Abstract
Designing enterprise architectures for accountability is to reason about options. Instead of taking enterprise architectures as products, the paper seeks to comprehend how they are produced. Considering enterprise architecture as an entangled category of sociological, political and democratic challenges provide an opportunity to determine the political topos of enterprise architectures.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
References
Beck, U. & Giddens, A. & Lash S. (1994) Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck U. (2005), Neither Order Nor Peace, Common Knowledge 11: 1, Duke University Press.
Bittner, E. (1965), The Concept of Organization, Social Research 31:240–55.
Boden D (1994), The Business of Talk. Organization in Action, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Callon Michel and Latour Bruno, (1981), Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so, in Knorr-Cetina K. and Cicourel A.V, eds, Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.
Callon Michel (1975), L’opération de traduction, Roqueplo M. (eds.), Incidence des rapports sociaux sur le développement scientifique et technique, 1–28, CNRS, Paris.
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Public Law, 104–106, 110 Stat. 684 (1996), 40 U.S.C.11315.
Cicourel A.V. (1974), Cognitive Sociology. Language and Meaning in Social Interaction, Free Press, New York.
Cullinan C. (2004), Enron as a a symptom of audit process breakdown: can the Sarbanes-Oxley Act cure the disease?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 15: 853–864.
Dewey J. (1927), The Public and its Problems. Holt, New York.
Dourish P. (2001), Where the Action Is? A new foundation for embodied interaction, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Dourish P. (1993), Technomethodology: Paradoxes and Possibilities, Proceedings of an ACM Conference on HCI 96, Vancouver, Canada, April 13–18.
Eriksen S. (2002), Designing for Accountability, in Proceedings of the Second Nordic Confirence on Human-Computer Interaction, October 19–23, Aarhus, Denmark.
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnometodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Greimas Algirdas Julien, Courtés Joseph (1982), Semiotics and language. An analytical dictionary, Indiana University Press, Blumington, IN.
Latour Bruno, (1999), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies.Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
La Spina A,, Majone G. (2000), Lo Stato Regolatore, Il Mulino, Bologna.
Levén P. (1995), ‘From use to action. Concerning quality in a market-oriented information system’, Licentiate Thesis. Dept, of Informatics.
Lynch M, and Bogen D (l994), Harvey Sacks primitive natural science. Theory, Culture & Society, 11: 65–104.
Marrres N. (2005), Issues Spark a Public into Being, A Key but Often Forgotten Point of the Lippman-Dewey Debate in Latour B and Wiebel P. (eds), Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, Engelhardt & Bauer, Karlsrhue.
Mol Annemarie (1999), Ontological Politics. A word and some questions, in J. Law and J. Hasseard eds. Actor Network and After, The Editorial Board of Sociological Review, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Neyland D, and Woolgar S. (2002), Accountability in action?: The case of a database purchasing decision, British Journal ofSociology 53:259–274.
Paulk M., Curtis B., Chrissis M.B., Weber C., Capability Maturity Model, IEEE Software, July 1993: 18–27.
Power Michael, (1994), The Audit Explosion, Demos, London.
Sacks H. (1966–7,1992), Lectures on Conversations (vol.12). Blackwell, Oxford.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107–204, 107th Cong., 22nd sess. (30 July 2002).
Schutz A. (1953), Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14: 1–38.
Silverman, D. and Jones J. (1976), Organizational Work, Collier MacMillian, London.
Strathern Marilyn (2002), Audit cultures: anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and academy, Routledge, London.
Suchman Lucy, (2000), ‘Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.’ Sawyer Seminar on Heterarchies, Santa Fe Institute, October.
Suchman Lucy (1994), Working Relations in Technology Production and Use, CSCW 21–39, Nedherlands, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Suchman, L.(1993)Technologies of Accountability: of lizards and aeroplanes, in G. Button Technology in Working Order: Studies of work, interaction and technology,London: Routledge.
Thomas, N. (1991),Entangled Objects. Exchange, material culture and colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Zachman, J.A. ‘A Framework for Information Systems Architecture,’ IBM Systems Journal, vol. 26, no. 3(1987).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Campagnolo, G.M., Jacucci, G. (2006). Designing the Accountability of Enterprise Architectures. In: Berleur, J., Nurminen, M.I., Impagliazzo, J. (eds) Social Informatics: An Information Society for all? In Remembrance of Rob Kling. HCC 2006. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 223. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-37876-3_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-37876-3_28
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-37875-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-37876-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)