Evaluation of DEMO and the Language / Action Perspective after 10 years of experience

Despite offering several promising concepts, the Language/Action Perspective (LAP) is still not in the mainstream of Information Systems Development (ISD). With use of a comparative evaluation of LAP theory and DEMO theory, the implication of DEMO’s reflection upon LAP is determined. The paper concludes by outlining an agenda for further research if LAP is to improve its footprint in the field.

[1]  Victor E. van Reijswoud,et al.  Business Process Re-design with DEMO , 1999 .

[2]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Categories, disciplines, and social coordination , 1997, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[3]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  The atoms, molecules and fibers of organizations , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[4]  K. Boulding.  General Systems Theory---The Skeleton of Science , 1956 .

[5]  Peter Aiken,et al.  Information systems development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical foundations , 1997 .

[6]  John Mingers,et al.  Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies , 1997 .

[7]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Requirements engineering: a roadmap , 2000, ICSE '00.

[8]  L. von Bertalanffy,et al.  The theory of open systems in physics and biology. , 1950, Science.

[9]  Peter Holm,et al.  Speech Acts On Trial , 1996, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  J.L.G. Dietz.  Zo gezegd, zo gedaan , 1990 .

[11]  R. Hirschheim,et al.  The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead ... long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan , 2000 .

[12]  Hans Weigand.  The language/action perspective , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[13]  Roman Kopytko,et al.  From Cartesian towards non-Cartesian pragmatics , 2001 .

[14]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Modeling business processes for Web-based information systems development , 2000, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering.

[15]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Realising strategic management reengineering objectives with DEMO , 1996 .

[17]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Subject-oriented Modelling of Open Active Systems , 1992, ISCO.

[18]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology , 1992 .

[19]  Michael Hammer,et al.  Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate , 1990 .

[20]  L. Suchman.  Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered , 1993 .

[21]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Action-oriented conceptual modelling , 2004, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Jan L. G. Dietz.  The Essential System Model , 1991, CAiSE.

[23]  Linda Duxbury.  The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational transformation , 1993 .

[24]  Leslie P. Willcocks,et al.  Shaping the Future. Business Design Through Information Technology , 1991, J. Inf. Technol..

[25]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Communicative action‐based business process and information systems modelling with DEMO , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[26]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  The Notion of Business Process Revisited , 2004, CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE.

[27]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Speech Acts or Communicative Action? , 1991, ECSCW.

[28]  Giorgio De Michelis,et al.  Situating conversations within the language/action perspective: the Milan conversation model , 1994, CSCW '94.

[29]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Modelling business processes for the purpose of redesign , 1994, Business Process Re-Engineering.

[30]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  DEMO: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[32]  B. Riesewijk,et al.  Het slagen en falen van automatiseringsprojecten Een onderzoek naar de sociaal-organisatorische implicaties van automatisering voor gebruikersorganisaties en computer service bedrijven , 1988 .

[33]  Commentaries and a response in the Suchman-Winograd debate , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[34]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Understanding and Modelling Business Processes with DEMO , 1999, ER.

[35]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Using DEMO and ORM in Concert: A Case Study , 2004, Advanced Topics in Database Research, Vol. 3.

[36]  M. Bunge.  Treatise on basic philosophy , 1974 .

[37]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[38]  Michael Uschold,et al.  The Enterprise Ontology , 1998, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[39]  Stefanie Kethers,et al.  Reassessment of the Action Workflo w Approach: Empirical Results , 2000 .

[40]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Designing Technical Systems as Social Systems , 2003 .

[41]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  A Communication Oriented Approach to Conceptual Modelling of Information Systems , 1990, CAiSE.

[42]  J.L.G. Dietz.  Wat doen computers als ze iets zeggen , 1996 .

[43]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Generic Recurrent Patterns in Business Processes , 2003, Business Process Management.

[44]  John Mingers,et al.  Variety is the spice of life: combining soft and hard OR/MS methods , 2000 .

[45]  F. Caeldries.  Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution , 1994 .

[46]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  A Meta Ontology for Organizations , 2004, OTM Workshops.

[47]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The Struggle with the Language in the IT - Why is LAP not in the Mainstream? , 2004 .

[48]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Deriving Use Cases From Business Processes, the Advantages of Demo , 2003, ICEIS.

[49]  David Jaffee,et al.  Organization Theory : Tension and Change , 2000 .