Engineering the Organization from the Bottom Up

Marielba Zacarias

1,2,3

, Rodrigo Magalhaes

3,4

and José Tribolet

2,3

University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

Department of Information Systems and Computer Science

Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

Organizational Engineering Center, INESC Inovação, Lisbon, Portugal

Kuwait Maastricht Business School, Kuwait

Abstract. The paper asserts that the process of emergence which constitutes the

cornerstone of contemporary sociological thought on organization lies also at the

root of the process of organizational engineering. Furthermore it proposes that if

the study of HRIS has crucial organizational implications, then the study of HRIS

should encompass also engineering and modelling considerations. An

organizational modelling framework is put forward which contains the following

propositions, also applicable to the design of HRIS from an integrated

perspective: (1) Enhanced traceability of organizational agents, (2) Situated

enterprise modelling, (3) Model acquisition from action repositories, (4)

Capturing and modelling work practices, (5) Aligning design and execution.

1 Introduction

An agenda for Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) research is put forward

by [1] arguing from an integrative perspective and stressing that research in

organization and information systems cannot be separated. They argue that the

integration of HRISs within organization can be seen as an intricate web of many causes

and many consequences and that HRIS cannot be studied separate from the organizational

context where they are interwoven. Hence when researching HRIS from an integrated

perspective, it is crucial that the researcher approaches the topic from an appropriate

ontological point of view.

Social emergence is the ontological point of view defended by those authors. [2]

explains that the emergence paradigm research “focuses on the micro-interactional

mechanisms by which shared social phenomena emerge and on how those emergents

constrain those mechanisms” (p. 213). In this paper we discuss an issue which is

relevant to HRIS, i.e. the problem of modelling individual-level behaviour in the

context of broader organizational action. Hence, it is important that the problem under

review is placed within an ontological framework of the organizational phenomenon.

Ontology and methodology are two sides of the same coin, meaning that the

methodology used to research a particular phenomenon will depend entirely on the

ontological perspective that one holds.

Zacarias M., Magalhaes R. and Tribolet J. (2008).

Engineering the Organization from the Bottom Up.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Human Resource Information Systems, pages 97-110

DOI: 10.5220/0001744100970110

 SciTePress

Whereas current modelling efforts are mostly directed at organizational

perspectives, little attention has been paid to individual or inter-personal perspectives.

Several approaches to modelling organization strategy, processes and resources have

been developed. However, models for individual or inter-personal levels are scarce

and have typically, different purposes. Research is needed to address the modelling of

individual and interpersonal behaviours and the definition of proper ways of linking

these behaviours with perspectives of higher organizational levels. More specifically,

research is needed to raise awareness and to illustrate the benefits of aligning

individuals and the organization. The aims of such modelling are as follows:

• Enabling the organization to capture and visualize different concerns of

individual behaviour.

• Enabling individuals to understand the relationship of their daily actions

with organizational resources and activities.

• Facilitating the analysis, discussion and (re)design of individual and

inter-personal work.

Organizational modelling and organizational engineering are of interest to HRIS due

to the closeness of this category of information system and all organizational

phenomenon. If organizations are defined essentially as groups of people working for

a common goal, then it is clear that any information system dealing with human

resources will tightly interwoven with the organization itself. There are many schools

of thought in organizational modelling but in this paper we are particularly interested

in a school of thought guided by the following characteristics: (1) Based on the actual

activity of organizational agents, (2) Situated in the actual contexts where agents find

themselves, (3) The model is acquired from action repositories, (4) The actual work

practices are captured and modelled, (5) The design and execution of work practices

are not considered in isolation but in an aligned fashion.

The school of thought in organizational modelling which is followed in this paper

considers organizational phenomena as being emergent in nature. Hence, we begin the

article by putting forward a model of emergent organization. The model is inspired on

the evolutionary logic of autopoiesis which explains the construction of social groups

starting from their biological origins and on the hierarchy of self-referential social

systems put forward in [3]. Each level exhibits to the same autopoietic characteristics

of operational closure and self-referentiality and represents a level of sensemaking at

which the organization can be analysed or diagnosed. The remainder of the paper is

devoted to an exposition on the proposed modelling approach.

2 The Emergent Organization

[3] argues that although autopoiesis cannot be transferred as a whole to social theory,

there is one key principle of autopoiesis which can - the principle of organization

closure. Such argument is based on the assumption that throughout the entire

hierarchy of systems, as proposed by [4], all the systems’ levels exhibit characteristics

of organizational closure. As we have seen above, for autopoiesis the main guideline

for the characterization of living, autonomous systems is not a set of inputs and

outputs, but the nature of their internal coherence, which arise out of their

interconnectedness [5]. In turn, organizational closure “requires some form of self-

reference, whether material, linguistic or social, rather than the more specific process

of self-production” [3, p. 111]. Thus, it is suggested that organizational closure and

self-referentiality are criteria which unequivocabily define social systems.

There are many simple examples of organizational closure and self-referentiality in

every-day life. Conversations are one case in point. In order to maintain its internal

coherence, a conversation between two persons has to be self-referential, meaning

that it must anchored on statements already made and for the conversation to remain

meaningful it must build on past knowledge. Our own perception of events around us

is also self-referential. An example comes from Gestalt theory in psychology and

concerns the phenomenon of apparent movement. When the light in one place is

turned off and the light in another place is immediately turned on, we experience the

perception of light movement. This illusion is the basis of the apparent movement of

neon advertising signs. The observer does not see two lights going on or off and she

immediately infers that something is moving. The immediate perception, on the basis

of past knowledge, is one of movement and it is only by careful analysis that the

observer realizes that there was no physical movement [6].

In Table 1 it is explained how social systems evolve from the level of the

individual to the level of society, consistently maintaining the attributes of

organizational closure and self-referentiality. Starting from the non-social individual,

enacted cognition theory [7] posits that knowledge of the world is formed through the

establishment of enduring relationships between the movement of the body and the

changes in the neuronal activity of the brain. In the words of [8] “to know is to

evaluate through our living, in a creative circularity" (p. 260).

The next stage is the stage where the first inter-personal bonds are created. In order

for the non-social individual to become a social individual the first and crucial

ingredient is communication, the most fundamental social category. As defined by

Luhmann, communication is “the reciprocal interaction between two individuals” [3,

p. 116]. Whereas actions may not be inherently social, communication is always

social and for action to be classified as social there must be communication involved.

Furthermore, communication generates understanding, meaning, emotions and

behaviour, the bases for the formation of bonds between people. “Double

contingency” is the basic mechanism behind the creation of such bonds.

“Double contingency” is an expression coined by Luhmann [3] to explain the

situation that everybody faces in interpersonal interactions of not knowing what the

other person knows or thinks. Given that knowledge is personal and self-referential,

when we speak or when we listen our interpretation of what we said or of what we

heard is always subjective and we are permanently engaged in an ongoing effort to

“guess” what the other person’s expectations are. Thus, double contingency can be

summed up in the following sentence: “I will do what (I think) you expect of me if

you do what (you think) I expect of you”. Still according to Luhmann, it is the

resolution of this daily conundrum that leads to the establishment of an emergent

order of regular patterns of behaviour known as social structure.

Table 1. Emergent levels of self-referential (social) systems.

Level

Type of

component

Structural

relations

Mode of

organizational

closure or

self-

referentiality

Emergent

properties

Society/

Organi-

zation

Societal

communication

Interaction generates

society and society

structures interaction

Closed

communication

domains

Closed networks of

communication bound

by structural rules

reproduced through

social interaction

Social

networks

Recurrent

interaction

within groups

Structural coupling to

a behavioural domain

in terms of meaning,

legitimation and

power

Conversations Enduring social or

cultural practices

The social

individual

Direct

interaction

between people

Expectation of

other’s behaviour in

terms of meaning,

emotion and

behaviour

Double

contingency

Creation of inter-

personal bonds

The

embodied

individual

Body, action

and nervous

system

Neuronal and bodily

relations

Enactive or

embodied

cognition

Self-awareness.

Learning

Source: Modified from Mingers (2001)

The explanation regarding the level of social networks and its evolution to the level

above - society/organization - rely also on the social theory developed by Anthony

Giddens. [9] makes an important contribution to an understanding of how social

systems are formed and how reality is socially constructed. For that author, the

evolution of society is radically different from the evolution of living organisms in

that society is a human production. Giddens’ central proposition - structuration theory

- provides a conceptual basis for explaining how social systems are formed through

communication, with new meanings and new words being generated through a

continuous process of narrative making by social actors.

Social boundaries, social norms, and the emerging social practices transcend the

individual and remain even after the individuals have departed. Particular members

may join or leave but the social organization carries on. This is true of small groups,

such as families, micro-communities or sub-cultures in the workplace but it is also

true of larger groups such as clubs, associations, firms, armies or nations. The

transcendental or extra-subjective properties of social organization are the same at

both the level of social networks and of society/organization.

100

3 Individual-Organizational Alignment

If we now turn to the individual level (non-social individual) of organizational

emergence discussed above, there are some key questions that individuals may

legitimately ask about their organizations. Questions such as:

• who am I in this organization, that is, which roles do I play, what work do I

perform?

• how, when, where or why is work accomplished here?

Answers to these questions will clearly help in the effort towards the next level of

emergence, i.e. the social individual. Such evolution is done through a process known

as sensemaking [10, 11]. Sensemaking is the basic mechanism which allows the

process of socialization to evolve in human beings. For sensemaking to ensue a

degree of “alignment” between the individual and its environment (i.e. the

organization) is required.

Individual-organization alignment refers firstly, to the capacity of answering the

questions related to the individuals and organizations as a whole. Second, it refers to

achieving an acceptable level of coherence between individual and organizational

answers. For example, the roles a given individual play in the organization should be

consistent with the roles the individual thinks he plays; or the particular ways that

individuals have of accomplishing activities should be in line with organization’s

processes and goals. Lastly, achieving this coherence should require a reasonable

amount of effort. On one side, the organizations should be tooled with methodologies

and technologies to retrieve the proper information about individuals. On the other

side, individuals should be able to relate their work to organizational processes and

resources.

An individual-organizational alignment means that the organization and its

individuals work together to organize the flow of processes and resources such that

they both address individual requirements and the strategic objectives of the

organization [12]. An adequate alignment level between individuals and organizations

enables innovation and, consequently, a competitive and sustainable advantage of the

organization. Enterprise models need to reflect this interaction between individual and

organizational views.

Agents are typically defined as active component parts of organizations.

Individuals, groups and enterprises are all organizational agents that correspond to

different levels of organizational behaviour. Hence, aligning individuals and

organizations entails aligning organizational agents of different levels. In practice,

achieving this kind of alignment has proved to be neither straightforward, nor easy.

Despite the existence of several IS/IT tools for this purpose, this alignment is partial,

frequently inconsistent or outdated.

Organizational agents are not only active. They are also adaptive and

interdependent entities. Hence, they both change in time. Moreover, changes on

individual agents trigger change in collective agents and vice-versa. Therefore, the

alignment of organizational agents need to be addressed as a dynamic and continuous

101

process. Enhancing organizational modelling to facilitate the alignment between

individuals and organizations as defined in this section, and illustrating its benefits,

are the main motivations of the present research.

4 The Problem Statement

It is submitted, firstly, that the emergence of the organizational phenomenon depends

to a large degree upon the alignment between the individual and the organization.

Secondly, that such alignment cannot be taken for granted; rather, it requires

conscious, systematic and continuous efforts. Thirdly, that the alignment of the

individual and the organization can be facilitated by (1) the development of a semi-

formal models of agent behaviour at different organizational levels and (2) methods

and tools to build, update and analyze the representations based on those models. It is

believed that on-going IT developments, particularly in semantic technologies, data

mining, and enterprise applications, should be explored in enhancing this type of

alignment.

5 Organizational Modelling

Models are abstractions of real life systems [13]. The use of abstractions has several

benefits [14]. First, it provides an increased ability of processing more information

and/or to process information more quickly. Second, it facilitates the communication

of knowledge to others. Third, abstractions give enormous powers of thought.

Therefore, models simplify and enhance the ability to reason about the system

modelled by omitting certain aspects according to specific purposes and points of

view.

Modelling is present in almost every discipline. One overlapping work area of both

organization science and IS communities is Enterprise –or Organization- Modelling

(EM). Organizations communicate, document and understand their activity through

models [15]. In organization sciences, models are visual representations of given

theories, described in terms of concepts and their relationships [14]. Organization

theorists use them to make abstractions more tangibles. In this field, the main goal of

models is to provide ways of thinking about the organization and to produce

management principles based on these ways of thinking. These models have a high

level of abstraction and are described in natural language. Thus, they are limited to

human use and may lead to different interpretations.

EM has also been addressed by two fields related to computer sciences: IS and

Artificial Intelligence (AI). In these fields, it has been mainly used as communication

tools to facilitate the design and implementation of business applications [16]. Despite

their differences, the frameworks developed in these fields share some characteristics.

First, they allow representing different concerns of enterprise in terms of several

perspectives, dimensions or architectural viewpoints. Second, these perspectives are

inter-related, that is, means of relating concepts from different perspectives are

102

provided. Third, enterprise models are described with semi-formal or formal

languages and most of them enable graphical representations.

Current EM frameworks are restricted to concerns relevant to system stakeholders.

Moreover, these models are not consistent with the contemporary paradigm of

organizations, since they are based on static, mechanistic and deterministic views of

the phenomenon. They are also based on an objective position of reality, that is,

organizational representations offer an ’aerial’ view, are assumed to be unique and

shared by all members of the organization. Another limitation of current EM

approaches stems from the model acquisition process. Several frameworks provide

means to capture the data required to build the models. These means have varying

levels of detail and support among the different approaches. In general terms, the

acquisition process is mostly manual, and supported by data collection techniques

including interviews, surveys, text/document analysis, among others. This type of

acquisition requires effort and is time-consuming, thus hinders updating

representations to reflect organizational changes, as soon as they take place.

Regarding model acquisitions, the development of information technologies (IT)

has increased dramatically the number and frequency of computer mediated

interactions among individuals. The value of emerging IT is not restricted to

supporting daily operations. Footprints of these interactions can be found within the

repositories of all these applications. Enterprise applications also provide analytical

power, with tools allowing the discovery of hidden patterns in data. Several

frameworks have been proposed to use these applications to enhance and accelerate

sensing and reacting capabilities of organizations. The development of semantic

technologies allows the extracting relevant patterns from non-structured computer-

mediated interactions. Hence, these technologies can be used in further enhancing the

analytical power of enterprises. The combined use of all these technologies looks

promising in facilitating the acquisition and update of enterprise representations from

actual actions and interactions among organizational members.

It is important to note however, that an essential pre-requisite for the successful use

of all these technologies entails overcoming the former limitation. This means

developing models addressing different concerns of organizations and its human

resources. The definition of these models need necessarily to be supported by

exploratory research works reflecting on the nature of organizations, its human

resources, and the critical questions that need to be answered.

6 A Proposed Model for Individual-Organization Alignment

The model proposed in this paper was developed as part of a doctoral research

program [17]. This work makes the case for an enterprise perspective centred on

agents and contexts. More specifically, this research (1) develops an agent-centric

perspective that is complementary to activity, technology, information, and

strategy/organization perspectives, and (2) proposes a way to link the agent

perspective with these perspectives. The concept of context provides the key for this

'linkage'. The proposed view is part of a conceptual framework, integrated by a

103

layered model of organizational agents, and a methodological approach to build

representations based on this ontology. This framework aims at enriching enterprise

modelling, providing and analytical tool for organizational analysis and (re)design

ends.

The model departs from five essential concepts (activity, resource, agent, role, and

context), and integrates agent and enterprise architectures that integrates multiple

concerns of agent behaviour. As a result, agent behaviour is captured in terms of

activity and resource-related roles, which are organized in three layers; (1) action, (2)

deliberation, and (3) change/learn layer. The separation of behavioural concerns in

different layers allows not only the addressing of more complex concerns, but also

defining modes of representation consistent with the complexity level of each

behavioural layer. Moreover, it provides a means of exploring and uncovering the

influence between different concerns.

The methodological approach developed to build representations based on this

model is organized around the notion of context, and encompasses six activities: (1)

bootstrapping, (2) action capture, (3) context discovery, (4) context-based analysis

and (5) context integration .

Fig. 1. The Methodological Approach.

In Figure 1 it can be seen that the bootstrapping phase is used to define the group

of agents to be observed, as well as the basic type of actions and resources to be

captured. The action capture phase collects agent daily actions and the resources

involved in such actions, in their chronological order of execution. Context discovery

aims at identifying and characterizing different personal and inter-personal contexts

from action groupings. Context-based analysis aims at finding recurrent patterns

within personal and inter-personal contexts. Context integrations aims at relating

contextual representations with formal tasks and resources.

Case validation was accomplished using non-structured interviews and

questionnaires, and enabled evaluating not only the benefits, but also the limitations

of the framework.

104

6.1 Some Proposed Solutions for Organizational Modelling

The ontological position of emergence poses several requirements on organizational

models. The model put forward proposes some solutions that aim at overcoming the

shortcomings of organizational modelling in satisfying such requirements.

Enhanced Traceability of Organizational Agents. Current EM modelling

approaches address organization’s complexity defining several, inter-related

perspectives. Nonetheless, none of these approaches fully acknowledge that agents

themselves are complex entities, which also needs to be handled with their own

architecture. Consequently, EM frameworks provide limited support in addressing

questions about organizational agents. A framework that integrates agent and

organizational architectures and contributes to an uncovering of agent-centric

behaviours is needed.

Situated EM. Current EM approaches assume the existence of unique, external

viewpoints, and produce ’aerial’ representations i.e. representations seen from the

outside of the organization. These representations, while meaningful for some

organizational members, are meaningless or incorrect for others. Enterprise

representations make sense for specific agents, and specific contexts. Departing from

actual actions and interactions, and the inclusion of the notion of context enables

situated enterprise representations. Modelling frameworks that take this fact into

account and allows the modelling of behaviours, situated within specific contexts are

needed. Developing ’context-aware’ enterprise representations provides the

conceptual richness required to address more properly, the complexity of

organizations and their agents. It also enables a proper understanding and comparison

of such representations, as well as their evolution in time.

Model Acquisition from Action Repositories. Enterprise models are mostly built

from interviews, surveys, questionnaires, observation and analysis of textual

descriptions of activities. The requirement is for a model acquisition approach that

allows creating representations from action repositories, an approach that departs

from a discussion of basic action types, and resources, as well as their meanings. This

departure aims at building representation conveying the same message to all

participating agents. In EM achieving consensus around the meaning of activity and

resource names requires is a time consuming processes. The usage of small semantic

units such as actions and resource-related items as the basic building blocks of the

approach eased the process of achieving consensus around their meaning.

Capturing and Modelling Work Practices. Current EM frameworks capture generic

task, activity, and process model that define behaviour at a role level. Modelling work

practices require the capability of answering the question; ”How does Individual i

perform Activity A? Which resource(s) use?”. This compound question has been

addressed by independent research in systems development and simulation, but not by

EM frameworks.

105

Capturing and modelling work practices means building diagrams situated in

particular contexts, reflecting the particular action types, action flows and resources

employed by given individuals in performing given tasks. Since these resources can

be human, diagrams reflecting inter-personal patterns must be built. This means the

ability to answer questions such as (1) ”Who (Individual i1) interact with who

(Individual i2)?”, and (2) ”How does Individual i1 interact with Individual i2?” These

questions must be addressed using a representation language and model acquisition

approach better fitted for purposes of organization analysis.

Capturing and Modelling Multitasking Behaviour. The impact of human

multitasking in individual productivity has been acknowledged by several researchers.

In these works, multitasking behaviour does not reflect how work is accomplished.

Rather, it reflects how agents manage themselves. It requires the capability to answer

question such as ”How does Individual I manage Resource R?”, where Resource R is

the individual him/herself. This behavioural concern has been addressed in research

works of human-machine interaction, human resource management, cognitive

sciences, but no EM framework has addressed it.

Capturing and modelling multitasking requires using a deliberation layer which

means using the notion of context to define work fragmentation, rather than tasks.

Multitasking behaviour is modelled in terms of context interleaving, and context

activation rules. Different tasks may require similar resources. Likewise, the same

task may require different resources, at different stages. Since switching costs are

caused by the need to ’pull’ different set of physical and cognitive resources, and

contexts reflect resource groupings, this criteria is more appropriate to measure work

fragmentation than tasks.

Aligning Design and Execution. The problem of linking individual behaviours with

organizational activities and resources is disregarded by EM acquisition approaches,

which depart from higher level of abstraction. The problem of aligning organization’s

design with actual execution using action logs, has been acknowledged and addressed

by the process mining research. However, the focus of this field is restricted to the

alignment of pre-defined application workflows, with workflows acquired from

execution data collected from logs produced by WFMS, and enterprise applications.

This work does not collect data from non-structured actions stored in message-based,

groupware applications, where messages are not associated with tasks. It also

disregards non-computer mediated actions and interactions, which require to be

registered manually. Without unstructured, non-classified actions, it is not possible to

get accurate definitions of actual organization workflows.

7 Tooling Algardata for Individual-Organization Alignment

The present case is an on-going case that is serving as a test bed for our approach. The

organizational setting is Algardata, a portuguese IT enterprise created in 1990.

Currently, Algardata employs more than a hundred collaborators, and provides a

variety of IT services. Algardata's clients include banks, government institutions,

106

hotel chains, distribution enterprises, telecommunication operators, as well as

professional law, architecture and consulting firms. During the last five years,

Algardata has experienced a very fast growth. The high number of knowledge

workers posed two important challenges. The first is related to the definition of

effective productivity measures for these workers. The second is tooling the

organization with appropriate means to identify all the variety of tasks performed,

how and when these tasks are performed, and which human and technological

resources are used. The goal of this work is to implement the proposed approach in

combination with traditional business and task modeling activities. In short, the case

goals were: (1) provide the basis for individual productivity measures, (2) provide the

basis for a bottom-up discovery of individual and group strategies and, (3) uncover

software development workflows.

The first step involved the identification of action logs sources. Three main sources

were identified. The first is the current production control application. Algardata

developed an application the production of software developers, where they introduce

on a daily basis, the time spent on different activities. With minor redesigns, the logs

created by this application are an ideal source of action logs. However, since they are

registered manually, these logs do not capture all worker actions. Hence, additional

sources are required. The second are e-mail logs. Though these logs require additional

and more complex processing in order to identify actions, e-mail logs contain a great

amount of valuable information in uncovering interaction networks. The third source

will be provided the logs from the Microsoft CRM application ®, currently in

implementation.

The second step involved the redefinition of the log structure of the production

control application. Employees introduce the time spent on project phases. They

introduce the client, project and phase related to that activity. Clients always refer to

clients. Projects belong to a unique client but several projects may be related to a

single client. Each project is divided in several phases. The specific activity

performed is not registered. Though this structure allows extracting some statistics

about the time spent by employees, it has several limitations for the purposes of this

case. The structure assumes a unique hierarchy client -> project -> phase, which does

not offer the flexibility and detail required to analyze the time spent from multiple

perspectives. Activities performed for internal clients are not registered.

The classification of individual actions in the corresponding project phase is

performed by the employees, and does not obey to any scheme or structure

representing the information requirements of the managers. Further, it poses the risk

of inconsistent classifications since different employees may classify differently

similar actions. Finally, the limited analytic possibilities of the actual structure have a

negative impact on employees' motivation to register their actions because they do not

see any benefits in this effort. The logs were thus re-structured to overcome these

problems. First, the new structure acknowledges external and internal clients. Second,

a set of action types will be defined. These types to be defined are semantically closer

to daily actions (e.g. propose, request, promise, elaborate (document)). Action types

are complemented with the resource-related items used or produced by the actions.

These actions will be grouped in contexts. Since activities are abstractions, the

specific relation of contexts and activities will vary according the activity definition.

107

Contexts are then related with formal activities in a many-to-many fashion, giving the

possibility of relating individual actions to several activities.

This case has recently finished its bootstrapping phase, that is, the definition of the

basic action types, and resource-related items. The identification of basic action and

resource types is based on two main sources; (1) direct observation and (2) analysis of

e-mail logs. An external observer captured the activities of the Aurora-Soft team

during random visits, along a two month-period. A log of six hundred mails was also

manually analyzed in searching for action types employed by the the Aurora-Soft

team. As a result, a set of action was identified that is not included due to space

reasons. A set of context types was also defined, by Algardata's management and will

serve as action grouping criteria.

The description of this case seeks to better illustrate the model proposed.

Nonetheless, this case is in a preliminary phase. The proper methods for context

identification, analysis and integration phases, as well as the tools to support such

methods remain to be discussed, defined and developed. Upon the case completion,

we expect to enhance Algardata’s capability of answering questions about their

workers, particularly of their software developers. Algardata expects to know the

actual action and interaction patterns associated to different developing contexts that

uncover not only how tasks are performed but which specific resources are used or

provided by individuals, and how individuals manage their tasks and resources.

8 Conclusions

Over the years organizational research has identified forces within the organization

which are more enduring and hard to change as opposed to others with are more

ephemeral or amenable to adoption. The former are usually of an informal nature (e.g.

cultural norms) and the later are of a more formal character (e.g. HRIS). From the

point of the view of the researcher these kinds of forces are quite unrelated and often

difficult to reconcile. However, the implementer of systems in the real world knows

that these kinds of forces are related and that neglecting either of them could mean

failure of the project. Hence, when researching HRIS from an organizational and

integrated perspective, as recommended by Ruel and Magalhaes (2008), it is crucial

to combine concepts from the sociology of organizations with techniques from

systems modelling. This is what we have tried to achieve in the present paper.

Social emergence is the ontological point of view which we defend in this paper. In

line with the autopoietic view, Fuchs (2003) argues that society can only be explained

consistently as self-reproducing if man is recognised as a social being and has a central

role in the reproduction process. Through social actions, social structures are constituted

and differentiated, meaning that social interaction makes new qualities and structures

emerge which cannot be reduced to the individual level. This is a process of bottom-up

emergence which we believe lies also at the root of the process of organizational

engineering. If we concur that the study of HRIS has crucial organizational

implications, then the study of HRIS should encompass the engineering and modelling

considerations we have put forward in this paper.

108

We have put a conceptual framework whose main purpose is to facilitate the

alignment between individuals and organizations. Nonetheless, organizations have

several levels of complexity, which are typically structured around individual, inter-

personal, group, organization-wide levels, as well as inter-organizational levels.

Hence, aligning individuals and organizations need to be accomplished on a level-by-

level basis. The proposed framework defines an approach to align individual and

inter-personal views with group-level views. At these levels, alignment entails

addressing several concerns of individual and inter-personal behaviour, and relating

these behaviours with individual tasks, organizational activities and resources.

We have illustrated the framework by means of a case study which aims at

highlighting some crucial modelling criteria of emergent phenomena such as

organizations or HRIS in organizations. The key modelling propositions contained in

this framework are as follows: (1) Enhanced traceability of organizational agents, (2)

Situated enterprise modelling, (3) Model acquisition from action repositories, (4)

Capturing and modelling work practices, (5) Aligning design and execution.

References

1. Ruel, H.; Magalhaes, R. : Human Resource Information Systems: an Integrated Research

Agenda. Forthcoming book chapter, Elsevier Science (2008).

2. Sawyer, R. K.: Social Emergence: societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press (2005).

3. Mingers, J. “Information, Meaning and Communication: an autopoietic approach” in F.

Geyer; J. van der Zouwen (ed) Sociocybernetics: complexity, autopoiesis and observation

of social systems.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (2001).

4. Boulding, K.E.: “General Systems Theory: the skeleton of science.” Management Science,

2: 197-208. (1956).

5. Varela, F.J.: “Two Principles of Self-Organization,” in H. Ulrich; G.J.B. Probst (ed.), Self

Organization and Management of Social Systems. N. York: Springer Verlag. (1984).

6. Hill, W. F.: Learning: a survey of psychological interpretations. N. York: Longman (1997).

7. Varela, F.J.; Thompson, E.; Rosch, E.: The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

(1991).

8. Varela, F.J.: “Whence Perceptual Meaning? A Cartography of Current Ideas,” in F.J.

Varela; J-P Dupuy (ed.), Understanding Origins. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic

Publishers (1992).

9. Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge,

UK: Polity Press (1984).

10. Di Paolo, E.: “Autopoiesis, Adaptivity, Teleology, Agency”. Phenomenology and the

Cognitive Sciences, 4: 429-452 (2005).

11. De Jaegher, H.; Di Paolo, E.: “Participatory Sensemaking: an enactive approach to social

cognition”. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6: 485-507 (2007).

12. Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded on logic.

SIKS Dissertation Series Nº 2004-1. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Netherlands (2004)

13. Liles, D.H.; Presley, A.: Enterprise modelling within an enterprise engineering framework.

Winter Simulation Conference, Association for Computing Machinery), San Diego, CA,

USA (1996).

14. Hatch, M. J.; Cunliffe, A. L. Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2006)

109

15. Caetano, A.; Silva, A.; Tribolet, J. “Separation of concerns in object-oriented business

process modeling”. 7th International Conference on Information Systems Implementation

Modelling, Rožnov pod Radhošťem, Czech Republic (2004).

16. Sakkerman, J.: How to Survive the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture. Trafford (2004)

17. Zacarias, M. S.: A Conceptual Framework for the Alignment of Individuals and

Organizations. Unpublished PhD Dissertation (submitted). Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto

Superior Tecnico (2008).

18. Fuchs, C.: “Structuration Theory and Self-Organization”. Systemic Practice and Action

Research, 16 (2), 133-167 (2003).

110