Information Systems as the Genetic Material of Organizations: The Contributions of Jörg Becker

  • Richard BaskervilleEmail author


This paper uses the organizational genetics metaphor as a vehicle to understand the essential role of information systems in organizations. As with biological organisms, we can think of organizational information as being encoded in genetic material. Organizationally this material contains information about the essential organizational structures. Information systems are increasingly the embodiment of an organization’s genetic material because of the widespread effects of digitalization in today’s society. This organizational genetic material not only has a role in encoding structural information, but also affects the inheritance of structure when organizations reproduce. We illustrate the principles of genetic material as structure information using the works of Jörg Becker.


Organizational genetics Organizational structures Social autopoiesis 


  1. Baskerville, R., & Vaishnavi, V. (2016). Pre-theory design frameworks and design theorizing. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 2016–March, pp. 4464–4473). Koloa, HI.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Beverungen, D. F., & Knackstedt, R. (2010). The challenge of conceptual modeling for product-service systems: Status-quo and perspectives for reference models and modeling languages. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 8(1), 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., & Knackstedt, R. (2007). Adaptive reference modeling: Integrating configurative and generic adaptation techniques for information models. In Reference Modeling: Efficient Information Systems Design Through Reuse of Information Models (pp. 27–58).Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., & von Uthmann, C. (2000). Guidelines of business process modeling. In W. van der Aalst, J. Desel, & A. Oberweis (Eds.), Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1806, pp. 30–49). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, J., zur Muehlen, M., & Gille, M. (2002). Workflow application architectures: Classification and characteristics of workflow-based information systems. In L. Fischer (Ed.), Workflow Handbook 2002 (pp. 39–50). Lighthouse Point, FL: Future Strategies Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific Research II (Vol. 3/2). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  8. Devine, D. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1995). Domain-specific knowledge and task characteristics in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37–46.Google Scholar
  10. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations the population ecology of organizations’. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1986). Where do organizational forms come from? Sociological Forum, 1(1), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). How to implement a new strategy without disrupting your organization. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  13. Leifer, R. (1989). Understanding organizational transformation using a dissipative structure model. Human Relations, 42(10), 899–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172–193). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valiente, P. (2006). Re-innovating the existing: A study of wireless IS capabilities to support mobile workforces. Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  17. van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Varela, F. G., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5(4), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations