practices, and ideology and culture.
4 Discussion and Conclusion
The previous section illustrated the reality, importance and potential implica-
tions of different organizational paradigms for IS development and deployment.
BUSITAL'06 237
We have argued that understanding and modelling the organization from dif-
ferent perspectives can offer valuable insights. While the systems paradigm is
likely the prevailing one, different stakeholders view organizations from different
perspectives. Even this brief examination of existing paradigms and languages
shows that current conceptual languages appear ill-suited to describe organiza-
tional reality in all paradigms.
In summary, this paper has proposed a new dimension to business-IT align-
ment. This dimension of alignment is important to effective communication, a
recognized factor in IS project success [10–12].
While the paper has used UML as an example, this should not be construed
as an attempt to forcibly fit the UML language to these different ontologies.
Instead, it shows the gap between the current de-facto description language and
the ontologies that may be held by different stakeholders.
We argue with [15] that the organizational paradigms define different on-
tologies, rather than representing different levels of abstraction. For example,
systems and systemic structures cannot easily be reconciled with notions of po-
litical power, culture, negotiation, and emergence. While IS analysts may not
need to be able to integrate different stakeholders’ paradigms, they must be able
to ”switch” and ”think” in these different paradigms at different times, in order
to communicate and understand requirements.
Successful IS development and deployment may be aided by the use of con-
ceptual modelling languages with good alignment to these organizational ontolo-
gies. As the discussion in Sect. 2 has shown, there exist two ways of achieving
this alignment. The first is to assign domain specific semantics to an existing
language, based on the ontology of the organizational paradigm. This process is
described in [17] and requires that the language and the ontology are already
reasonably well aligned. The discussion in Sect. 3 has shown that this is the case
for the example of UML and the systems paradigm. When mapping ontological
concepts to language constructs, the implications that follow are in reasonable
agreement with the ontology of the paradigm.
The second approach is to devise modelling languages that are directly based
on the ontology of the paradigm. Work such as business model ontologies [40],
goal modelling [41] and agent-oriented models [27–30, 42, 43] demonstrate this
approach. However, more work is needed to explore the organizational paradigms
and their ontological concepts.
References
1. Sabherwal, R., Chan, Y.: Alignment between business and IS strategies. Informa-
tion Systems Research 12 (2001) 11–33
2. Reich, B., Benbasat, I.: Measuring the linkage between business and information
technology objectives. MIS Quarterly 20 (1996) 55–81
3. Reich, B., Benbasat, I.: Factors that influence the social dimension between busi-
ness and information technoloy objectives. MIS Quarterly 24 (2000) 81–113
4. Bassellier, G., Benbasat, I., Reich, B.: The influence of business managers’ IT
competence on championing IT. Information Systems Research 14 (2003) 317–336
238 Business/IT Aligment and Interoperability
5. Brown, C., Magill, S.: Alignment of the IS function with the enterprise: Toward a
model of antecedents. MIS Quarterly 18 (1994) 371–403
6. Etien, A., Roland, C., Salinesi, C.: Measuring the business / systems alignment.
In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop of Requirements Engineering
for Business Need and IT Alignment, REBNITA, Paris, France. (2005) 143–152
7. Kanyaru, J., Phalp, K.: Aligning business process models with specifications using
enactable use case tools. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop of
Requirements Engineering for Business Need and IT Alignment, REBNITA, Paris,
France. (2005) 22–31
8. Mylopoulos, J.: Conceptual modeling and Telos. In Locuopoulos, P., Zicari, R.,
eds.: Conceptual Modeling, Databases and Cases. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New
York et. al. (1992)
9. Kuhn, T.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Third edn. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago (1996)
10. Group, S.: Extreme Chaos. (2001)
11. Keil, M., Tiwana, A., Bush, A.: Reconciling user and project manager perceptions
of it project risk: a Delphi study. Information Systems Journal 12 (2002) 103–119
12. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., Cule, P.: Identifying software project risks:
An international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems 17
(2001) 5–36
13. McKeen, J.D., Guimaraes, T., Wetherbe, J.C.: The relationship between user
participation and user satisfaction. MIS Quarterly 18 (1994) 427–451
14. Hanish, J., Corbitt, B.: Requirements engineering during global software develop-
ment: Some impediments to the requirements engineering process – a case study.
In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ECIS’04.
(2004)
15. Reed, M.: The Sociology of Organisations: Themes, Perspectives and Prospects.
Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire (1992)
16. Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: What’s the semantics of ”semantics”?
IEEE Computer (2004) 64–72
17. Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Towards formalizing domain modeling semantics in lan-
guage syntax. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31 (2005) 21–37
18. Kendall, J., Kendall, K.: Metaphors and methodologies: Living beyond the systems
machine. MIS Quarterly 17 (1993) 149–172
19. Hirschheim, R., Newman, M.: Symbolism and information systems development:
Myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research 2 (1991) 29–62
20. Hatch, M.J.: Organization Theory - Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspec-
tives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1997)
21. Thompson, P., McHugh, D.: Work Organizations - A Critical Introduction. 3rd
ed. edn. Palgrave, New York, NY (2002)
22. Elliott, D.: The organization as a system. In Salaman, G., Thompson, K., eds.:
Control and Ideology in Organizations. The Open University Press, Milton Keynes,
UK (1980) 84–104
23. Thompson, J.: Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1967)
24. Donaldson, L.: In Defence of Organizational Theory: A Reply to the Critics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1985)
25. Day, R., Day, J.V.: A review of the current state of negotiated order theory: An
appreciation and a critique. The Sociological Quarterly 18 (1977) 126–142
26. Strauss, A.: Negotiations - Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. Jossey-
Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA (1978)
BUSITAL'06 239
27. Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: An actor dependency model of organizational work –
with application to business process reengineering. In: Proceedings of COOCS’93.
(1993) 258–268
28. Yu, E.: Models for supporting the redesign of organizational work. In: Proceedings
of COOCS’95. (1995) 225–236
29. Yu, E., Liu, L.: Modelling trust for system design using the i* strategic actors
framework. In Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.H., eds.: Trust in Cyber-Societies.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2001) 175–194
30. Yu, E.: Agent orientation as a modelling paradigm. Wirtschaftsinformatik 43
(2001) 123–132
31. Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foun-
dation for Design. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. (1986)
32. Janson, M.A., Woo, C.C., Smith, L.D.: Information systems development and
communicative action theory. Information & Management 25 (1993) 59–72
33. Chang, M.K., Woo, C.C.: A speech-act-based negotiation protocol: Design, im-
plementation, and test use. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12 (1994)
360–382
34. Salaman, G.: Work Organizations - Resistance and Control. Longman, London,
UK (1979)
35. Storey, J.: The means of management control. Sociology 19 (1985) 193–211
36. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H., Lyytinen, K.: Information Systems Development and
Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (1995)
37. Tillquist, J., King, J.L., Woo, C.: A representational scheme for analyzing in-
formation technology and organizational dependency. MIS Quarterly 26 (2002)
91–118
38. Gowler, D., Legge, K.: The meaning of management and the management of
meaning: A view from social anthropology. In Earl, M.J., ed.: Perspectives on
Management - A Multidisciplinary Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
(1983) 197–233
39. Mangham, I.: Power and Performance in Organizations. Basil Blackwell Inc.,
Oxford, UK (1986)
40. Osterwalder, A.: The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition in a Design Science
Approach. PhD thesis, Universite de Lausanne, Haute Ecole de Commerce (2004)
41. Lamsweerde, A.v.: Goal-oriented requriements engineering: A guided tour. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.
(2001) 249–262
42. Yu, E.: Agent-oriented modelling: Software versus the world. In Woolridge, M.,
Weiss, G., Ciancarini, P., eds.: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Oriented
Software Engineering AOSE’01, Berlin, Springer-Verlag (2001) 206–225
43. Mao, X., Yu, E.: Organizational and social concepts in agent oriented software
engineering. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Oriented Software Engi-
neering AOSE’04, Berlin, Springer-Verlag (2004) 1–15