Using Activity Diagrams and DEMO to Capture Relevant Measures

in an Organizational Control

A Case Study on Remote Assistance Service

António Gonçalves

, Pedro Sousa

and Anacleto Correia

1,3

Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal

Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal

Universidade Algarve, Faro, Portugal

Keywords: Activity Theory, DEMO, GOD, Collaborative Work, Dynamic Work, Enterprise Ontology.

Abstract: This paper makes a proposal how to find dysfunctions in the operation of an organization. For that it uses

relevant work done in DEMO (Dynamic Essential Modelling of Organizations approach) and as a novelty it

introduces some of the Activity Theory concepts such as the contradiction concept.

The DEMO method to construct an organization´s control is named GOD (Generation, Operationalization &

Discontinuation). The GOD method aims at the diagnosis of the organization’s dysfunction, i.e., deviations

from what is the expected operation, and also prepares the organization for an adequate response to such

dysfunctions, so that it can continue to work. Dysfunctions are found by the declaration of control rules (i.e.,

norms) of some organization measures and monitoring feasible values for that rules. For example a measure

could be the “income per month” of the organization, a norm could be “min income per month” and viability

value could be “higher than 5000 Euros”.

Notwithstanding the existing of GOD, it is not clear how to choose the proper measures, norms and the

control values and how to relate them with operation of organization. To solve this challenge we propose to

use Activity Theory concepts such as contradictions to propose a method to choose and monitor useful

measures, norms and viability values. We will use the proposed solution via a real case study of a service

(e.g., www.True-Kare.com) that allows someone to provide a remote assistance to another person by using a

mobile phone.

1 OUTLINE

Current DEMO (Dietz, 2006) organization´s control

research

models, such as GOD (Aveiro, 2010) are

focused on the development of a DEMO extension

that defines the exception handling function

perspective of an organization, based in a continuous

updated model of organization reality (Aveiro et al.,

2010).

This research considers how can we introduce

the Activity Theory´s contradictions (Engeström and

Sannino, 2010) (Engeström et al., 1997) in GOD, so

that relevant organization’s dysfunction can be

caught taking into consideration the address the

following characteristics of human activities:

concurrent; interleaved; ambiguity and multiplicity

(i.e. perform activities in a diversity of ways).

This proposal is a contribution specifically linked

to GOD. Our research effort is to introduce in GOD

the Activity Theory´s contradictions to improve the

finding of organization measures that should be

monitored to find the organization´s dysfunctions.

Contradiction is a relevant Activity Theory concept

(Engeström et al., 1997). Contradiction can be

regarded as structural tensions over time within the

organization (i.e., elements of an activity) and

between activities that generate problems, failures

and conflicts that result in break down, but at the

same time become the capacity of an activity to

develop it-self.

The purpose of GOD is to manage the allowed

states for certain norms of an organization, which

guarantee its viability. The organization´s control

model keeps a record of all norms of an organization

and corresponding measured values so that the

organization works in the proper way.

The observation of the norms’ values is made by

DEMO transactions that serve as control role. When

303

Gonçalves A., Sousa P. and Correia A..

Using Activity Diagrams and DEMO to Capture Relevant Measures in an Organizational Control - A Case Study on Remote Assistance Service.

DOI: 10.5220/0004878003030310

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2014), pages 303-310

ISBN: 978-989-758-029-1

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

the observation of a transaction norm is faced with

an unaccepted norm´s value, we call it a dysfunction

in that norm. As a cause of such dysfunction there is

a need to diagnose an exception and a way to solve

the dysfunction (i.e. resilience strategy). It is not

always possible to solve dysfunctions. In that case

the organization has to start an Organizational

Engineering Process (OEP) to find the new

exception happening and generate and operationalize

the necessary organization artefacts to solve the

dysfunction caused by it.

It appears that at present, there is a lack of a

methodology that addresses how to choose the

norms and how to find an exception. Traditionally

several researchers have addressed these exception

issues, and they recognize that organizations have

keep on solving them continuously. The traditional

solutions keep information about exceptions and

how to solve them. This avoids the expenditure of an

added effort in handling the continuous treatment of

the same kind of exceptions (Antunes and Mourão,

2011) (Aveiro, 2010).

This document is structured as follows: Section 2

and 3 presents the theoretical foundations of our

work. Section 4 presents the proposed method.

Section 5 presents a case study that is used to

validate the solution. Lastly, section 6 approaches

the problems encountered, conclusions and future

work.

2 ORGANIZATION CONTROL

DEMO methodology (Dietz, 2006) provides a

description of an organization through an

ontological model, which emphasizes the description

of the core business. DEMO is based on Ψ theory

(Dietz, 2006) that states that people, via their social

exchanges, are bound in commitments relating to

actions to be taken and approve on the results of

these actions (Dietz, 2003).

DEMO comprises ontology acts, which are

defined as acts in which new original things are

effect. There are two kinds of acts, production acts

and coordination acts. By performing coordination

acts, people establish mutual commitments about

production acts. The Production acts contribute to

achieve the organization´s purpose.

In DEMO the coordination and production acts

are related to each other by means of the pattern

referred as transaction. A transaction is organized in

three phases: (i) in the Order-phase, an actor (i.e.

initiator) makes a product request to other actor (i.e.

executor) and the executor actor makes a

commitment that will deliver the requested product;

(ii) in the Execution-phase the executor makes the

product and, (iii) in the Result-phase the executor

actor presents the initiator actor with the product

manufactured and the initiator accept the product.

Each phase represents a number of communicative

acts or interactions between actors. An organization

can be described as a collection of transactions

linked together in different phases.

2.1 GOD Organization Control

Aveiro developed GOD, a DEMO organizational

control model that manages the aspects of

organization changes, as a result of treatment of

exceptions. To this end, Aveiro proposed the use of

a resilience strategy and microgenesis as a

mechanism to deal with new kind of exceptions. In

short, Aveiro proposes that organizations should

explicitly design and deploy their organization´s

control with mechanism of resilience and

microgenesis dynamics.

Figure 1 presents the control object´s fact

diagram that is part of state diagram of DEMO

control model of an organization proposed by

Aveiro.

Figure 1: GOD Control Object Facts (Aveiro 2010).

It describes the conceptual model of allowable state

space and can be used to capture the history of

organization change. State model defines the main

relations between objects and relevant facts that

should be recorded in an organization such as: a

dysfunction was observed (F1) and a dysfunction

was fixed (F2). The F3 is a fact that records the

discovering of the exceptions that causes the

dysfunction. The solution of a dysfunction consists

in discovering the right strategy (F4) that should be

used to resolve the exception and finally applying

the strategy (F5). When it is not possible to identify

the type of the exception, it is considered that we are

ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

304

dealing with an unexpected exception (i.e., a new

one) and an organization engineering process has to

be started (F6) as part of microgenesis dynamics.

3 ACTIVITY THEORY AND

CONTRADICTION CONCEPT

Activity Theory describes people´s work in

organizations as a social, cooperative and collective

task (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2012). The collective

activity is linked to the shared object (purpose) of

the activity and the subjects (i.e., person or group)

performing it, of which the community members

(i.e. person) are not often conscious. The concept of

the object of the activity is grounded under the

activity concept in the sense that there is no activity

without an object and that individual work can be

merged into collective activity through the use of

communication and coordination instruments.

An activity produces outcomes and is performed

through a division of work composed of actions,

which are performed through operations. Actions are

temporary, have a clearly defined beginning and an

end and are linked to specific targets or goals.

Operations are performed in an automatic,

unconscious fashion and some times are not clearly

related to goals. Operations depend on the

conditions in which actions are performed (e.g., if

someone needs to make a call he or she can use a

phone or can use an email, depending on what the

person has disposable in that moment).

Engeström, departed from the theoretical basis of

Activity theory, proposes a triangular activity

diagram that includes various components. An

example of activity diagram is present in Figure 2.

OBJECT

Vo l l e y

membership

SUBJE CTs

Aspirant

Member

admmiter

WORK DIVISION

aspirant ask to be a member

administrator receive and send

documentation

secretary control the admittance

COMM UNI TY

membership

secretary

administrator

RULES

#members (Volley)

= <

MAX number of

membership

and

#age(aspirant

member > #MIN

age()

TOOLS

email; phone

RESULT

Vo l l e y

membership

start

Figure 2: Activity Diagram of Volley Tennis club.

This diagrams describes the activity of a person in

order to become a member of a tennis club named

Volley as described in Dietz book (Dietz, 2006)

pages (15-32).

The Triangular Activity Diagram suggests the

possibility of multiple relationships within the

triangular structure activity and between activities,

linked in a system. However, the main task is always

to understand the entire context rather than their

separate connections, since work cannot be

understood or analysed outside the context in which

it occurs.

3.1 Contradictions

According to the Activity theory, contradictions

should be provided as tensions or imbalances

manifested by failures, problems or errors. We can

detect the manifestation of contradiction by

analysing the people´s work and speech in an

organization (Engeström and Sannino, 2011),

expressed in the actions and operations performed

by a person within an activity.

Contradictions can be analysed from an isolated

element or between the elements that constitute the

triangular activity diagram or from the relations

between elements of an activity.

It can be typified as being the first, second, third

and fourth type (Figure 3).

1 First order contradiction

2 Second order contradiction

3 Third order contradiction

4 Fourth order contradiction

Figure 3: Types of activity contradictions.

The first order contradictions correspond to

problems found in an internal element of a given

activity. It occurs when one can isolate the

manifestation of the occurred contradiction,

diagnosing that it is due to a particular element of

the Activity.

The second order contradictions occur because

the problem cannot be isolated and are related to the

interaction between two or more elements of the

activity. They are between the corners of the triangle

and occur between the components of the activity

system.

The third order contradictions arise when

conflicts can limit the development of the current

UsingActivityDiagramsandDEMOtoCaptureRelevantMeasuresinanOrganizationalControl-ACaseStudyon

RemoteAssistanceService

305

activity in relation to a hypothetical activity, which

is culturally more developed.

Finally, the fourth order contradictions occur

between the central activity system and the

surrounding activity systems on the systems network

and emerge from interaction of the central activity

with peripheral activities. Most of the tensions occur

in this situation, where usually a given activity is

dependent on a result constructed by another.

Table 2 presents examples of contradiction that

can be found when analysing activity diagram

described in Figure 2.

Table 1: Kinds of contradictions.

ORDER EXAMPLE

1º ORDER When the member aspirant has some

doubts about the use of volley club

service and the price that he is going to

pay or if he use the volley club to

practice some sports or to other

purpose such as business networking.

2º ORDER When admitter has difficult to use the

email tool to send or receive

information from / to the member

aspirant.

3º ORDER When they want to change the service,

for example to support volley training

to younger members.

4º ORDER If for example the activity that manager

the volley field decide to change the

king of field used it can impact with the

member. Some may decide to leave and

new ones can joint.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AND PROPOSED SOLUTION

The research methodology used in this work is

Design Research (Hevner et al., 2004), which we

consider to involve: (i) construction and (ii)

evaluation. We understand construction as a process

marked by creativity, since it presupposes the

creation of new artefacts, based on realization and

implementation models of an organization. We

comprehend evaluation as a continuous process of

testing the usefulness of the artefact. For that we use

qualitative and quantitative methods as a way to

measure the effectiveness and impact of the artefact

preferably in real life case studies.

From the viewpoint of ontological, realization

and implementation models of an organization, we

follow the proposal made by Dietz (Dietz, 2006)

(e.g. mainly theorem of the organization and the

distinction axiom in the Ψ theory) where the

ontological model keeps apart all realization and

implementation issues.

However the realization and implementation are

bound to the ontological model. The realization

starts with the business aspects of an organization

(i.e., the ontological model) and comprises the

detailed integration, through the layered nesting, of

information and document necessaries to operation

of organization (Dietz, 2006).

According to our proposal, from the

implementation of an organization we can analyse

activity´s contradictions as a basis to find useful

measures, viability norms and dysfunctions. Our

position is that the organization implementation is a

result of an engineering process that can be analysed

as a system of activities. This system can be used to

understand technology (i.e., people, rules, division of

work and tools) that is part of organization

implementation. For that we propose a DEMO model

to capture the essential structure of activities from

the ontological organization model.

To achieve that we redefine the concept of

activity, as “an activity is the minimum unit for

understanding the context of people´s work practices

in an organization. In an activity, people act on an

object, with competence and authority. The object is

transformed so as to attain a result of production,

which is designated activity output”.

The construct model of the proposed solution is

stated in figure 4.

T02

Actor&A02

Ac) vity

Elements

Recogni) on

T03

T01

Actor&A01

Capture&

Ac) vity

Activity

observati on

Activity Orientation Activities Articulation

Actor&A03

Ar) cula) on

Choise

Actor&A04

Ac) vity&

Contradic) on

Recogni) on

T04

Contr adi cti on Detecti on

Actor&A05

Metric

Recogni) on

T05

Metri c Managment

Figure 4: Proposed solution.

The model is composed of five transactions: T01 to

T05 and the corresponding actors: A01 to A05. The

actor role A01 has the responsibility to recognize all

the transactions of the organization and map each

activity. We start from the definition of an activity.

This is a working unit with one objective: People

involved organize their way of working in order to

ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

306

achieve the goal of the activity.

The actor A01 has the responsibility to capture

activities. Even though there are several methods,

none is sufficiently clear in the way that activities

can be obtained. Therefore we propose transaction

T01, as a novel way to apprehend activities from an

ontological model of an organization. We take

advantage of some overlapping concepts between the

DEMO and Activity theory that helps to delimit the

identification of scope of organization activities

through DEMO Model. The main idea is to use

DEMO to find useful activities, being clear that

Activity Theory was not a DEMO substitute.

The actor A02 has the responsibility to capture

detail of each activity, i.e. he/she identifies the

elements of an activity, such as: actions, operations,

subject, tools and business and social rules. This task

is an iterative one. It continuously tries to capture

missing or changing elements. The actions aim at the

planned goals, and required resources must be taking

into account in the environment as well as their

affordances and constraints. These

physical executions of actions are named operations,

and they must be comprehended by

the conditions given at the moment of execution.

We use The DEMO concepts of phase and steps

to help us to capture and structure activity actions

and operations. We proposed that an activity has

three main phases that correspond to the three phases

of a transaction (Order-phase, Execution-phase and

Deliver-phase). Each phase has a unique step with a

well-defined goal. We link each goal action to step;

therefore, the goal of an action is to fulfil the step.

The operations represent the task that we do to

achieve the action.

The actor A03 has the responsibility of

identifying relationships between activities, notably

it defines the different types of articulations

considered to relate the activities. To connect the

activities we contemplated two types of

interconnections that represent two types of

relationships between activities. They are: (i) a

sequential relation and an (ii) inclusion relation.

When activities have a sequential relationship, it

means that the result of an activity is the object of

another activity. In this case there is a temporal

relationship between the first and the second activity

and the second can only happen after the first

produces its result.

4.1 Introduction Contradictions in the

Organization Control Model

The introduction of activity in organizational

control is done through contradictions discovered in

transaction T04. The result of the contradictions

discovery leads to identify the metrics that should be

monitored, as well as the feasibility of these rules.

This work is done by transaction T05 and executed

by actor A05.

The Activity´s contradictions will be discovered

by analysing its set of elements. We propose the use

of three sets of relations between the following

elements of a single activity: subject/tools,

subject/object and norms/object. Each set will be

associated to a metric mentioned below:

(1) Metric between subject and tools. These metric

measures the contradictions that express the

misalignment between tools and subjects to

access the object of activity. It also express the

support of execution of actions and operations

(for example, what is the tool that is used to

access the updated list of the organization's

products, and what people think it is his

problems);

(2) Metric between subject and object. It measures

misalignment between the subject and the object

of an activity by counting the cancelation of

coordination acts. It is computed by calculating

the cancellation of promise acts and the

cancellation of delivery acts;

(3) Metric between norms and subject, will measure

the feasibility of achieving the result of the

activity. This metric is the type usually

associated to the business objectives (e.g. total

revenue per month minimum activity will be

5,000 Euros).

Figure 5 presents the proposed the new

Organization Object Fact Diagram for organizational

control. This model integrates the contradiction

measures into organizational control.

VIABILITY

NORM

MESURE

MESURE has VIABILITY NORM

ACTIVITY

NORMS OBJECT SOBJECT TOOLS

CONTRADITION CONTRADITION CONTRADITION

Figure 5: Introduction contradiction in control model.

UsingActivityDiagramsandDEMOtoCaptureRelevantMeasuresinanOrganizationalControl-ACaseStudyon

RemoteAssistanceService

307

5 APPLYING SOLUTION TO

TRUE-KARE

We exemplify our method by using it in the analysis

of a service named True-Kare. The main purpose of

the True-Kare service is to facilitate the support

given by the family or institutions to the elder person

with some level of dependency. The service has two

main steps: (i) the purchase of mobile equipment

and, (ii) the service subscription, after the purchase

of the equipment. To purchase the equipment a

customer has to fill out a purchase form in the True-

Kare portal, and provide personal information, such

as the equipment delivery address and billing

information. When the customer receives the

equipment, he must activate the service by

introducing in the True-Kare portal the identification

code that comes with the equipment he received.

Once the service is activated, the customer can

benefit from the service and has to pay a monthly

value to continue using it.

The starting point is the Ontological Model of the

organization, which was built using the DEMO

methodology. Figure 6 provides a general view of

transactions

Figure 6: Construction Model of True-kare.

T1 (Equipment Order) and T2 (Equipment Payment).

Both transactions involve the actors A1 (Client) and

A2 (Organization). Transaction T1 is initiated by

actor A1 and executed by actor A2 (i.e. the

equipment Order transaction is initiated by the Client

and executed by the Organization). Conversely,

transaction T2 is initiated by actor A2 and executed

by actor A1 (i.e. the Equipment Payment transaction

is initiated by the Organization and executed by the

Client).

5.1 Discovery Activity Elements

The agenda of actor A01 is to capture the relevant

Activities of the services offered by TRUE-KARE.

The DEMO Constructed model is analysed and for

each

transaction an activity is created. The one to one

mapping between transactions and activities is

justified because of the redefinition of the concept of

activity presented in section 4. Table 2 presents the

Activities of our case.

Ser vi ce St ar t

Service is star ted

True-kare manager

Service Manager

True-Kare Portal

Service

Service Profile

Equipment is payed

Client

Manager

ERP

True-kare Portal

Equipment

Price List

billing

Equipment Order

Equipment is or dered

Client

Manager

True-Kare Portal

Stock

Control

Equipment

Ser vi ce Execut i on

Ser vice i s execut ed

Client

Service manager

True-Kare Portal

mobile phone

Service

Table Agremment

service

Payment

Service is payed

True-kare

Service Manager

ERP

Billing

Service

Price

Tabl e

AT-02

AT-01

AT-03

AT-06

AT-05

Equipment payed

Ser vi ce E nd

Service is Ended

True-kare

Service Manager

Client

Treu-Kare Portal

service

AT- 04

Figure 7: Activity System of True-Kare Service.

Table 2: Activities.

Activity Name Output

AT-01 Equipment

Orde

CLIENT has order

EQUIPMENT

AT-02 Equipment

CLIENT has paid

EQUIPMENT

AT-03 Service Star

CLIENT has start SERVICE

AT-04 Service En

CLIENT has end SERVICE

AT-05 Service Pa

CLIENT has paid SERVICE

AT-06 Service

Execution

CLIENT has used

SERVICE

ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

308

After identifying the significant activities, we

have to recognize the elements of each activity:

subjects, tools, rules, community and division of

work. Figure 7 presents the elements found for each

activity, as the result of work done actor role A02

(see Figure 4).

Actor role A03 has the responsibility to articulate

the activities. Following articulations are proposed:

1. AT-01 /AT-03: sequential relationship. It means

that to start a service client has first to order

equipment;

2. AT-03 /AT-06: sequential relationship. It means

that after the start of service, The client can use

the service offered by TRUE-KARE;

3. AT-05 /AT-06: inclusion relationship. It means

that for using the service the client has to pay

for it;

4. AT-06 /AT-04: sequential relationship. It means

that during the execution of service the client

can end it;

5. AT-02 /AT-01: inclusion relationship. It means

that the equipment order, depend of the payer of

equipment, i.e., client has to pay for the

equipment before he/she can get it.

Figure 7 presents the articulation between the

activities, as the result of work done by actor A02.

5.2 Introduction Contradictions in the

Organization Control Model

During the analysis of activities we have identified

different types of contradictions. Following proposal

presented in section 4.1, contradictions are grouped

into several kind of norms: competence (which is

measured in accordance with the capacity of the

subject and the object of activity), tools (where it is

analysed the mediation of subject and object through

the use of tools) and finally tensions related to the

objective of the activity (which is measured by the

ratio of the rules with the purpose of the activity).

Table 3 summarizes some of the manifestations of

contradictions revealed while analysing the

activities.

Table 3: Contradictions analysis.

# AT Contradiction Description



AT‐01 Subject‐

object

Contradictionbetween

sellerandclient.



AT‐01 Rule‐object Contradictionbetween

equipmentandservice.



AT‐01 Subject‐tool Contradictionbetween

True‐Kareportalandclient.



The contradictions analysed in Table 3 propose

rules and feasibility control of those rules in order to

monitor the operation of the organization. Some of

these are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Proposed feasibility control rules.

# Measure Feasibility Rule

C1 M01

Numberofproposed

senttoclients

M01>10permonth

C1 M02

Numberofproposed

acceptedbyclients

M02/M01>30%

C2 M03

Equipmentprice

M03>=5(where0id

badand9isexcellent

price)

C2 M04

equipmentdeliver

M04<oneweek

C3 M05

Clientperceptionof

servicedeliver

M05>=6(where0id

badand9isexcellent)

6 CONCLUSION

This article discusses how to use activity diagrams

to identify different tensions within and

contradictions between activities performed by

people in the organization. The use of activity

diagrams is a benefit, due to the fact that it allows

the evaluation of individual and collaborative work,

i.e., we can examine the individual task performed

by people who contribute to the achievement of the

results of collective activity. It also permits to

introduce a way to understand the dynamics change

of the organization.

The use of DEMO helps to delimit the area of

operation of an organization, through the concepts of

components, environment and structure, presented in

the DEMO models. It allows the mapping of

transactions into activities. After capturing the

Activities Diagrams from DEMO models, we use

them to analyse manifestations of contradictions

present when analysing organizations. We focus

mainly in the 1º order and 2º order types of

contradictions, namely the contradictions between

elements of an activity, and then we are able to

identify the one element that is the cause of the

contradiction.

The previous results were used to observe the

activities and capture the type of rules that should be

UsingActivityDiagramsandDEMOtoCaptureRelevantMeasuresinanOrganizationalControl-ACaseStudyon

RemoteAssistanceService

309

tracked down in the GOD organization´s control.

The type of rules relates to people´s capability, tools

capability and the feasibility of the organization

rules. The capability of people requires the

continuous monitoring of people´s commitments and

their mapping with organization objectives. Tools

capability measures the misalignment between what

people expect from the tools and what they provide.

This is a fundamental issue in the pursuit of

improving tools for increasing business value.

Finally organization rules feasibility measures

alignment between business and people in the sense

that people are able to fulfil the outcome of an

activity with the existing business rules.

The use of the DEMO methodology and the

GOD model had a major relevance in the

enhancement of the feasibility of the True-Kare

services because it established a common

understanding of the essential business’ services

between the different kinds of people.

A future line of research is to improve the

method of identification of organization’s activities

through The DEMO Models, eventually by the

substitution of all activities analysis with an

extension of GOD model and finding feasibility

control rules with an ICT support so that valuable

information to decide on aspects of viability is easy

available to the organization.

REFERENCES

Antunes, P. & Mourão, H., 2011. Resilient Business

Process Management: Framework and services. Expert

Systems with Applications, 38(2), pp.1241–1254.

Aveiro, D., 2010. G.O.D. theory for organizational

engineering: continuously modeling the

(re)Generation, Operationalization and

Discontinuation of the Enterprise,. Instituto Superior

Técnico.

Aveiro, D., Silva, A. & Tribolet, J., 2010. Extending the

design and engineering methodology for organizations

with the generation operationalization and

discontinuation organization. Global Perspectives on

Design Science Research, pp.226–241.

Dietz, J., 2003. Designing technical systems as social

systems. In Proceedings of the 8th International

Working Conference on the Language-Action

Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP

2003). Citeseer, pp. 187–207.

Dietz, J., 2006. Enterprise Ontology: Theory and

Methodology, Springer.

Engeström & Sannino, A., 2011. Discursive

manifestations of contradictions in organizational

change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal

of Organizational Change Management, 24(3),

pp.368–387.

Engeström, Y. et al., 1997. Coordination, Cooperation,

and Communication in the Courts: Expansive

Transitions in Legal Work. In M. Cole, Y. Engeström,

& O. A. Vasquez, eds. Mind, Culture, and Activity.

Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative

Human Cognition. Cambridge University Press, pp.

369–388.

Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A., 2010. Studies of expansive

learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges.

Educational Research Review, 5(1), pp.1–24.

Hevner, A. et al., 2004. Design science in information

systems research. Mis Quarterly, 28(1), pp.75–105.

Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B., 2012. Activity Theory in HCI:

Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures on

Human-Centered Informatics, 5(1), pp.1–105.

ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems

310