Structural Coupling, Strategy and Fractal Enterprise Modeling

  • Ilia BiderEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 385)


The concept of structural coupling, which comes from the biological cybernetics, has been found useful for organizational decision making on the higher level, such as management of organizational identity and strategy development. However, currently, there is no systematic procedure for finding all elements (other organizations, markets, etc.) of the environment to which a given organization is structurally coupled, or will be coupled after redesign. The paper tries to fill the gap by employing enterprise modeling to identify structural couplings. More specifically, an extended Fractal Enterprise Model (FEM) is used for this end. FEM connects enterprise processes with assets that are used in and are managed by these processes. The extended FEM adds concepts to represent external elements and their connections to the enterprise. The paper drafts rules for identifying structural couplings in the model by analyzing FEMs that represent different phases of the development of a company which the author co-founded and worked for over 20 years.


Strategy Organizational identity Enterprise modeling Structural coupling Socio-technical Fractal Enterprise Model FEM Enterprise engineering 



The author expresses his gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve the text.


  1. 1.
    Maturana, H.: Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition. Cybern. Hum. Knowing 9(3–4), 5–34 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luhmann, N.: Introduction to Systems Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fell, L., Russell, D.: An introduction to Maturana’s biology. In: Seized by Agreement, Swamped by Understanding. Hawkesbury, Sydney (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoverstadt, P.: Defining identity by structural coupling in VSM practice. In: UK Systems Society, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoverstadt, P., Loh, L.: Patterns of Strategy. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Using structural coupling approach for defining and maintaining identity of an educational institution. Experience report. In: STPIS 2018, vol. 2107, pp. 24–39. CEUR (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beer, S.: The Heart of Enterprise. Wiley, Hoboken (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E., Elias, M., Johannesson, P.: A fractal enterprise model and its application for business development. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(3), 663–689 (2016). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cannon, W.B.: The Wisdom of the Body. Norton & Company, New York (1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bider, I., Regev, G., Perjons, E.: Linking autopoiesis to homeostasis in socio-technical systems. In: STPIS 2019, Stockholm, vol. 2398, pp. 160–170. CEUR (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bider, I., Regev, G., Perjons, E.: Using enterprise models to explain and discuss autopoiesis and homeostasis in socio-technical systems. Complex Syst. Inf. Model. Q. (22), 21–38 (2020).
  12. 12.
    Ibissoft AB: Ibissoft.
  13. 13.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Using fractal enterprise model to assist complexity management. In: BIR Workshops 2018, Stockholm, vol. 2218, pp. 233–238. CEUR (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bider, I., Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Design science research as movement between individual and generic situation-problem–solution spaces. In: Baskerville, R., De Marco, M., Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Designing Organizational Systems. LNISO, vol. 1, pp. 35–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Defining transformational patterns for business model innovation. In: Zdravkovic, J., Grabis, J., Nurcan, S., Stirna, J. (eds.) BIR 2018. LNBIP, vol. 330, pp. 81–95. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson, J., Donnellan, B., Hevner, A.R.: Exploring the relationship between design science research and innovation: a case study of innovation at chevron. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 116–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mott, V.: Knowledge comes from practice: reflective theory building in practice. In: Rowden, R.W. (ed.) Workplace Learning: Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice, pp. 57–63. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prolifics: Prolifics.
  20. 20.
    Prolifics: JAM/Panther Tools: Prolifics.
  21. 21.
    Bider, I.: In search for a good theory: commuting between research and practice in business process domain. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andersson, T., Andersson-Ceder, A., Bider, I.: State flow as a way of analyzing business processes - case studies. Logist. Inf. Manag. 15(1), 34–45 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DSVStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations