Ecosystems and Capabilities as a Service

7 years ago, I got an invitation from Prof. Wil Van der Aalst to participate in a research project lead by the Fraunhofer university, related with using process mining on process event logs, from different companies. The idea was to benchmark and compare how the a similar process was being executed (e.g.: order to cash) in a way that all the companies involved could learn how its process was behaving vis-à-vis the others. There was also another technical research challenge related on data preparation that allow balanced, not biased, process performance comparison. Data sources were being managed and stored by ERP’s and even on the case the ERP used was the same, challenges related with version, database schema or process flow design were also relevant in the research domain.

In those days, companies were not prepared to share such kind of data, it was considered a loss of competitive advantage to expose and compare performance with competitors. Digital transformation was a strategic concept that was not born yet, that resides on how value chain separation fades and starts to intersect with other value chains of different industry sectors, that enables new business models that were not even possible (in todays environment a oil company can provide electricity poles to recharge electrical vehicles, from distributed energy source provided by an utility company) . To another extent, a company is no longer as a member of a single industry sector but as part of a business ecosystem that crosses a variety of industries.

I am working lately with e-commerce companies in Asia. Despite they still pursue a growth strategy in terms of average customer spending, merchants onboarding, sales increase, they are also looking to transform themselves into a software company. For example an e-commerce company wants to stop to transport an order to the customer, to evolve the shipping capability to streamlining sourcing, planning, execution, settlement and end-to-end transport optimization and introduce responsive packaging systems (critical for food safety) or Just in Time supply integration via real time condition monitoring, meaning, the e-commerce company can start exploring direct supply integration with electronics companies or automotive industry. The more they penetrate into new industries by the evolution of the capability, that can include among others: Collaborative Commerce, Product accountability, Supplier Risk Management, Demand Forecasting, Warehouse Management, Smart Contracts, they are able to grow outside their core business and can start providing Retail-as-a-Service for companies that want to enter in the market they operate, connecting local factories where the products are produced to the front end commerce portals and the underlying delivery to the consumers. The capability is not a property and competitive advantage of the e-commerce company is now shared and sold as a service to other companies.

Other area that I see looming is to re-use technologies that were crafted and used in multiple companies. Some start-ups that operate in the artificial intelligence arena are making of their business model to keep the IP and redeploy it in other customers, in particular A.I. models. Like in the example of the Fraunhofer research project, the objective is to improve the models used – for example: for credit risk scoring, fraud, asset integrity management. Customers require that data keeps private, but they do not mind to reuse models that are being evolved in other companies if they fit and they will seek to substitute for the next version as it progressed and continue to deliver better results.

In this kind ecosystems, companies coevolve capabilities around a new innovation: they work cooperatively and competitively to support new products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of innovations, as ecosystem evolve and originate other ecosystems, consumers or business users can interact, transact,  for a wide range of offerings, without leaving the ecosystem. For the companies that operate in the ecosystem, this means having access to new revenue sources. To the companies that are served via these new kind of ecosystems, it is also a way of lower cost of ownership, speed to market and access more evolved technologies to operate.


BPM Blogs worth reading 2013

Here is the list of BPM blogs I think work reading. This year there is a shift since I started to create the list. There are less pure BPM blogs. Nevertheless, here is the list, arranged by the first time, in categories.


On Intelligence:

  • Flux Capacitor – The place to look for process mining, from Fluxicon.

On Social Business:

On Complexity:

On Enterprise Architecture:

  • Tetradian – Tom Grave´s writes about enterprise architecture.

If you are interested in 2012 list click here. Till next year!

Process Mining Camp 2013 – Expedition on Social Mining

I hosted a workshop at the Process Mining Camp 2013 about Social Mining. Here are the results of the discussion with my peers and fellow miners.

Kick-start to the workshop

We’ve been supporting our way of working, based on the increased processing capacity of information systems that have created the illusion that the world was more stable, predictable and standardized.

However the pace of change in the economy has been increasingly accelerated, fuelled by a nexus of converging forces — social, mobile, cloud and information — is building upon and transforming user behaviour while creating new business opportunities that let people do extraordinary things and are automating repetitive tasks and decision making at large. This implies that our vision of the future has to be changed.

Any system, any process must be able to handle the complexity of its elements and be active and adaptive to survive. This implies that any attempt to limit the existing variety will lead to the system, the process, the organization will lose the ability to adapt. This is the reason that business processes are not anymore normalized, standardized and are getting more difficult to analyze.

For sure there are research methods to tackle this kind of challenges, there is an example like Simplifying Discovered Process Models from Dirk Fahland, Wil M.P. van der Aalst, but the thing is variation, complexity cannot be predicted, and such methods can work in predefined or controlled because organizations live in a world where interdependence, self-organization and emergence are agility, adaptability and flexibility.

It is a networked composed world in the design of collaborative-networked organizations.

These networked configurations comes to the composition of complex systems, from cells, to society and enterprises (associations of individuals, technology and products). In those complex systems, characteristics of emergence, order and self-organization, develop a set of network interdependent actions not visible in the individual parts. This is the reason why defining methods to analyze a domain fail if the domain and the parts change, which is what most of the times occurs once we are living in a world of variety.

The facts that are changing everything

There a hand full of facts that are changing everything the way we work, basically that are two domains that are making a huge pressure on enterprises.

The technology factor

As communication costs drops and speeds increase, cost will no longer be a consideration in many parts of the world. As the cost of communication drops, the shift will be towards applications. Combined with increased computer capacity and speed, we will be able engage with, and have access to information in real time. Cloud will free organisations from fixed and limited availability and processing power. The way we are used to working  will dramatically change.

The social factor

On the social factor, in leading GDP countries, we are facing a displacement of “assembly line” people to aspiring ones; this is because work can be transferred to those that can do the same thing for less than a half of the cost. This shift occurs in industry sectors from manufacturing to services. But in the near future tiny tasks will be fully automated and unfortunately those brave workers will be obliterated, unless there are new work opportunities, or chances to execute more complex work. People will have to adapt and start pushing their capabilities to new boundaries.

This shift has also a profound implication on the type of people companies are sourcing in the labor market. As leading companies expand and operations are outsourced or transferred to low wages economies, the future workers profile will be aimed at highly skilled persons capable of embracing business dynamics.

The convergence of three important process dimensions

The complexity were are living with, implies that we to look and align other kind of dimensions we were not used to look before to tackle the factors that are transforming the way processes are executed. Control flow perspective does not provide any kind of insight because there are not two similar instances and because under social collaboration paradigms the process is the conversation or the interaction and there are infinite ways to do that. Time perspective is important and will continue to be important but is definitely not the best way to understand behaviour.

In fact today we have immense analytical capabilities, but how do we understand a fundamental challenge for organizations that is how people socialize? How do they work? the configuration makes sense? It is too centralized, depends always from the same person and the same organizational units or is open and anyone can be invited to join? The type of knowledge applied is abstract, i.e. people can apply recurrent solutions to daily problems in a multitude of situations, and only apply customized solutions (concrete knowledge)? Knowledge is reused? Information flows naturally or processes are too structured and best practice oriented that are turning organizations into fragile systems because they are not able to change, react to unpredictable facts and adapt?

This was the background of the workshop.

The quest

Our society is constructed around flows. This construction is also applied inside organizations and among its stakeholders. This is what we are made of.

Flows are the sequence of interaction between physically disjointed positions held by social actors, that belong to a particular social network.

Dominant social structure are those arrangements of organizations whose internal logic plays a strategic role in shaping social practices.

Thence the trick is you are able to align network structure to the process type being executed and evolve the network type according to circumstances. In order words, you need to introduce and maintain an adaptive social approach. But that is not enough. You can have the best social network configuration, but knowledge is poorly used, or you let people set them free when it should be supposed to reuse solutions all and over again.

Social dimension – social networks configuration

Once the process transformed into something that is the conversation, we need to understand how people engage. In other words, what is the network configuration. It’s somehow accepted that network patterns can indicate the way people work and share information.

As a reference on social network patterns, and social network discovery techniques you can learn it here in this post.

Challenge #1
Centrality is used to measure degree distribution. But all measures are wrong and some are useful.

From the discussion resulted that:

Information (logs) about social iteration that spreads into e-mail, social tools like activity streams, messaging, video chat, that can help to discover the way socialization occurs are difficult to obtain, due:

  • The effort to obtain this information can be infinite, because is recorded across multiple platforms and most of the records do not have a common key;
  • Some information is inaccessible if is recorded inside systems that the company, the entity that has interest in understanding what is happening is not responsible for the system administration (event if it is administrated indirectly);

Privacy concerns. There is a clear division about the approach how information is considered private across different parts of the globe. For example, in most European countries, at large, data like e-mail, stored in the employer devices is still personal, even if it is corporate e-mail. This challenge is amplified if data is stored in personal e-mail or devices even if it is from corporate source).

Building the complete log can be overwhelming if social interaction is spread in multiples systems. Without entering into technical details, is much more  difficult that joining different database tables.

It’s more important if the social dimension could be embedded in the control flow, rather than being analyzed separately. If the process is the flow and the process is social the visualization should be integrated. I consider that this point is key for developers.

Knowledge types – What type of knowledge exists and how it’s applied

Healthcare industry has always been characterized by the involvement of multiple professionals for diagnosis and treatment of patients where information sharing plays a key role. Health professionals (as well as professionals from other industries), tend to work around problems, address the immediate needs of patients rather than resolve ambiguities. As a result, people face “the same issue, every day indefinitely,” which results into inefficiency. In other words, people like to design, the same solutions always. How can you overcome this challenge and what can be done so that the knowledge use can be more abstract and knowledge itself can evolve within the organization?

Knowledge consumption should be aligned with the type process design. For example a repetitive task is usually automated turning into explicit knowledge use, documented and understood by all. There is often a temptation to simplify the existing complexity, automating and standardizing how to proceed to the point of “crystallize” only a small part of the information that people have to process, making it difficult to cope with the changing conditions of execution, thus leaving no room to use of the tacit dimension.

Knowledge is not then just a twin flavor (explicit or tacit) but it’s more than that.

Challenge #2
How to discover and measure knowledge type?

There can be different types across parts of the process and measuring is not automatic.

From the discussion resulted:

People would like to spot the indispensables. The ones that makes the difference, when a solution is build. That could be measured by how many person in the company “like”, use, apply the knowledge that was created.

Many think that the problem with knowledge discovery and usage is related with the tools used to store and share it (portals, wikis or alike). Some examples were provided in IT context, like a patch, a pattern that was sent over the development team, was considered to be handy, because everyone was involved working in the solution and as such knowledge gets codified, but big

knowledge repositories are not considered to be useful.

The lynchpins, the indispensables, don’t like to codify it’s knowledge, because it makes them … dispensable (I tend to agree, but there are some generations that live under the share paradigm and make the others contribute to the company success).

A side interested comment was presented:

Knowledge finding automation is highly requested. Even with a Swiss army of systems to manage knowledge, it’s hard to find.

Discovering process types

Process are not from a single flavor anymore. Today it’s possible to find a very pre-defined type, but also a blend of every type available across multiples process instances.

Today processes are blended. You can handle a claim with a customer in a loosely manner and in the end pay a compensation using a by the book, best practice, “ever day the same thing”.

Challenge #3

How to understand what process type we are looking at?

The structured ones are easy to find, but Ad-hoc and Adaptive put extra challenges, particularly if parts are blended with structured ones.

From the discussion resulted that:

Most important that have super algorithms to spot patterns and discover process types, at this point of time is more important to have access to recorded data to actually let people think.

Process Mining Camp 2013

For the first time I attended at the Process Mining Camp and at the same time I hosted an exploratory session on the theme Social Mining, that I will post in a specific post about it.

Process Mining Camp is organized by Fluxicon, Process Sphere’s partner, and is dedicated to bring a mix of something old (the concepts, important for those are putting their hands on process mining for the first time), case studies (evidence that process mining can be used in multiple challenges) and something new (future trends that can be just around the corner in the next couple of years).

If there is an event you should attend to actually learn about process mining and how is making the difference, helping organizations to change and adapt faster, this the one you should save the date.

This is my take on the event.

Anne Rozinat – Opening Keynote

Anne briefly presented some numbers about the process mining community that includes end users and researchers. What is evident is that the figures are growing and it’s it should be taken more seriously by industry analysts (despite Gartner already put it on the radar).

Then it jumped to an important concept, that is taking advantage of maps to visualize and interpret data. It introduced the work of Denis Wood, that was very brand new to me, I’m more familiar with the concepts of Edward Tufte and my countryman Manuel Lima. Denis had a very important contribution in the way data is visualized and it made meaningful to anyone to be able to interpret it. In the early days, as a geographer, he designed maps around, traffic, power grids, social, mail delivery, energy consumption and others. The point was regarding how we can get information to make decisions from data, taking into consideration the complexity of how difficult is to analyze it, particular in a era where processes are much more difficult to analyze once factors like socialization, exception handling, real time adaptation and others. For those that continue to continue to defend grimly that there is only one way to analyze a process map, let’s say using BPMN notation, are still is denial that that particular or any other process notation, lacks (sometimes) other important dimensions that are important, for example distance or time. I say from Anne’s presentation that there is no specific best process model notation because it will depend on the analysis perspective. This is important because it’s clear we need to deal with variety.  Sometimes, we need to create other ways to discover and understand the process because if we are exploring a social network, how such process can be modeled alike BPMN models or how can we identify the dogs that bark and probably bite (a hilarious Denis Wood concept) when the mailman is going to deliver the mail?

Tijn van der Heijden – Rabokank’s case study

The case study presented was about supplier invoice payment. Some real value presented here, when the real process map showed that when suppliers send invoices for the first time the process gets fuzzy and it does not work as it was designed. This is an important conclusion that most people think that is easy in theory to analyze structured processes, even when mostly they are automated and the work that is being executed is a mirror of the automation. Well, is not.

Lalit Wangikar –  Process Mining for operational performance improvement case study

Lalit, travel to the other extreme around ITIL processes types, but on this case the customer stand up and said that our processes are unique. We have a job shop approach. This is not an assembly line, thus these are difficult to analyze, he said. The approach was to collect huge amount of data, from e-mail and phone logs, that in the USA is easier to implement, not in Europe, where legislation forbids the employer to have access to information stored into a computer, even if the computer is property of the employer.

Philipp Horn – Purchasing Process in Volkswagen case study

Liked the concept about the importance of procurement at Volkswagen group. 60% of the money flows are related with suppliers operations, with lots of differentiation among car brands, but also with a buck of components and synergies occur in the process.

One important fact presented is making a workshop for buy in and acquaintance with process mining approach, before the project starts (where I heard this story before …).

Other point was related how to get the root causes of the problems or bottlenecks in the process, in their case, the approach was more based on serendipity, that proved to work best because sometimes people disperse and present very different ideas getting difficult to structure it.

Also we pointed that, as far I understood, it was possible to identify that in some cases they discovered that the wrong participant was making something on the process. This is critical, when on these days we are overwhelmed with information to process and some make us to waste time and be unproductive. If this kind of challenge exists in big companies, where is virtually impossible to make an assessment on everybody and managers want to make it most out of its human resources the realignment of a workforce can be done using process mining.

Michael Cunningham – Suncorp insurance company case study

Michael talked about a project at Suncorp in Australia. The process that was improved was related with managing incidents claims, with 600.000 claims a year, or 1 claim /minute.

I considered that the most important part of the presentation, besides the results, was the outcomes of the project the people vs culture (like an ad-hoc maturity model). He pointed out 3 different stages:

  • Understanding – show don’t tell, but it’s real.
  • Competent – reality vs preconceptions
    • o    That’s not right;
    • o    I don’t trust it.
  • Transformed – Process models just an idealized high level view.

I find this approach very practical and workable, because to make the case for process mining you need to reach the transformed state. For someone like me that experience this kind of reactions from customers, I assure that you don’t need to buy a maturity model for analyst firm to figure it out if your practice reach the right maturity level. I would only add a first stage that is Unbeliever – We don’t have data.

Walter Vanherle – Case study on Security services  

Process mining is really beautiful, but from manager’s buy in perspective, do not present them what they already know, do show what they don’t know and probably don’t like what they are looking at, that is where the improvement opportunities are coming from.

Walter pointed an important technical aspect about data quality. The timestamps. The stamps from the system used to support the service were different from the mobile phones used by the Security personnel where data was being recorded, making difficult to be sure that the SLA’s were being met and everything related to contract management.

Youri Soons – Case study Auditdienst Rijk

Youri presented the application of Process Mining from a auditing perspective. The Dutch National Auditing Service monitors the annual reports of all Dutch ministries and provides assurance on the financial statements that are included.

Apart from the case study, he make it a point trough a live demo, presenting how it is possible to be sure at 100% the segregation of duties was in place and the controls existed. I’m very keen with compliance, as someone in the past was responsible for audits and it always had the impression that something could be missing based on the sampling principle.  Youri clearly pointed out how it is possible to quickly discover what were the instances (from the thousands) that did not comply with the segregation of duties.

Wil van der Aalst – Closing Keynote

Wil went through a historical journey around process mining. Once I’m addict on the theme I will fast forward most of the presentation (Will actually joked in the beginning that making a presentation on the history of process mining, could suggest that his work around the discipline was over when he still have much more to give).

One interesting point was related with the fact that data, models and systems coexistence is difficult to separate (for this purpose go study around the viable system concept) and that’s the reason that there is so much confusion on BPM trying to break in parts the pieces that make part of the BPM philosophy.

Hence, for me, the key point were most about the future challenges, around the big data effect, that every two years everything doubles, meaning that the challenge is turning event data into real value, once the quest is how do we know that the data we are using can cover only a fraction of all possible behavior (think for a minute about data related with social interaction around end users dispersed in a multitude of systems, some or most, out of control of the agent that is taking control of the process). One of the dangers is to manually generalize.

Again, on the big data effect, and before jumping on criticism that this the reason that process mining can lose its hedge once it does not have the possibility to sit on the flood of data were the action occurs, I would conclude that is better to have the possibility of being exposed to part of the reality than live totally in ignorance and don’t have a change to transform your organization.

Social Network Analysis – part two

On part 1, I introduced the importance of social network understanding as the socialization of interactions is becoming a new working habit and as such classic control flow perspective analysis does not anymore provide information about how work is done.

On this post, I will explore important points to look for when performing Social Network Analysis (SNA).

On properties:

Social networks have typically the following properties:

  • Emergence: agents that belong to the network interact in an apparently random way. This feeling is amplified if there are many agents and / or there are too many interactions that make difficult to extract patterns. Emergence is all about separating the signal form the noise and make those patterns to emerge.
  • Adaptation: enterprises, communities, exist confined in a particular environment that when changes it makes agents to react. Environment can be external, interaction with customers, suppliers, government agencies; influence like the publication of a new law or regulation or competitor movements as they enter in new markets or create new products or services. Environment can also be internal and its related to the way agents interact that is ultimately associated with how business processes were designed, how IT solutions were deployed, culture, hierarchy configuration and formal recognition of authority, just to provide some examples.
  • Variety: Ashby, one of the father’s of cybernetics, defined the Law of Requisite Variety “variety absorbs variety, defines the minimum number of states necessary for a controller to control a system of a given number of states.” For an organisation, to be viable it must be capable of coping with the variety (complexity) of the environment in which it operates. Managing complexity is the essence of a manager’s activity. Controlling a situation means being able to deal with its complexity, that is, its variety [1].
  • Connectivity: The way agents are connected and how those connections are aligned with the process type that was designed / being executed and the type of knowledge that is necessary to support operations (more about this alignment here). The existing connections will unveil the emergent patterns that are necessary to identify and understand behaviour under a social point of view (high coupling or loosely coupling between agents or group of agents).

On network types:
Most of the times when people refer to social networks they are expressing their beliefs on community networks like Facebook, subject expert groups like enterprise wikis. Although those are important network types, they do not express the nature of organization operations, because they do not record communication acts expressed on social activity, hence I will only concentrate on Coordination Networks.

A Coordination Network is a network formed by agents related to each other by recorded coordination acts.

Coordination acts are for example, the interchange of emails, tasks as design on enterprise systems or activity streams just to provide some examples. The above definition is an adaptation of [2] because it does not include the importance of coordination act that is related with the nature of work, rather the connection itself. The former is the important dimension related with business process management and will guide the remaining content.

Coordination acts is meant to be as defined (adapted) [3] an act to be performed by one agent, directed to other agent that contains an intention (request, promise, question, assertion) and a proposition (something that is or could be the case in the social world). In the intention, the agent proclaims its social attitude with respect to the proposition. In the proposition, the agent proclaims the fact and the associated time the intention is all about, recorded by the system, supporting the definition Coordination networks, which configuration that can ultimately be discovered, patterns emerge, using discovering techniques like for example process mining.

Coordination Act V00

Coordination Act

On analysis dimensions:

Social network analysis is not new. Actually, the first studies were done around the 50’s of last century. Its refinement stumbled around:

  • Degree distribution: study connection number around a node of the network;
  • Clustering: groups with connection density larger than average;
  • Community discovery: measures alignment of connections regarding organization hierarchy.

There is an immense list of techniques to analyse each one of the above dimensions, that reflects the high maturity level of each method, but he drawback is that SNA analysed on each dimension alone can induce managers in the wrong direction. For example, studying community discovery can be important, because communities are a collection of individuals who are linked or related by some sort of relation. But carrying the analysis without taking into consideration the content of the conversation (coordination act) that drove the creation of the link is absolutely wrong, because the conversation is all about the way we humans work. I tend to disagree with other points of view from other practitioners that conversation does not matter (probably because they were influenced by Gordon Pask), only the network configuration. Conversation (the process) is the matter of study.

Social networks are self-organizing systems, but there are important patterns that emerge from the nature of the coordination acts that can be identified. Despite there are random factors and the type of patterns presented in most of scientific papers are based on graph theory and tend to be very simple compared with the reality (and hence maybe this is one of the reasons they are not taken seriously) it is the only way, as an abstraction, to understand agent behaviour. Pattern recognition is critical to align process type (from structured to unstructured), knowledge domain (simple to chaotic) and network type (central to loosely coupled). In order words, to infer trends and help humans to interact better regarding the role they play in the process ecosystem. Having said that, I would like to invoke Stafford Beer’s on models: “in general we use models in order to learn something about the thing modelled (unless they are just for fun)” [5].

Centrality is used to measure degree distribution. Centrality [2] is described as a process participant, business unit, group (a set of process participants or people) or an enterprise system (do not forget the machines) within the context of a social network. Centrality is also related with discovering the key players in social networks.

Some measures that can be used for Centrality are:

  • Degree centrality: calculate how many links a node has regarding the remaining network nodes (commonly called network stars). Higher degree centrality means higher probability of receiving information (but does not mean it drives information flow inside of the network).
  • Betweenness: measures the degree witch a process participant controls information flow. They act as brokers. The higher the value, higher is information flow traffic that moves from each node to every other node in the network. The importance of Betweenness in social network analysis is nodes with higher values stop processing coordination acts, will block information flow to run properly.
  • Closeness: measures how close a node is isolated in the network compared with other network mode. Nodes with low closeness are able to reach or be reached by most of all other nodes in the network, in other words low closeness means a node is well positioned to receive information early when it has more value. Closeness measure must be supported on time dimension (see reference about the timestamp attribute on the coordination act exemplification), without it, is useless.
  • Eigenvector centrality: used to calculate node influence in the network. Higher scores means a node can influence (touch) many other important nodes.

In order o put it all together its worth to consider the following self-explanatory picture [6]:

Diverse centrality measures V00

Diverse centrality measures

The challenge:

There is a lot of noise around what is the best measure to perform SNA, as I learned at the User Modelling, Adaptation and Personalization Conference 2011 it’s time to put the mathematical equations aside and practice it’s application.

At this moment of time, there are plenty of ways to measure network centrality, but somehow they neglect that those algorithms are not appropriate regarding the type of business process / information system interaction played. For example, Eigenvector centrality measure is important in unstructured processes, where the path is defined on instance mode and it is necessary to create a team and involve others as the process progress. Once SNA does not analyze the process type, only about agent relation, if applied analyzing a procure to pay process (highly structured process type) it’s useless and can damage results interpretation, because on this case, every agent, every process participant receives and process information basically the same way to achieve the same outcome every same day. Maybe this is the reason why is not yet taken more seriously, because these days the process is all about social  interaction and it cannot anymore be analyzed naively taking into consideration the dispersion, complexity and interdependence of relationships, something that can also be applied on IT requirements elicitation or IT system operation , which allows to understand communities interaction in order to support emerging and unique processes under a techno-social systems approach [7].

Social Network Analisys IT V00


[1] – Design and Diagnosis for Sustainable Organizations – Jose´ Pérez Ríos – Springer – ISBN 9783642223174
[2] – Large Scale Structure and Dynamics of Complex Networks – Guido Caldarelli; Alessandro Vespignani – World Scientific Publishing – ISBN-139789812706645
[3] – Enterprise Ontology – Jan Dietz – Springer – ISBN – 3540291695
[4] – Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling – A multidisciplinary Roadmap – Muaz A Niazi
[5] – The Brain of the firm – Stafford Beer – Jonh Wiley & Sons – ISBN – 047194839-X
[6] – Discovering Sets of Key Players in Social Networks – Daniel Ortiz-Arroyo – Springer 2010
[7] – José L.R. Sousa, Ricardo J. Machado, J.F.F. Mendes. Modeling Organizational Information Systems Using “Complex Networks” Concepts. IEEE Computer Society 2012, ISBN 978-0-7695-4777