Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The variety engineering method: analyzing and designing information flows in organizations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In every organization, various decisions have to be made continuously, from the simple choice, which customer order to be processed next, to the serious question, whether to select a new supplier or to cancel an existing one. All of these decisions are supported by the provision of relevant information. Therefore the efficiency of a value chain is strongly influenced by the accurate setup of information flows. To make organizations more effective and efficient, one needs to understand what information flows are currently available and how information flows should be designed for a given organization. However, there is hardly any methodology available in order to analyze and redesign information flows in organizations in a structured way. Using the design science research framework, we develop a method for the analysis and design of information flows in organizations. Our research on the Variety Engineering Method (VEM) attempts to develop a method to analyze, diagnose and design information flows. VEM is built based on systems theory and cybernetics, especially the Viable System Model. VEM has been tested internally, and evaluated externally through field studies. In this paper, we present VEM in detail and discuss some general issues involved in its development, including the application of concepts form method engineering and evaluation in field studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of course, this list is only exemplary and by no means comprehensive. Such an analysis would be a substantial paper in itself and is out of our focus for this paper.

  2. MetaMIS is a user-driven approach for the specification of management views and includes a domain-specific non-technical language for specifying information demands (Becker et al. 2003; Holten 2003; Holten et al. 2005). Note that MetaMIS models can be transformed into traditional data warehouse schemes, thereby supporting the generation of reports.

References

  • Ackoff RL (1999) Re-creating the corporation: a design of organizations for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Mutari SG, Burns ND, Backhouse CJ (2005) Using a viable system model as a diagnostic tool for small-sized companies. Intl J Service Oper Manage 1(3):220–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Algathbar K, Farkas C, Wijesekera D (2006) Securing UML information flow using FlowUML. J Res Practice Inf Technol 38(1):111–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson P (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Org Sci 10(3, Special Issue: Application of Complexity Theory to Organization Science):216–232

  • Anderton R (1989) The need for formal development of the VSM. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Chichester, UK, pp 39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Anupindi R, Chopra S, Deshmukh SD, Van Mieghem JA, Zemel E (2006) Managing business process flows. Principles of operations management, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1958) Requisite variety and its implication for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica 1(2):83–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1964) An introduction to cybernetics. University Paperbacks, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1973) Some peculiarities of complex systems. Cybern Med 9(2):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Avital M, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K (2009) Introduction to designing information and organizations with a positive lens. Inf Org (in press, corrected proof)

  • Backlund A (2002) The concept of complexity in organisations and information systems. Kybernetes 31(1):30–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam Y (1997) Dynamics of complex systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam Y (2004) Multiscale variety in complex systems. Complexity 9(4):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam Y (2005) Making things work: solving complex problems in a complex world. NECSI Knowledge Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology

  • Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun AIS 2(19)

  • Batini C, Ceri S, Navathe SB (1992) Conceptual database design: an entity-relationship approach. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Dreiling A, Holten R, Ribbert M (2003) Specifying information systems for business process integration—a management perspective. Inf Syst e-Bus Manage 1(3):231–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Niehaves B, Pfeiffer D (2008) Ontological evaluation of conceptual models—a linguistic interpretivist approach. Scand J Inf Syst 20(2):83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1966) Decision and control. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1979) The heart of enterprise. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1981) Brain of the firm, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1985) Diagnosing the system for organizations. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1989) The viable system model. Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester, pp 11–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1994) Towards the cybernetic factory. In: Harnden R, Leonard A (eds) How many grapes went into the wine: Stafford Beer on the art and science of holistic management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 163–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Bititci US, Carrie AS, McDevitt L (1997) Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide. Intl J Oper Prod Manage 17(5):522–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blecker T, Kersten W, Meyer CM (2005) Development of an approach for analyzing supply chain complexity. In Blecker T, Friedrich G (eds) Mass customization. Concepts—Tools—Realization. Proceedings of the international mass customization meeting 2005 (IMCM’05), Klagenfurt, Austria, pp 47–59

  • Boulding KE (1956) General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Manage Sci 2(3):197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braa K, Vidgen R (1999) Interpretation, intervention and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information systems research. Account Manage Inf Technol 9(1):25–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun C, Wortmann F, Hafner M, Winter R (2005) Method construction—a core approach to organizational engineering. Paper presented at the 20th ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2005), Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 1295–1299

  • Britton GA, Parker J (1993) An explication of the viable system model for project management. Syst Practice Act Res 6(1):21–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B (2005) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: the dynamics of fit (3rd edn). Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cachon GP, Fisher M (2000) Supply chain inventory management and the value of shared information. Manage Sci 46(8):1032–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen PP-S (1976) The entity–relationship model—towards a unified view of data. ACM Tran Database Syst 1(1):9–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra S, Meindl P (2007) Supply chain management. Strategy, planning, and operation, 3rd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher WF (2007) Holistic management. Managing what matters for company success. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Codd EF (1970) A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun ACM 13(6):377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codd EF (1990) The relational model for database management. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowston K (1997) A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Org Sci 8(2):157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis B, Kellner MI, Over J (1992) Process modeling. Commun ACM 35(9):75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32(5):554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lewin AY (1990) Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science Straitjacket? An editorial essay. Org Sci 1(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Macintosh NB (1981) A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Admin Sci Q 26(2):207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis R (2001) Business process modelling with ARIS. A Practical Guide. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • de Raadt JDR (1987) Ashby’s law of requisite variety: an empirical study. Cybern Syst 18(6):517–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wolf T, Holvoet T (2007) Designing self-organising emergent systems based on information flows and feedback-loops. Paper presented at the first international conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems (SASO 2007), Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 295–298

  • Dietz JLG (2006) The deep structure of business processes. Commun ACM 49(5):59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (2001) The contingency theory of organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R (1989) P. M. Manufacturers: the VSM as a diagnostic tool. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Chichester, pp 103–120

  • Espejo R, Bowling D, Hoverstadt P (1999) The viable system model and the Viplan software. Kybernetes 28(6/7):661–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) (1989) The viable system model. Chichester

  • Flood RL, Carson ER (1993) Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores F, Ludlow J (1980) Doing and speaking in the office. In: Fick G, Sprague RH (eds) Decision support systems: issues and challenges. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 95–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank U, Lange C (2007) E-MEMO: a method to support the development of customized electronic commerce systems. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 5(2):93–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransoo JC, Wiers VCS (2006) Action variety of planners: cognitive load and requisite variety. J Oper Manage 24(6):813–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost B, Schoen GS (2004) Viable communities within organizational contexts: creating and sustaining viability in communities of practice at siemens AG. In: Hildreth PM, Kimble C (eds) Knowledge networks: innovation through communities of practice. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 133–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JR (1977) Organization design. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JR (2006) Mastering the law of requisite variety with differentiated networks. In: Heckscher C, Adler PS (eds) The firm as a collaborative community: reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 179–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane CP, Sarson T (1979) Structured systems analysis: tools and techniques. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavirneni S, Fisher M (1999) Value of information in capacitated supply chains. Manage Sci 45(1):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(5):312–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta D, Prakash N (2001) Engineering methods from method requirements specifications. Req Eng 6(3):135–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnden RJ (1989) Outside and then: an interpretive approach to the VSM. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester, pp 383–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch MJ, Cunliffe AL (2006) Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring CE (2002) Viable software. The intelligent control paradigm for adaptable and adaptive architecture, Unpublished Dissertation. University of Queensland, Brisbane

  • Hevner A, March S, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR (2007) A three cycle view of design science research. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):87–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST (2003) The information systems research cycle. Computer 36(11):111–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein H, Lyytinen K (1995) Information systems development and data modeling. Conceptual and philosophical foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Holten R (1999) Entwicklung von Führungsinformationssystemen. Ein methodenorientierter Ansatz, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Holten R (2000) Entwicklung einer Modellierungstechnik für Data Warehouse Fachkonzepte. In: Schmidt H (ed) Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme. Proceedings der MobIS-Fachtagung 2000, vol 7, pp 3–21, GI-Fachgruppe 5.10

  • Holten R (2003) Specification of management views in information warehouse projects. Inf Syst 28(7):709–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holten R, Dreiling A, Becker J (2005) Ontology-driven method engineering for information systems development. In: Green P, Rosemann M (eds) Business systems analysis with ontologies. IDEA Group, Hershey, pp 174–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoverstadt P (2009) The fractal organisation: creating sustainable organisations with the viable system model. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • SO I (1990) ISO/IEC 10027: information technology. Information Resource Dictionary Systems (IRDS)-Framework, ISO/IEC Intl. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2000) Systems approaches to management. Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin Y, Levitt RE (1996) The virtual design team: a computational model of project organizations. Comput Math Org Theory 2(3):171–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost W (1993) EDV-gestützte CIM-Rahmenplanung. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamlah W, Lorenzen P (1984) Logical propaedeutic. Pre-school of reasonable discourse. University Press of America, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman SA (1995) At home in the universe: the search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawalek P, Wastell DG (1999) A case study evaluation of the use of the viable system model in information systems development. J Database Manage 10(4):24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball R, Ross M (1996) The data warehouse toolkit. Practical techniques for building dimensional data warehouses. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock NF (2001) Changing the focus of business process redesign from activity flows to information flows: a defense acquisition application. Acquist Rev Q(Spring/Summer 2001), 93–109

  • Kock NF (2003) Communication-focused business process redesign: assessing a communication flow optimization model through an action research study at a defense contractor. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 46(1):35–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock NF, McQueen RJ (1996) Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: an empirircal study of fifteen business processes in three organisations. Bus Process Re-eng Manage J 2(2):8–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe H, Laumann M (2008) Supply chain event management for cold chains. Supply Chain Manag 2008(1):47–52

  • Kuntz JC, Christiansen TR, Cohen GP, Jin Y, Levitt RE (1998) The virtual design team. Commun ACM 41(11):84–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann M (2008) Requirements specification for supply chain controlling—a mini case study. In: 14th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2008), Toronto, Canada

  • Laumann M, Rosenkranz C (2008) Analysing information flows for controlling activities within supply chains—an arvato (Bertelsmann) business case. In: 16th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2008), AIS, Galway, Ireland

  • Laumann M, Rosenkranz C, Kolbe H (2007) Diagnosing and redesigning a health(y) organization—an avarto (Bertelsmann) action research study. In: 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp 1990–2001

  • Lee HL, So KCR, Tang CS (2000) The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Manage Sci 46(5):626–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt RE (2004) Computational modeling of organizations comes of age. Comput Math Org Theory 10(2):127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt RE, Thomson J, Christiansen TR, Kuntz JC, Jin Y, Nass C (1999) Simulating project work processes and organizations: toward a micro-contingency theory of organizational design. Manage Sci 45(11):1479–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) System requirements engineering. McGraw-Hill International series in Software Engineering, Maidenhead

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas HCJ, Baroudi J (1994) The role of information technology in organization design. J Manage Inf Syst 10(4):9–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik F (1996) Strategie des Managements komplexer Systeme. Ein Beitrag zur Management-Kybernetik evolutionärer Systeme, 5th edn. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv 26(1):87–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA (eds) (2003) Organizing business knowledge. The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, Pentland B, Dellarocas C, Wyner G et al (1999) Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes. Manage Sci 45(3):425–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • March TS, Smith G (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Supp Syst 15(4):251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall International Editions, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 55:243–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E (2003) Redesigning human systems. IRM Press, Hershey

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissen HW, Jeusfeld MA, Jarke M, Zemanek GV, Huber H (1996) Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels. IEEE Softw 13(3):37–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen ME (2007) Computational experimentation on new organizational forms: exploring behavior and performance of Edge organizations. Comput Math Org Theory 13(3):203–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyström CA (2006) Design rules for intranets according to the viable system model. Syst Practice Act Res 19(6):523–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oei JLH, van Hemmen JGT, Falkenberg ED, Brinkkemper S (1992) The meta model hierarchy: a framework for information systems concepts and techniques. Technical Report 92-17, Department of Information Systems, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Retrieved 2007-06-29, from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/698351.html

  • OMG (2009a) Business process modeling notation (BPMN) 1.2, Release date: January 2009 Retrieved 2009-05-12, from http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2/

  • OMG (2009b) Unified modeling language specification 2.2. Retrieved 2009-10-21, from http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modeling_spec_catalog.htm#UML

  • Osborn RN, Hunt JG, Bussom RS (1977) On getting your own way in organizational design: an empirical illustration of requisite variety. Org Admin Sci 8(Summer/Fall):295–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnas DL (1972) On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun ACM 15(12):1053–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manage Inf Syst 24(3):45–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland BT (2003) Sequential variety in work processes. Org Sci 14(5):528–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer D, Niehaves B (2005) Evaluation of conceptual models—a structuralist approach. Paper presented at the proceedings of the European conference on information systems (ECIS 2005), Regensburg, Germany

  • Poluha RG (2007) Application of the SCOR model in supply chain management. Cambria Press, Youngstown

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell SG, Schwaninger M, Trimble C (2001) Measurement and control of business processes. Syst Dyn Rev 17(1):63–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Räkers M, Rosenkranz C (2008) Organizational impact on project management in financial data warehousing: a case study. In: 16th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2008), 9–11 June, AIS, Galway, Ireland

  • Ralyté J, Deneckère R, Rolland C (2003) Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. Paper presented at the 15th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2003), Klagenfurt/Velden, Austria, pp 95–110

  • Ranganathan A, Campbell RH (2007) What is the complexity of a distributed computing system? Complexity 12(6):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker J (2008) Understanding process modelling grammar continuance: a study of the consequences of representational capabilities. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijswoud VE, Dietz JLG (1998) DEMO modelling handbook. Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribbers PMA, Schoo K-C (2002) Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Eng Manage J 14(2):45–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Ríos JP (2006) Communication and information technologies to enable viable organizations. Kybernetes 35(7/8):1109–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivett P (1977) The case for cybernetics. A critical appreciation. Eur J Oper Res 1(1):33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkranz C (2009) Analyzing information flows in service networks. In: Thomas O, Nütgens M (eds) Dienstleistungsmodellierung. Methode, Werkzeuge und Branchenlösungen. Proceedings of the Dienstleistungsmodellierung, Physica-Verlag, Berlin, pp 35–52

  • Rosenkranz C, Feddersen C (2007) Managing virtual communities—a case study of a viable system. In: 13th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2007), 9–12 August, Association for Information Systems (AIS), Keystone, CO, USA

  • Rosenkranz C, Holten R (2007a) Combining cybernetics and conceptual modeling—the concept of variety in organizational engineering. In: 22nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2007), Seoul, Korea, pp 1228–1233

  • Rosenkranz C, Holten R (2007b) Measuring the complexity of information systems and organizations—insights from an action case. In: 15th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, Switzerland, pp 2026–2037

  • Rosenkranz C, Feddersen C (2010) Managing viable virtual communities: an exploratory case study and explanatory model. Int J Web-based Communities 6(1):5–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkranz C, Holten R, Laumann M (2008) Designing IC structures by variety engineering. In: 23nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2008), ACM, Fortaleza, Brazil, pp 518–523

  • Rosenkranz C, Laumann M, Holten R (2009) Diagnosing and redesigning a health(y) organisation: an action research study. Int J Inf Technol Sys Approach 2(1):33–47

    Google Scholar 

  • SCC (2006) Supply-chain operations reference-model. SCOR Version 8.0. Washington DC

  • Scheer AW (2000) ARIS—business process modeling. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholtes PR (1998) The Leader’s handbook: making things happen, getting things done. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger M (2006) Intelligent organizations. Powerful Models for Systemic Management. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Rossi M (1998) Evaluation of information modeling methods—a review. Paper presented at the 21st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 1998), Kohala Coast, Hawaii, pp 314–322

  • Siau K, Rossi M (2008) Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods—a review and comparative analysis. Inf Syst J Early View. January 2008. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00255.x)

  • Snowdon B, Kawalek P (2003) Active meta-process models: a conceptual exposition. Inf Softw Technol 45:1021–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoyanov E, Wischy M, Roller D (2006) Using managed communication channels in software components. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 3rd conference on computing frontiers

  • Tongrungrojana R, Lowe D (2006) WIED: a web modelling language for modelling architectural-level information flows. J Digit Inf 5(2)

  • Tran CIC (2008) Assessing the viable system model: an empirical test of the viability-hypothesis. Intl J Appl Syst Stud 2(1/2):66–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tryfona N, Busborg F, Borch Christiansen JG (1999) starER. A conceptual model for data warehouse design. Paper presented at the ACM second international workshop on data warehousing and OLAP (DOLAP’99), Kansas City, MO, USA, pp 3–8

  • Tushman ML (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Admin Sci Q 22(4):587–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manage Rev 3(3):613–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaishnavi VK, Kuechler W (2008) Design science research methods and patterns. Innovating information and communication technology. Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidgen R (1998) Cybernetics and business processes: using the viable system model to develop an enterprise process architecture. Knowl Process Manage 5(2):118–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1973) General system theory (Rev. ed.). George Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y, Weber R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Inf Syst Res 13(4):363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N (1961) Cybernetics, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B (1992) Systems: concepts, methodologies and applications. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design. Ablex Publishing Corp, Norwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zouwen Jvd (1996) Methodological problems with the empirical testability of sociocybernetic theories. Kybernetes 25(7/8):100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • zur Muehlen M, Recker J (2008) How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. Paper presented at the 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Montpellier, France

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the guest editors and the anonymous reviewers for very helpful feedback and advice. In addition we would like to thank Bastian Beck, Harald Kolbe, Marcus Laumann and Abdelghani Zafa for their contribution to this work. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research funded parts of this work within the scope of the research project “Mind-Bau” under record no. 01FD0611.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Business Administration, Goethe University, Grüneburgplatz 1, 60325, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Christoph Rosenkranz & Roland Holten

Authors
  1. Christoph Rosenkranz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roland Holten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Rosenkranz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 355 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosenkranz, C., Holten, R. The variety engineering method: analyzing and designing information flows in organizations. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 9, 11–49 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-010-0127-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-010-0127-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation