OPERATIONALIZING THEORY
Moving from Insight to Action in a SME
Lars-Olof Johansson, Björn Cronquist
Department of Mathematics and Science, Kristianstads University, 291 88 Kristianstad, Sweden
Harald Kjellin
Department of Mathematics and Science, Kristianstads University, 291 88 Kristianstad, Sweden
Keywords: Learning organization, visualization, usability, action research, method, operationalizing.
Abstract: This paper presents a method for operationalizing theory. The method has its basis in the empirical findings
arising from collaboration between the researchers and a research partner, Flower Systems Ltd. The
research partner is a software company characterized as a SME. The presented method is exemplified with
theories from learning organizations, usability, and visualization – which are all connected to the problem
articulated by our partner. The method is an iterative process characterized by a systemic and holistic long-
term view that incorporates feedback. The method takes as its point of departure the problematic area
described by Flower Systems ltd; the researchers both intervene and interpret in this problematic area, so the
method is both described and verified.. The paper combines the case study and action research methods in
what is sometimes referred to as a “hybrid” method, the action case method. The view of innovation
presented in this paper is that innovation entails supporting change processes in order to create purposeful
and focused change.. The underlying research question has been: How usable is our method for
operationalizing theory in solving the problem of adapting to changes in an SME?
1 INTRODUCTION
The departure point of this paper is the intersection
between the desires of researchers to operationalize
theory and the desires of small- or medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) in order to adapt to changes.
The desire of researchers is that the knowledge
created in their scientific field should serve to guide
practitioners. The information systems (IS) field is
sometimes referred to as an “applied science” (Rose,
1998) or “applied field” (Dubin, 1983) in which the
knowledge created should also provide practical
guidance. Questions regarding the relevance of
information systems research to practice have been
addressed (Benbasat & Zmud, 1999) and discussed
(Appelgate & King, 1999; Huang et al., 1999;
Lyytinen, 1999). Academics must be cautious of
only addressing the scientific community regarding
issues defined solely by academia. Benbasat and
Zmud (1999) identify the need for IS researchers to
be exposed to practical contexts in which IS-related
usage and management behaviours unfold; one
recommendation they put forward is that we should
first look to practice to identify research topics,
looking to the IS literature only after a commitment
has been made to a specific topic.
The desire of a SMEs has its basis in a need to adapt
to changes in the marketplace to retain their
competitive advantage (Street & Meister, 2004). An
SME is typically characterized by a flat
organizational hierarchy, with informal
communication channels, in which the owner and
the manager are involved in daily business
operations. The daily routines of an SME are
characterized by short-term development cycles, for
example, all problems needing to be solved are
urgent ones connected to the production process
according to managers and staff members. But the
SME must still adapt to changes in the market in
order to survive, though these changes could not be
characterized as urgent problems connected to the
production process. The literature proposes various
solutions to the problem of adapting to
organizational change, all of which share at least two
factors, namely, attention to activities performed in
the organization and the state of mind of the staff
and management (Senge, 1994).
591
Johansson L., Cronquist B. and Kjellin H. (2007).
OPERATIONALIZING THEORY - Moving from Insight to Action in a SME.
In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ISAS, pages 591-598
DOI: 10.5220/0002391405910598
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

1.1 CILO
Communication in learning organizations-CILO-is a
research project funded by the Swedish Knowledge
Foundation. The project started in January 2006 and
will last to the beginning of 2009. The mandate of
the Swedish Knowledge Foundation is to enhance
Sweden’s competitiveness by supporting research
and competence development in industry.
Four researchers and five research partners (all
characterized as SMEs) are involved in the research
project. This paper focuses on the empirical findings
arising from collaboration between the researchers
and one of the SMEs, Flower Systems Ltd. The
collaboration focuses on the two different desires of
the SME and the researchers.
Flower Systems Ltd. (FSL) is a software
development company. The company was
established in 1986 and is 100% owned by two
partners who also are operationally active. The
company has 11 employees. Their basic product is a
development tool called Nectar 4GL, used for
developing and running applications for database
handlers in multi-user systems. With this generic
tool, FSL has constructed an application, ISOX
2000, which is a system for handling case
documentation in local government social services.
Since their customers are largely government
departments, they must comply with a highly
formalized routine, i.e., the governmental purchase
agreement (statligt upphandlingsavtal), in order to
win contracts. Over the past three to four years the
concepts of user-friendliness and usability have been
highlighted in governmental purchase agreements,
and employees of various governmental social
services have also requested changes in ISOX 2000
to make it more user friendly. FSL has had to deal
with the concept of user-friendliness and usability in
changing both ISOX 2000 and how it does business.
This is an example of the desire to adapt to change s
in a SME which could be supported by the
knowledge within the usability area of the
researchers.
1.2 Research Question and Aim
This paper describes and verifies our method, the
CILO method, for operationalizing theory. The
proposed method is presented in section three and
the theories to be operationalized are in section four.
The underlying research question has been: How
usable is our method for operationalizing theory in
solving the problem of adapting to changes in an
SME?
Figure 1: Model of conceptualizing theories (Rose, 1998).
Researchers use theories for three different purposes
(Rose, 1998):
To analyze
To theorize
To operationalize
The third purpose, to operationalize (see Figure 1),
concerns how well a theory offers operational
guidance to practitioners
The process of creating knowledge comprises four
basic elements and the relationships between them
(Braa & Vidgen, 2000; Vidgen & Braa, 1997):
Theory:
Research question
Conclusion
Empirical data
In any applied field/science the theory used must
confront reality. If we regard theory as a process in
which the researcher is the master of an iterative
process of induction and deduction, induction is a
process starting with sound observations and
descriptions that generate theory, while deduction
involves explorations of the theory’s implications.
This deductive process provides us with hypotheses
that become the basis for further empirical testing
based on observations and description (Dubin 1983).
2 RESEARCH PROCESS
The research conducted in the CILO project could
be characterized as qualitative research with an
underlying interpretative philosophy (Myers, 1997).
The main research method used is action research
(Baskerville, 1999; Baskerville & Myers, 2004) as
defined in the MISQ special issue on action
research.
The present paper combines the case study and
action research methods and has its basis in the
action case method (Braa & Vidgen, 1997; Braa &
Vidgen, 2000; Braa & Vidgen, 1995; Vidgen &
Braa, 1997). The main motivation for this method,
the “action case” method, as applied in the present
study, is that we selected data from one specific
case, the FSL case, and both interpreted this case in
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
592

Figure 2: Positioning the action case method (bra and vidgen, 1995).
depth and made interventions in the company
(Figure 2).
Braa and Vidgen (1995) present three main
arguments justifying the use of the action case
method: 1) in practice, most research projects
involve aspects of both the action and case methods,
2) it allows the testing of both theory and IS
techniques, and 3) it can reduce the scope of a larger
project.
According to Braa and Vidgen (1995), the action
case method is characterized by:
Potential to change the organization (AR), with a
focus on small-scale changes
Inclusion of case study elements, supporting an
understanding of the domain
Intervention (in real time) and interpretation
Output comprises two level of results, i.e., concrete
and conceptual
These four characteristics are clearly evident in the
present case. The action case method highlights two
not exclusive skills of the researcher (Mumford,
2001). First, the ability to create relationships with
the staff and managers at the organization where the
intervention takes place; this skill is crucial, as the
staff and managers should never question the
researcher’s trustworthiness when it comes to the
interests of the organization. The second skill
comprises what are sometimes collectively referred
to as “social skills,” i.e., the researcher must be able
to deal with the interests of various people (from
different groups, with different tasks, etc.), interests
that may sometimes be hidden in early stages of
research. It takes great social skills on the part of the
researcher to make the interviewee comfortable
enough to reveal the hidden agendas that inform
daily practices.
3 THE PROPOSED CILO
METHOD
The CILO method is an iterative research process
characterized by a systemic and holistic long-term
view that incorporates feedback. The CILO method
takes as its point of departure the problematic area
described by a partner; the researchers intervene in
this area based on their interpretation of the data
collected. We use three different methods to collect
data: seminars, interviews, and visualization (Figure
3); the ensuing analysis is based on the chosen
theoretical framework and on benchmarking
activities.
The general principles applied when interviewing
are as follows:
Preliminary interviews aim to create a relationship
with the interviewee to secure a free and flexible
flow of information
The interviewee is always right.
We impose no view on the interviewee. This is the
most important principle and it is based on our
experience that when it comes to dialogues
concerning why a company has not implemented
innovations, it is of the utmost importance that the
interviewee not get the impression that s/he has
missed an opportunity.
We make a suggestion based on the analysis of
previous interviews. The suggestion is always
presented as a question, to guide the interviewee to
ask for information concerning solutions.
The goal is for the interviewee to become aware of
the current situation and of various possible ways to
improve it.
OPERATIONALIZING THEORY - Moving from Insight to Action in a SME
593

All interviews are recorded and visualization is
performed in the interviews.
At least two researchers are present at every
interview.
Seminars are held with the researchers who took part
in the interviews in order to share impressions.
Visualizations of models and processes are based on
the interviewees’ experience of the current situation
in the organization.
The core of the method consists of interviews with
knowledge workers in the organizations
3.1 The First Phase: Gaining and
Defining Insight
The first iteration has one goal and that is to find out
what should be improved at the SME, i.e., to define
the problematic area. The first goal is to arrive at a
situation in which the interviewees at the
organization gain insight into a shortcoming of the
organization. For example, perhaps a process is not
efficient or a product does not met customer
The second goal is to reach consensus that the
shortcoming is important, after which we describe it
in detail. In the interviews we use the following
tools:
Brainstorming seminars
Simulated interactions between the company and its
customers or between a system and the end users of
the company’s system
Visualizations of conceptual relationships
Visualizations of processes (based on interviews
with customers/clients of the organization)
To achieve these two goals we iterate until we have
a map of all the problems/needs that are crucial for
the long-term survival and growth of the
organization.
3.2 The Second Phase: From Insight to
Action
Be aware that we never directly suggest how
problems should be solved; instead, all suggestions
are put forward as questions. We do this since we
have empirical evidence that promoting any type of
solutions could spoil the free flow of dialogue. The
researchers and staff discuss the history underlying
each shortcoming/opportunity and engage in free
dialogue about how similar processes are usually
handled in other organizations. In these discussions
we use the following tactics:
Internal benchmarking over time: What various
approaches have been tested? What were the results?
Why did these results occur?
Benchmarking with organizations in similar or
related branches: How can similar problems be
solved in other companies?
Matching the situation with analogous problem
solving methods from the theoretical framework
Using the interpretation to discover the similarities,
differences, and outstanding features that become
evident in the benchmarking or analogical matching
Responding to the various solutions to which the
interviewee assigns priority.
Figure 3: Overview of the CILO method expectations.
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
594

3.3 Third Phase: From Action to
Learning
The aim of such efforts is not simply to support
companies in implementing innovations, but rather
to support them in becoming learning organizations.
The idea is that the organization should not have to
be dependent on the type of work described above in
the first and second phases. To help these companies
becoming learning organizations, we promote the
creation of double feedback routines; this is done via
the following activities: 1)Analyzing and creating
standard descriptions of processes that can be
classified as organizational learning, 2) Determining
numerical measures of performance in the processes.
4 THEORIES
The theories applied in this paper are rooted in three
different fields – learning organizations, usability,
and visualization – which are connected to the
problem articulated by FSL. The organization in
which the researchers interven are on the right hand
in figure 3 and the theories the researchers use to
interpret is in the left hand. Staff of FSL has often
complained that they are blind to the defects in their
work, in this particular case, problems relating to the
concepts of usability and user-friendliness as
demanded by the staff of various governmental
social services.
4.1 Learning Organizations and the
Concept of Innovation
Organizations must change in order to survive
(Aldrich, 1999; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Christensen,
1997; Davenport & Beck, 2001; Huber, 2004). This
fact has been a focus of both learning organization
researchers (LOR) and innovation researchers (IR).
The view of innovation research presented in this
paper is that innovation entails supporting change
processes in order to create purposeful and focused
change. Though these two research fields share
many concepts, there are two major differences: first
is the concept of reflection presented in LOR, and
the second is the focus on strategy evident in IR.
The first difference has its basis in the work of
Donald Schön, which has in turn been expanded on
by Pete Senge (Schön, 1983; Senge, 1994). The
practitioner’s ability to reflect in and on action by
turning the mirror inwards in order to bring the
internal pictures of the world to the surface is an
important issue. People are viewed as agents able to
act upon the structures and systems of which they
are a part. Learning has its staring point in people
and their ability to reflect, organizations learn only
through individuals who learn, but individual
learning does not guarantee organizational learning.
The second difference, the focus on strategy, has its
basis in a focus on managers and their decisions.
Communication should be built on strategies
formulated by the managers (Koput, 1997). The
focus to some extent is on knowledge management,
where the knowledge adds value when applied to
improve, change, or develop specific tasks and
activities (Scozzi & Garavelli, 2005). A systemic
view is shared by both types of research, in that both
emphasize that there should be a focus on the whole
instead of the parts. The view of organizations as
dynamic processes containing feedback is also
shared.
4.2 Usability
Usability has been a concern of both practitioners
and researchers. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), for example, attempted to
define usability in ISO 9126 as, a set of attributes
that bear on the effort needed for use, and on the
individual assessment of such use, by a stated or
implied set of users (ISO9126, 1991). A later ISO
definition is set forth in ISO 9241-11 where usability
is defined as, the extent to which a product can be
used by specified users to achieve specified goals
with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a
specified context of use (ISO9241-11, 1998). So
usability itself is always defined by the users, a fact
that has directed attention to the usability process
(Norman, 1988), i.e., user-centered design, instead
of to the product per se. During this process we need
to consider:
Who are the users, what do they know, and what can
they learn?
What do users want or need to do?
What is the general background of the users?
What is the context in which the user is working?
What has to be left to the machine? What to the
user?
ISO has set forth the human-centered lifecycle
process descriptions (ISO/TR18529, 2000):
HCD.1 Ensure HCD content in system strategy
HCD.2 Plan and manage the HCD process
HCD.3 Specify the user and organizational
requirements
HCD.4 Understand and specify the context of use
HCD.5 Produce design solutions
OPERATIONALIZING THEORY - Moving from Insight to Action in a SME
595

HCD.6 Evaluate designs against requirements
HCD.7 Introduce and operate the system
They apply this HCD process in what they call a
“usability maturity model,” which is used to
evaluate the ability of an organization to work with
HCD. The evaluation is done by ranking every HCD
process on the following scale: incomplete,
performed, managed, established, predicted, and
optimized.
Some researchers (Shneiderman, 1998) consider
usability as part of “usefulness” and as composed of:
Learnability (e.g., intuitive navigation): How much
training do users need?
Efficiency of use: Can users easily accomplish their
intended tasks? For example, can users accomplish
intended tasks at their intended speed?
Memorability: What documentation or other
supporting materials are available to help the users?
Can users find the solutions they seek in these
materials?
Few and non-catastrophic errors: What and how
many errors do users make when interacting with the
product? Can the user recover from these errors?
What do users have to do to recover from errors?
Does the product help users recover from errors?
Subjective satisfaction
4.3 Visualization
Two streams of use can be identified when it comes
to applying visualization techniques in the IS field:
Visualizing data or information for the design of a
GUI or service in an information system
Visualizing business processes in organizations
In both streams the aim of using visualization
techniques is to enhance mutual understanding and
communication. For example, task analysis and
needs analysis in the user-centered approach to
designing IS both involve visualization for the actors
involved in the process, to ensure that they all
understand the nature of the service being developed
(Löwgren, 2004a). The two streams are not
exclusive; for example, a business process model
could be used to improve, or at least attempt to
improve, a GUI.
As mentioned earlier, FSL has had problems with
the concept of usability/user-friendliness, and this
prompted the researchers to employ both streams of
visualization techniques. The first stream has been
used in discussing the GUI of the ISOX 2000, while
the second has been used in analyzing how the civil
servants actually work on their tasks during the
course of their daily routines.
4.3.1 Visualizing Data or Information
Many different visualization techniques can be used
in information system development processes to
visualize/sketch the services under development; this
paper will examine several of them, as follows:
Storyboards (Löwgren, 2004b) offer one way of
visualizing the findings of the task analysis.
Paper prototypes enable developers to try out
different parts of a system at low cost and with great
time efficiency (Mccracken & Wolfe, 2004).
Flowchart/nodemaps are also useful in visualizing
the system for the various actors; a possible
disadvantage is that interpreting nodemaps requires
training that some end users lack (Shneiderman,
1998).
Unified modeling language (UML) has become
standard when developers visualize, specify, and
document the structure and behavior of a service.
UML is used in communication between designers
and developers.
4.3.2 Visualization of Processes
Many different visualization techniques can be used
in business process modelling activities. Two of the
most popular nowadays are event-driven process
chains (EPC) and business process modelling
notation (BPMN). The main reason for the
popularity of EPC is that it is a component of the
enterprise resource planning system, SAP.
EPC consists of the following elements (Aalst,
1999.):
Functions: These basic building blocks correspond
to an activity (i.e., task, process, or step) that needs
to be executed (see Figure 4).
Events: These describe the situation before and/or
after a function are executed. Functions are linked
by events; an event may correspond to the post-
condition of one function and the precondition of
another (see Figure 4).
Logical connectors: These can be used to connect
activities and events to specify the control flow.
There are three types of connectors: Λ (and), XOR
(exclusive or), and ν (or) :
BPMN has attracted considerable attention in the IS
research field as an easy to use description technique
for documenting and re-engineering processes
(Recker et al., 2006). BPMN consists of the
following objects ((White, 2004):
Flow objects: These basic building blocks are events
(circles), activities (rectangles with rounded
corners), and gateways (diamonds).
Connecting objects: These basic building blocks
(mostly arrows) indicate sequence flow (filled
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
596

arrows), message flow (dashed arrows), and
associations (points).
Swimlanes: These basic building blocks comprise
pools (graphical container) and lanes (sub-partition
of the pool).
Artifacts: These basic building blocks consist of data
objects, groups, and annotations.
In the CILO project we do not intend to fully apply
any formal visualization notation system. We do,
however, acknowledge the influence of the
descriptions of the abovementioned techniques, but
we aim to develop, in an iterative and evolving
process, a simple and, for the project, appropriate
notation system supported by Microsoft Visio. As
mentioned earlier, a visualization technique is a
powerful way to establish mutual understanding and
communication between the researchers and
company representatives, and a powerful tool to use
to raise awareness of the usefulness of implementing
the systemic measuring of business processes in an
organization.
5 RESULTS
The results will be structured according to the
proposed CILO method. The main research question
was “How usable is our method for operationalizing
theory in solving the problem of adapting to changes
in an SME?” and this question was matched to a
problematic area described by the partner, FSL.
5.1 The First Phase: Gaining and
Defining Insight
Revealing the experienced shortcoming of the
organization provided the insight that FSL did not
know how to deal with the concepts of usability and
user-friendliness. These two concepts are critical in
the government purchase agreement; as well, various
employees from various governmental social
services have requested changes in the product to
make it more user-friendly. To describe the problem
in detail we conducted seminars, brainstorming, and
interviews with staff members at a governmental
social service department. After all, it is the end-user
who always defines usability. For the visualization
of data we used flowcharts, paper prototypes and
storyboards for the visualization of processes we
used a mix of BPMN and EPC. The users’
complaints about the system’s usability fell into four
general categories:
First impressions/the starting screen
Too much information (approximately 80 different
data fields appear on screen)
Users lose track of where they are
The software should be more “web like”
5.2 The Second Phase: From Insight to
Action
These four categories were followed up in the
second phase. The visualizations of processes and
data were transcribed between the meetings and
were continuously improved; they served as starting
points for interviews and seminars.
The starting screen was changed to make it more
personal; the five most recent tasks on which the
social services secretary had worked should be
reachable by hypertext linking, and it should be
possible to search by task number or social security
number.
The solutions proposed to the problem of too much
information were hypertext linking, clustering
interrelated data, and aligning data with borders.
The last category is still under discussion. The idea
of integrating processes in the GUI has been
proposed, but how this should be connected to the
database and how to handle the need for metadata
have not yet been resolved.
It turned out that the software could be made more
“web like” by adding a main menu on the left side of
the screen.
5.3 Third Phase: From Action to
Learning
The idea is that the organization should not be
dependent on the type of work described above in
the first and second phases. Considerable time was
spent discussing the needs of the users and their
changes of opinion over time. In several years
usability will not mean the same thing as it does
now. The proposed solution is a process comprising
weekly meetings at which participants should
discuss what they learned from the end-users in the
previous week.
6 CONCLUSION
This paper focuses on the proposed CILO method
and how usable it is for operationalizing theory in
the context of implementing innovations in an SME.
In this particular case the method turned out to be
very successful, and there were strong indications of
OPERATIONALIZING THEORY - Moving from Insight to Action in a SME
597

the method’s usability. Validation of this proposed
method has been done by the staff members of FSL.
The research process used was the action case
method, in which one of the fundamental
components is intervention; we should not disregard
the intervention and how this has affected the staff
members of FSL.
We intend to use the CILO method with our other
research partners in order to gain a broader
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the
method
REFERENCES
Aalst, W. M. P. V. D. (1999.) Formalization and
verification of event-driven process chains.
Information and Software Technology 41 (10), 639-
650.
Aldrich, H. E. (1999) Organizations evolving. Thousand
Oaks, Calif ; London:SAGE.
Appelgate, L. M. and King, J. I. (1999) Rigor and
relevance: Careers on the line. MIS Quaterly 23 (1),
12-23.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1996) Organizational
learning ii. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Baskerville, R. (1999) Investigating information systems
with action research. Communications of The
Association for Information Systems 19 (2),
Baskerville, R. L. and Myers, M. D. (2004) Special issue
on action research in information systems: Making is
research relevant to practice-foreword. MIS Quaterly
28 (3), 329-336.
Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R. W. (1999) Empirical research
in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS
Quaterly 23 (1), 3-16.
Braa, K. and Vidgen, R. (1995) Action case:Exploring the
middle kingdom in information system research
methods. In 3:rd decennial conference:Computers in
context:Joining forces in design (Boedkaer, K., Ed),
Aarhus Denmark.
Braa, K. and Vidgen, R. (1997) An is research framework
for the organizational laboratory. In Computers in
context:Joining forces in design (Kyng and
Mathiassen, L., Eds), MIT Press.
Braa, K. and Vidgen, R. (2000) Research:From
observation to intervention. In Planet internet (Braa,
K. and Sørensen, C. and Dahlbom, B., Eds), pp 251-
276, Studentlitteratur.
Christensen, C. M. (1997) The innovators dilemma: When
new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Davenport, T. H. and Beck, J. C. (2001) The attention
economy. Harvard Business School Press.
Dubin, R. (1983) Theory building in applied areas. In
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(Dunnette, M. D., Ed), pp 17-39, Wiley&Sons, New
York.
Huang, K., Lee, W. and Wang, R. Y. (1999) Quality
information and knowledge. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Huber, G. P. (2004) The necessary nature of future firms:
Attributes of survivors in a changing world. Sage
Publications Inc.
Iso9126 (1991) Software engineering -- product quality.
International Organization for standardization.
Iso9241-11 (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office
work with visual display terminals (vdts) International
Organization for standardization.
Iso/Tr18529 (2000) Ergonomics -- ergonomics of human-
system interaction -- human-centred lifecycle process
descriptions. International Organization for
standardization.
Koput, K. W. (1997) Chaotic model of innovation search:
Some answers, many questions. Organization Science
8 (5), 528-542.
Lyytinen, K. (1999) Empirical research in information
systems: On the relevance of practice in thinking of is
research. MIS Quaterly 23 (1), 25-28.
Löwgren, J. (2004a) Animated use sketches as design
representations. interactions xi (6), 22-27.
Löwgren, J. (2004b) Sketching interaction design. Malmö,
p Lecture Notes.
Mccracken, D. and Wolfe, R. (2004) User centered
website development. Prentice Hall.
Mumford, E. (2001) Action research:Helping oranizations
to change. In Qualitative research in is: Issues and
trends (Trauth, E., Ed), pp 46-77, Idea Group
Publishing, Hershey USA.
Myers, M. D. (1997) Qualitative research in information
systems. MIS Quarterly 21 (2), 241.
Norman, D. A. (1988) The design of everyday things.
Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M. and Green, P.
(2006) How good is bpmn really? Insights from theory
and practice. In ECIS 2006, Gothenburg.
Rose, J. (1998) Evaluating the contribution of
structuration theory to the information sysytems
discipline. In European conference on information
systems (ECIS).
Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How
professionals think in action. Basic Books inc.
Scozzi, B. and Garavelli, C. (2005) Methods for modeling
and supporting
innovation processes in smes. European Journal of
Information Systems 8 (1), 120-137.
Senge, P. (1994) Den femte diciplinen. Nerenius&Santérus
Förlag, Stockholm.
Shneiderman, B. (1998) Designing the user interface.
Addison Wesley Longman.
Street, C. T. and Meister, D. B. (2004) Small business
growth and internal transperancy:The role if
information systems. MISQ 28 (3),
White, S. A. (2004) Introduction to bpmn. BPMN.org.
Vidgen, R. and Braa, K. (1997) Balancing interpretation
and intervention in information system research:The
action case approach. In IFIP WG 8.2 International
conference on information systems and qualitative
research (Lee and Liebenau and Degross, Eds).
ICEIS 2007 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
598