Managing a Network

  • Reima SuomiEmail author


Structures are meant to be rather long lasting and permanent; they should be simple and easy to manage. Networkson the contraryare usually, by definition, dynamic and complex. How can networks be given structure, and how can the best characteristics of structures be implemented in networks while, at the same time, not losing the best characteristics of networks? For a long time, the European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS) has been a testing ground and a platform for building a dynamic, novel network for innovation and new knowledge, which balances on the edge between over- and under-structuring. This article discusses the concepts of networks, structure and complexity and gives examples on how these interplay in the case of ERCIS.


Structures Networks Management ERCIS 


  1. Becker, J., Kugeler, M., & Rosemann, M. (2012). Prozessmanagement: Ein Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten Organisationsgestaltung (7th ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2005). ICT infrastructures for VO. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & M. Ollus (Eds.), Virtual organizations (pp. 83–104). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Gernsbacher, M. A. (2013). Language comprehension as structure building. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gristock, J. J. (1997). Communications and organizational virtuality. Electronic Journal of Organizational Virtualness (eJOV), 2(2), 9–14.Google Scholar
  8. Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67(1), 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2016). Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: The case of building internet. In Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems (pp. 104–142). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayer, A., & Puller, S. L. (2008). The Old Boy (and Girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1–2), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council. Committee on Network Science for Future Army Applications. (2006). Network science. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Newell, S., Tansley, C., & Huang, J. (2004). Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP project Team: The importance of bridging and bonding. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sawyer, S. (2005). Social informatics: overview, principles and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 31(5), 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schneberger, S. L., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The complexity cross: Implications for practice. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 216–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of mathematics: structure and ontology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, B. H., & Weintraub, E. R. (2002). Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices. (J. Law & A. Mol, Eds.). Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Thomas, A. (2011). Das Kulturstandardkonzept. In W. Dreyer & U. Hößler (Eds.), Perspektiven interkultureller Kompetenz (pp. 97–124). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. vom Brocke, J., Becker, J., Braccini, A. M., Butleris, R., Hofreiter, B., Kęstutis, K., … Tomáš, S. (2011). Current and future issues in BPM research: A European perspective from the ERCIS meeting 2010. Communications of the AIS, 28, 393–414.Google Scholar
  20. Watson, I., & Gurd, J. R. (1982). A practical data flow computer. Computer, 15(2), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Widen-Wulff, G., & Suomi, R. (2007). Utilization of information resources for business success: The knowledge sharing model. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 20(1), 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams, R. W., & Herrup, K. (1988). The control of neuron number. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 11(1), 423–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations