Advertisement

Abstract

We describe ReKon, a platform that contains fine-granular templates, each describing a process knowledge chunk, which may be combined, as needed, to support ad hoc processes needed in large projects. The platform allows user-lead (re)-construction of a process to deal with the unique and emergent needs of a project by leveraging prior knowledge encoded in process chunks. We have populated ReKon with process chunks created from more than 1200 real-world project templates contributed by four consulting organizations. The fine-granularity of process chunks contained in ReKon represents a direct response to the emergent nature of large projects that defies high-volume production processes. The paper develops the underlying meta-model and operations for ReKon that adapt and extend the combination quadrant in Nonaka and Takeuchi’s knowledge creation framework. A two-phase evaluation illustrates the need for ReKon and points to its potential usefulness.

Keywords

ReKon Process Management Process Chunks Granularity Recombinable Process Chunks Systems of Systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brownsword, L.: System-of-Systems Navigator: An Approach for Managing System-of-Systems Interoperability, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm, B.: Some future trends and implications for systems and software engineering processes. Systems Engineering 9(1), 1–19 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lam, W.: Investigating success factors in enterprise application integration: a case-driven analysis. European Journal of Information Systems 14(2), 175–187 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Purao, S., Paul, S., Smith, S.: Understanding enterprise integration project risks: A focus group study (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brownsword, L., Smith, J.: Promises, expectations, and realities of interoperability: from cots to systems of systems (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charette, R.: Why software fails. IEEE Spectrum 42(9), 36 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, D.: An emergent perspective on interoperation in systems of systems, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fichman, R., Keil, M., Tiwana, A.: Beyond valuation: Options thinking in IT project management. California Management Review 47(2), 74–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keil, M., et al.: A framework for identifying software project risks. Communications of the ACM 41(11), 76–83 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keil, M., et al.: Why software projects escalate: The importance of project management constructs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50(3), 251 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wallace, L., Keil, M.: Software project risks and their effect on outcomes. Communications of the ACM 47(4), 68–73 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N.: SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning 33(1), 5–34 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A.: Vicious and Virtuous Circles in the Management of Knowledge: The Case of Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 9–33 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansen, M., Haas, M.: Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–28 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haas, M., Hansen, M.: When using knowledge can hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal 26(1), 1–24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parsons, J., Saunders, C.: Cognitive heuristics in software engineering applying and extending anchoring and adjustment to artifact reuse. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(12), 873–888 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Popper, S., et al.: System of systems symposium: Report on a summer conversation. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Arlington, VA, pp. 21–22 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lam, W., Shankararaman, V.: An enterprise integration methodology. IT Professional 6(2), 40–48 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keil, M.: Pulling the plug: software project management and the problem of project escalation. MIS Quarterly, 421–447 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lyytinen, K., Hirschheim, R.: Information systems failures—a survey and classification of the empirical literature (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tiwana, A., Keil, M.: The one-minute risk assessment tool (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duncan, W.: PMBOK–A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. ZDA: Project Management Institute, PMI (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Napier, N., Keil, M., Tan, F.: IT project managers’ construction of successful project management practice: a repertory grid investigation. Information Systems Journal (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verner, J., Evanco, W.: In-house software development: what project management practices lead to success? IEEE Software 22(1), 86–93 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Production Workflow: Concepts and Techniques. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheth, A.: From Contemporary Workflow Process Automation to Dynamic Work Activity Coordination and Collaboration. Siggroup Bulletin 18(3), 17–20 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Workflow Management Coalition, Terminology & Glossary, Document No. WFMC-TC-1011, http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/TC-1011_term_glossary_v3.pdf
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Han, Y., Sheth, A.: On Adaptive Workflow Modeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis, Orlando, Florida, pp. 108–116 (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ellis, C.A., Keddara, K., Rozenberg, G.: Dynamic change within workflow systems. In: Comstock, N., Ellis, C.A. (eds.) Conf. on Organizational Computing Systems, pp. 10–21. ACM SIGOIS, ACM, Milpitas, CA (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    BPMI.org, BPML|BPEL4WS: A convergence path toward a standard BPM stack, August 15 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nonaka, I.: A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge. Organization Science 5(1), 14–37 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, USA (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polanyi, M.: The Tacit Dimension, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tuomi, I.: Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schultze, U., Leidner, D.: Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions. MIS Quarterly 26(3), 213–242 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Graham, A., Pizzo, V.: A question of balance: case studies in strategic knowledge management. European Management Journal 14(4), 338–346 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Sambamurthy, V.: Emergent by Design: Performance and Transformation at Infosys Technologies. Organization Science 17(2), 277 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Karunakaran, A., Purao, S., Cameron, B.: From ‘Method Fragments’ to ‘Knowledge Units’: A Fine-Granular Approach. In: International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, AZ (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1), 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weston, C., McAlpine, L., Bordonaro, T.: A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development 43(3), 29–48 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandeep Purao
    • 1
  • Arvind Karunakaran
    • 2
  • Brian Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUnited States
  2. 2.Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUnited States

Personalised recommendations