Towards Evidence Based Splitting of Organizations

  • Martin Op’ t Land
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


The reported research program aims at finding and testing principles for adequately splitting organizations. Using actors from Enterprise Ontology as organization building blocks on one hand and criteria from organization science on the other hand, an expert-meeting was presented the organization-splitting choices for a part of the Dutch Agency of Public Works and Water Management. The experts could construct their own free-format (gut-feeling) organization choice and they could choose from predefined alternatives, based on the High Internal Cohesion / Low External Coupling criterion and calculated using the min-cut algorithm from graph-theory. The gut-feeling alternative appeared to be close to the (non-trivial) calculated organization alternative, with separation of functions as main reason for difference. Also, business service dependencies appeared to determine organization-splitting far more dominantly than information dependencies.


Storm Surge Boundary Constraint Organization Science Subject Matter Expert Construction Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Hackett, BPO-outlook for finance and accounting 2006–2008 (The Hackett Group, 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Umar, IT infrastructure to enable next generation enterprises. Information Systems Frontiers 7(3), 217–256 (2005).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas L Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin Op’ t Land, Bert Arnold, Ariane Engels, FPS: another way of looking at components and architecture in the financial world. Congress paper for the Dutch National Architecture Congress 2000 (LAC2000). Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carolien van Straten, Disaggregating the firm by means of Business Process Outsourcing. Master thesis Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2002. www.strategie-vsb.n1/pdf/8.pdf Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lance Travis and Jim Shepherd, Shared Services, Cost Savings, Compliance Relief and Prelude to Outsourcing (AMR-research, 2005).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin Op’ t Land (2006) Applying Architecture and Ontology to the Splitting and Allying of Enterprises; Problem Definition and Research Approach. Proceedings of the OTM Workshops Montpellier France 2006, (R. Meersman, Z. Tari, P. Herrero et al., Eds.), LNCS, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.L.G. Dietz, Enterprise Ontology — theory and methodology (Springer, 2006).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DEMO (=Design & Engineering Methodology for Organizations)-website, Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.B.F. Mulder, Rapid Enterprise Design (Dissertation Delft University of Technology, 2006).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin Op’ t Land, Bert Arnold, Jan Dietz, Effects of An Architectural Approach to the Implementation of Shared Service Centers. Financecom05 Regensburg, Germany (2005).
  12. 12.
    W.P. Stevens, G.J. Myers and L.L. Constantine, Structured design. IBM Systems Journal 13(2) pp. 115–139 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K.E. Weick, Management of Organizational Change Among Loosely Coupled Elements. In: Goodman PS Associates (Eds) Change in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 375–408. (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    CIAO! program (2004) Research program on Cooperation & Interoperability-Architecture & Ontology. Scholar
  15. 15.
    xAF (2003) Extensible Architecture Framework version 1.1 (formal edition); report of the NAF-working group xAF. See
  16. 16.
    D. Avison, F. Lau, M. Myers, P.A. Nielsen PA, Action research. Communications of the ACM 42:94–97 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allen S Lee, A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies. MIS Quarterly 13(1) pp. 33–50 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. L. Parnas, On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12) (1972).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erwin van der Graaf Architectuurprincipes voor de afbakening van outsourcebare kavels (2006).
  20. 20.
    Pierre van Amelsvoort, De moderne sociotechnische benadering — een overzicht van de socio-technische theorie (ST-Groep, Vlijmen, 1999).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jay R Galbraith, Het ontwerpen van complexe organisaties (Samson Uitgeverij Alphen aan den Rijn — Brussel, 1976).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin Op’ t Land, Organization science and systems theory on the splitting of enterprises (unpublished, 2006).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    L. R. Ford Jr. and D.R. Fulkerson, Maximal Flow Through a Network, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 8:399–404 (1956).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. E. Gomory and T.C. Hu, Multi-Terminal Network Flows. J. SIAM 9 pp. 551–570 (1961)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Situational Method Engineering website,
  28. 28.
    Michelle Girvan and M.E.J. Newman, Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99(12), pp. 7821–7826 (2002) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Op’ t Land
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyNetherlands
  2. 2.CapgeminiUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations