The Power of Structuring the Unknown–A Unique Human Capability

  • Roland HoltenEmail author
  • Christoph Rosenkranz


Humans structure the unknown in scientific endeavors and in design/development projects; they interact in social structures using the human ability to communicate meaningfully. These capabilities give humans the power to control our world. Recent technological advances in artificial intelligence (AI) prompt proponents to argue that they lead to utopias where intelligent machines exercise power over humans, control and restrict our freedom, and rule the world. This paper analyzes the human capability of structuring the unknown and argues that AI will never be able to develop sufficient capacity for the capability of structuring the unknown.


  1. Al-Natour, S., & Benbasat, I. (2009). The adoption and use of IT artifacts: A new interaction- centric model for the study of user-artifact relationship. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10), 661–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bostrom, R., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). No MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Box, G. E. P., Hunter, J. S., & Hunter, W. G. (1978). Statistics for experimenters: an introduction to design, data analysis, and model building. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corvera Charaf, M., Rosenkranz, C., & Holten, R. (2013). The emergence of shared understanding: Applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements development process. Information Systems Journal, 23(2), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gasson, S. (1999). A social action model of situated information systems design. The Data Base for Advanced in Information Systems, 30(2), 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gauch, H. G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of theory of structuration. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grgecic, D., Holten, R., & Rosenkranz, C. (2015). The impact of functional affordances and symbolic expressions on the formation of beliefs. Journal of the Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar
  12. Holten, R. (2003). Integration von Informationssystemen. Theorie und Anwendung im Supply Chain Management. Münster.Google Scholar
  13. Holten, R. (2007). Deriving an IS-theory from an epistemological position. In Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Toowoomba, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Holten, R., & Rosenkranz, C. (2011). Designing viable social systems: The role of linguistic communication for self-organization. Kybernetes, 40(3/4), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1984). Logical propaedeutic. Pre-school of reasonable discourse. Lanham, MD, USA: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leonardi, P. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10/11), 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nikolić, D. (2015). Practopoiesis: Or how life fosters a mind. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 373, 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nikolić, D. (2017). Why deep neural nets cannot ever match biological intelligence and what to do about it? International Journal of Automation and Computing, 14(5), 532–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (2003). Structuration theory in information systems research: Methods and controversies. In M. E. Whitman & A. B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of information systems research (pp. 206–248). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  22. Recker, J., Holten, R., Hummel, M., & Rosenkranz, C. (2017). How agile practices impact customer responsiveness and development success: A field study. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenkranz, C., Corvera Charaf, M., & Holten, R. (2013). Language quality in requirements development: Tracing communication in the process of information systems development. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenkranz, C., Holten, R., Räkers, M., & Behrmann, W. (2017). Supporting the design of data integration requirements during the development of data warehouses: A communication theory-based approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(1), 84–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations