Interdisciplinary analysis of digital government work
Pages 481 - 483
Abstract
This bird-of-a-feather session attempts to break interdisciplinary ground in the context of work content, workflow, and work context analysis in Digital Government. The authors argue that using and connecting multiple theories and disciplines might yield more robust results and deeper understanding of the Digital Government evolution than strictly disciplinary research.
References
[1]
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196--233). London: Routledge.
[2]
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan, or how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro and macro sociologies (pp. 277--303). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[3]
Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering management: The mandate for new leadership (1st ed.). New York: HarperBusiness.
[4]
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester Sussex; New York: J. Wiley.
[5]
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, systems, and information systems: Making sense of the field. Chichester; New York: Wiley.
[6]
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester, West Sussex, England; New York: Wiley.
[7]
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action: A 30-year retrospective ({New ed.). Chichester, Eng.; New York: Wiley.
[8]
Cichocki, A. (1998). Workflow and process automation: Concepts and technology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[9]
Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial reengineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(Summer), 11--27.
[10]
Davenport, T. H., & Stoddard, D. B. (1994). Reengineering: Business change of mythic proportions? MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 121--127.
[11]
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147--160.
[12]
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 63--91.
[13]
Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: The cognitive work analysis framework. Information Research, 10(1), paper 210.
[14]
Fidel, R., Pejtersen, A. M., Cleal, B., & Bruce, H. (2004). A multi-dimensional approach to the study of human-information interaction: A case study of collaborative information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(11), 939--953.
[15]
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
[16]
Forrester, J. W. (1969a). Principles of systems; text and workbook chapters 1 through 10. Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen Press.
[17]
Forrester, J. W. (1969b). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
[18]
Forrester, J. W. (1975). Collected papers of jay w. Forrester. Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen Press.
[19]
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
[20]
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), p191 115p.
[21]
Fuglseth, A. M., & Gronhaug, K. (1997). It-enabled redesign of complex and dynamic business processes: The case of bank credit evaluation. Omega, 25(1), 93.
[22]
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[23]
Grover, V., Teng, J., Segars, A. H., & Fiedler, K. (1998). The influence of information technology diffusion and business process change on perceived productivity: The is executive's perspective. Information & Management, 34(3), 141.
[24]
Hammer, M. (1996). Beyond reengineering: How the process-centered organization is changing our work and our lives (1st ed.). New York: HarperBusiness.
[25]
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
[26]
Hess, T., Figge, S., Hanekop, H., Hess, T., Hochstatter, I., Hogrefe, D., et al. (2005). Technische Möglichkeiten und Akzeptanz mobiler Anwendungen? Eine interdisziplinäre Betrachtung (technical potential and acceptance of mobile applications? An interdisciplinary perspective-in German). Wirtschaftsinformatik, 47(1), 6--16.
[27]
Hofacker, I., & Vetschera, R. (2001). Algorithmical approaches to business process design. Computers & Operations Research, 28(13), 1253.
[28]
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Stoddard, D. B. (1998). Business process redesign: Radical and evolutionary change. Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 15.
[29]
Kallio, J., Saarinen, T., Salo, S., Tinnila, M., & Vepsalainen, A. P. J. (1999). Drivers and tracers of business process changes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8(2), 125.
[30]
Kumar, S., & Strehlow, R. (2004). Business process redesign as a tool for organizational development. Technovation, 24(11), 853.
[31]
Mansar, S. L., & Reijers, H. A. (2005). Best practices in business process redesign: Validation of a redesign framework. Computers in Industry, 56(5), 457.
[32]
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853--866.
[33]
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398--427.
[34]
Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. J. (2002). Walking atop the cliffs: Avoiding failure and reducing risk in large-scale e-government projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings on the 35th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
[35]
Pardo, T. A., Scholl, H. J. J., Cook, M. E., Connelly, D. R., & Dawes, S. S. (2000). New york state central accounting system stakeholder needs analysis. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government.
[36]
Pejtersen, A. M. (1985). Implications of users' value perception for the design of a bibliographic retrieval system. In J. C. Agrawal & P. Zunde (Eds.), Empirical foundations of information and software science (pp. 23--37). New York: Plenum Press.
[37]
Pejtersen, A. M., & Rasmussen, J. (1997). Ecological information systems: Coupling work domain information to user characteristics. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer & P. V. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd, completely rev. ed., pp. 315--345). Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier.
[38]
Pidd, M. (2004). Computer simulation in management science (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[39]
Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. New York: North-Holland.
[40]
Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.
[41]
Reijers, H. A., & Liman Mansar, S. (2005). Best practices in business process redesign: An overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega, 33(4), 283.
[42]
Richardson, G. P. (1991). Feedback thought in social science and systems theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
[43]
Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
[44]
Sterman, J. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
[45]
Stohr, E. A., & Zhao, J. L. (1999). Temporal workflow management in a claim handling system. Software Engineering Notes, 24(2), 187--195.
[46]
Tatnall, A., & Gilding, A. (1999, December, 1 to 3). Actor-network theory and information systems research. Paper presented at the Tenth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, NZ.
[47]
Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[48]
Zhao, J. L., Kumar, A., & Stohr, E. A. (2000). Workflow-centric communication mechanisms for organizational knowledge distribution. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 45--72.
Index Terms
- Interdisciplinary analysis of digital government work
Recommendations
Mobile government fieldwork: a preliminary study of technological, organizational, and social challenges
dg.o '07: Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Digital government research: bridging disciplines & domainsWith its GoMobile project, the City of Seattle is pioneering the utilization of fully mobile wirelessly connected (FMWC) technology applications in fieldwork operations with the aim of significantly improving its operational effectiveness and efficiency ...
Choices and challenges in e-government field force automation projects: insights from case studies
ICEGOV '07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governanceField Force Automation (FFA) has been introduced as the summary term for the redesign of workflows and business processes in the field by means of fully mobile wirelessly connected technologies and applications. In practice, governments around the world ...
Exploring Digitally Enabled Service Transformation in the Public Sector: Would Institutional and Structuration Theory Concepts Keep the Research Talking?
Digitally Enabled Service Transformation DEST in the Public Sector PS offers a unique opportunity for public administration PA and information systems IS disciplines to interlace. Albeit complicating the deployment of a coherent analytical lens in its ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
- NSF: National Science Foundation
Publisher
Digital Government Society of North America
Publication History
Published: 21 May 2006
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Conference
dg.o '06
Sponsor:
- NSF
Acceptance Rates
dg.o '06 Paper Acceptance Rate 20 of 58 submissions, 34%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 322Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)1
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in