Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873

CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -

International
CENTERIS Conference on Project
- International MANagement
Conference / HCist -Information
on ENTERprise International Conference
Systems on Health
/ ProjMAN -
and Social CareConference
International InformationonSystems
Project and Technologies,
MANagement CENTERIS
/ HCist / ProjMAN
- International / HCiston
Conference 2017, 8-10
Health
and Social Care Information SystemsNovember 2017, Barcelona,
and Technologies, Spain / ProjMAN / HCist 2017, 8-10
CENTERIS
November 2017, Barcelona, Spain
IRESS: Identification of Requirements
IRESS: Identification
for Enterprise of Requirements
Social Software
for Enterprise Social Software
Johannes H. Glitsch*, Petra Schubert
Johannes H. Glitsch*, Petra Schubert
Institute for IS Research, University of Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany
Institute for IS Research, University of Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany

Abstract
Abstract
In this paper, we present a revised version of the IRESS Framework, a novel approach that supports the implementation of
Enterprise Social
In this paper, we Software
present a(ESS) revisedin version
companies. ESSIRESS
of the is a type of collaboration
Framework, a novelsoftware
approachthat includes
that supports“social features” and it of
the implementation is
changing the
Enterprise waySoftware
Social organisations
(ESS)work. Research ESS
in companies. showsis that theofadoption
a type of ESSsoftware
collaboration is challenging and that
that includes therefeatures”
“social is the needandfor
it isa
structured approach
changing the for their implementation.
way organisations work. Research Guided by athat
shows Design Science Research
the adoption of ESS is(DSR) approach
challenging andwethat
developed
there is athe
collaboration
need for a
catalogue and
structured populated
approach it with
for their real-world examples
implementation. Guided by ofaUse Cases
Design and Collaboration
Science Research (DSR) Scenarios.
approach Wewethen evaluated
developed the revised
a collaboration
IRESS Framework
catalogue and the
and populated it contents of the catalogue
with real-world exampleswith the help
of Use Cases ofand
a user survey of leading
Collaboration ESS user
Scenarios. companies.
We then evaluated the revised
IRESS Framework and the contents of the catalogue with the help of a user survey of leading ESS user companies.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2017 The under responsibility
Authors. Published by of Elsevier
the scientific
B.V. committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems
Peer-review / ProjMAN of - International
scientificConference on Project MANagement / HCist -Conference
InternationalonConference on
Information under responsibility
Systems / ProjMAN -the International committee
Conference of the
on CENTERIS - International
Project MANagement / HCist - InternationalENTERprise
Conference on
Health and
Information Social Care
Systems / Information
ProjMAN - Systems and
International Technologies.
Conference
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies. on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
Keywords: Enterprise Collaboration Systems (ECS); Social Software; ESN; Use Cases; Collaboration Scenarios; IRESS
Keywords: Enterprise Collaboration Systems (ECS); Social Software; ESN; Use Cases; Collaboration Scenarios; IRESS

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-261-287-2558; fax: +49-261-287-100-2558.
* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding [email protected]
Tel.: +49-261-287-2558; fax: +49-261-287-100-2558.
E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
1877-0509 ©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of the scientific
Published committee
by Elsevier B.V.of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
ProjMAN - International
Peer-review Conference
under responsibility onscientific
of the Project MANagement / HCist
committee of the - International
CENTERIS Conference
- International on Health
Conference onand Social CareInformation
ENTERprise InformationSystems
Systems/
and Technologies.
ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
and Technologies.

1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information
Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social
Care Information Systems and Technologies.
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.112
 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873 867
2 Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

Traditional groupware has been the subject of research for a long time now 1,2. In recent years, leading software
vendors further developed “traditional” groupware by adding “social features”, such as social profiles, recommending,
commenting, tagging or microblogging3 thus creating “Enterprise Social Software”. The new social features provide
a rich range of possibilities that enable employees to work together in the digital workplace. Recent studies show that
whilst such socially-enabled collaboration software is of great importance to user companies 4,5, employees are
struggling with its adoption6. We argue that in many cases the paradigms of Social Software are not yet fully
understood and that there is a lack of a structured approach for the implementation of this new type of software.
The IRESS Framework (Identification of Requirements for Enterprise Social Software) was developed to help with
the implementation of ESS6. IRESS serves a similar purpose as the well-known ARIS model. ARIS and IRESS can
both be used for the evaluation, implementation and the user training of Enterprise Information Systems. Both
frameworks were developed by researchers in collaboration with industry partners. ARIS (Architecture of Integrated
Information Systems) has been successfully used in practice for more than 20 years and is specialized on process-
oriented ERP Systems7. IRESS is a relatively new framework that was developed for the emerging collaboration-
oriented ESS.
In this paper, we focus on bringing structure to the understanding of collaboration software, especially Enterprise
Social Software (ESS), not only on a theoretical level, but also on a practical level. In order to do so we revisit the
original IRESS Framework8. The framework has been successfully applied in practice, but the application in user
companies identified a lack of practical examples to illustrate the features of ESS for the users. In order to address this
shortcoming we developed a collaboration catalogue – a collection of practical examples of use cases and collaboration
scenarios.
In the following sections, we will describe some important terms and definitions from the literature that are used
in the context of IRESS. We then revisit and revise the original IRESS Framework. Finally, we describe the
implementation of the collaboration catalogue and conclude by validating our findings with the help of a survey of
user companies.

2. Literature Review and Definition of Terms

This section contains the results of a literature review based on the key terms used in the IRESS Framework.
Enterprise Social Software (ESS) comprises collaboration software that incorporates components and features
known from Social Media such as blogs, wikis and profiles as well as likes, and tagging4,9,10.
Enterprise Collaboration Systems (ECS). The combination of different types of ESS and traditional groupware
(e.g. email) can constitute an ECS3,9. This kind of system empowers employees to make use of a broad range of
collaboration features, which can be made available either as a portfolio solution (different products combined) or an
integrated solution (a product from one software vendor with a range of modules)3.
Use Cases have been discussed in the literature in different contexts such as the description of software
requirements11 or a more formal description of the usage of software by means of UML (Unified Modeling
Language)12,13 and can be traced back to at least Jacobson in the year 198712. We follow the view that in the context
of ESS (and ECS) use cases are descriptions of business activities on a high level that support collaborative tasks6.
Examples of use cases include knowledge management, inter-employee communication and idea management.
Collaboration Scenarios is a relatively new term. Related concepts that describe the details of user activities in
ESS and similar collaborative software exist, such as “application scenarios”14,15, “application areas”16 or “cooperation
scenarios”17. Despite the common idea behind these terms the detailed understanding differs and is not always clear.
IRESS considers collaboration scenarios to be “a composition of activities that are carried out by one or more people
(actors) to achieve a common task (collaboratively)”, which more specifically describe what is done within a use
case6.
IRESS Framework. IRESS is an acronym for Identification of Requirements for Enterprise Social Software. Our
understanding of the terms “use case” and “collaboration scenario” have been outlined above. Their relationship has
been described in the IRESS Framework6,8. The framework was developed based on the 8C Model for Enterprise
Information Management by Williams18 and the original version contains four levels: (1) Business processes and use
868 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873
Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 3

cases (e.g. project organisation), (2) collaboration scenarios (e.g. finding an expert), (3) software components (e.g.
wiki) and (4) collaborative features (e.g. tagging). The first and second levels are categorised as aspects relating to the
organisation (the business). The third and fourth levels are categorized as software support. Use cases can therefore
be further described by means of collaboration scenarios, which in turn make use of software components that provide
a selection of collaborative features. The framework helps companies to examine their social software requirements
in context. It can be used for the selection of software to support certain business activities as well as in finding out
about business activities that may be supported by this software. A more detailed discussion of the framework will be
provided below.

3. Research Design: Three Phase Approach

The aim of the research described in this paper was (1) to apply the IRESS Framework6,8 in practice and (2) to
review the framework in the process of its application. Our work was guided by a Design Science Research approach19,
which usually includes the following process steps: awareness of a problem, suggestion, development, evaluation and
conclusion. Following this recommendation, the key activities of this project were organised in three phases:
In the first phase we reviewed the IRESS Framework for catalogue implementation and development the revised
framework (awareness of a problem, suggestion). We conceptualized the requirements of a prototypical collaboration
catalogue and matched these against the existing IRESS Framework. Additional “general actions” were identified in
practice as a link between collaboration scenarios and collaborative (software) features. Software components are still
understood as “feature bundles”6, but their specific place in the framework was refined.
The second phase consisted of the design of the collaboration catalogue and its actual, prototypical implementation
(development). Aside from choosing a software platform and the general design of the frontend, the implementation
of the database was a key concern of this phase.
In the third phase we concluded our research efforts by validating the revision of the IRESS Framework in
practice and at the same time started to populate the survey with more recent practical data (evaluation and conclusion).
We conducted a survey amongst leading ECS user companies from our university-industry initiative
IndustyConnect20. The objectives were to assess whether their representatives would be able to work with and assess
their companies’ use of the defined use cases and collaboration scenarios using the IRESS Framework. The research
phases will be described in the following sections of the paper.

3.1. Phase 1: Review of IRESS and Revision of the Current Framework

ESS provide interpretive flexibility for the user, which means that it is challenging to train for their use in a
structured way and user proficiency is dependent on experience. The original IRESS Framework from 2015 is a means
to show the logical connection of social software concepts and can be used to teach users to make sense of the field
of CSCW8. During our efforts to develop a collaboration catalogue in accordance with the IRESS Framework it
became clear, however, that some refinements to the original framework were necessary. The main structures of the
levels and the use of the framework remained the same. The two main aspects that were revised are (1) the additional
software components and (2) the link between organization and software support. Fig. 1 shows the revised model and
its additional components.
We extended the collection of already documented 6 use cases, scenarios, software components and collaborative
features by analysing additional case studies from the E2.0 Cases database (http://www.e20cases.org). During the
analysis we confirmed that the working definitions of each level were applicable in practice. This was true for the
levels themselves as well as for their categorisation into organisation and software support. However, bringing the
levels together proved to be more challenging. Use cases and scenarios had clear dependencies and did not prompt
the need to change these aspects of the framework. Software components, while confirming their characteristic as
feature bundles6 in this coding process with several researchers, could not always be assigned to collaboration
scenarios. This was caused by the fact that different vendors provide collaborative features in different components.
This raised the need to think about the role of software components in the framework. It could be agreed that (based
on their definition as feature bundles) software components would still need to be part of the framework, but be placed
at the bottom. The link between the organizational levels and software levels of the framework was reviewed. By
 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873 869
4 Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

moving the software components to a different location in the framework, collaboration scenarios are now represented
by collaborative features. During the revision phase that was mainly aimed at the implementation of the catalogue and
the practical use of the framework, we also reviewed research from different authors such as Houy et al.16, Koch and
Richter21, Osimo et al.22, Richter et al.14,23 as well as Schubert and Glitsch6,8. We also reconsidered aspects from
research originally used to create the IRESS Framework, for example the 8C model18.

Fig. 1. Revised IRESS Framework

During this process we found that the Aperto framework by Richter et al. 23 included aspects that the IRESS
Framework would benefit from, namely the CUP (collaborative usage patterns) matrix. The Aperto framework, like
IRESS, describes dimensions of collaboration software. Some aspects such as the notion of patterns are similar to
those of the IRESS Framework. The framework also confirms that collaborative actions are not necessarily occurring
in a set order, depending on the particular situation at hand. The CUP matrix consists of seven actions (“search”,
“edit”, “rate”, “rate”, “label”, “clarify”, “share”, “notify”) that apply a generic explanation of what happens in a
collaboration software. These actions are applied to three different object classes: “message”, “document” and
“person”. Messages are seen as units that contain any type of content. Documents are considered a collection of
content, i.e. social business documents24. Persons are the digital complement to people. The CUP matrix resulting
from the seven actions and three object classes results in 21 generic patterns (collaborative usage patterns) as defined
by Richter et al.23. This view fits well with the IRESS notion of collaboration scenarios though the two views are not
similar. Aperto has a lower level of abstraction and variation compared to IRESS. Introducing the CUP matrix to the
IRESS Framework adds a new level of classification of business activities. At the same time the generic actions can
be closely related to collaborative features. For example, the collaboration scenario “alerting to news” requires that,
870 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873
Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 5

aside from potential other actions, an action “notify” is invoked. This can be done using several collaborative features,
e.g. a comment or a chat. This links the organizational levels of the IRESS Framework with the software support
levels and therefore provides the missing connection. To better reflect more recent findings on documents in ESS 24,
we included Social Business Documents in the list of object classes and take into account that there may be more
actions and object classes to be considered in the future.
The IRESS Framework was revised (cf. Fig. 1) with two major changes: (1) We moved the software component
level to the bottom of the framework to better reflect their nature as feature bundles and (2) we introduced the CUP
actions and the corresponding (adapted) object classes as a link between organizational levels and software support
levels. With these revisions in place, we were able to develop a software solution (a Web application) for the collection
of use cases and collaboration scenarios, which will be described in the following section.

3.2. Phase 2: Application of the Revised IRESS Framework in a Collaboration Catalogue

As indicated above, the practical applicability of our research findings and their use in companies are key goals in
this project. The concepts of IRESS were therefore not only discussed in workshops of an university-industry
initiative20, but also implemented in a collaboration catalogue prototype. The prototype was developed using the open
source software “Joomla!”, a freely available Web Content Management System. To allow graphical yet dynamic
representations the JavaScript libraries Raphaël (http://dmitrybaranovskiy.github.io/raphael/) and Dracula.js
(https://www.graphdracula.net) were used. The Joomla! default implementation (files and database) was not altered,
but extended independently by means provided by Joomla!.
The general concept of the collaboration catalogue is based on the structure of the items in the IRESS Framework.
The relationship between use cases, collaboration scenarios, actions and collaborative features as well as software
components has already been outlined above. Fig. 2 shows the UML diagram of the objects and their relationships.

Fig. 2. UML diagram of catalogue taxonomy

A use case must therefore contain at least one collaboration scenario, which in turn must always be included in at
least one use case (e.g. knowledge management). Collaboration scenarios (e.g. documenting information) may, but do
not have to include further nested scenarios. Collaboration scenarios contain at least one action to be instantiated (e.g.
label) and are supported by at least one collaborative feature such as tagging.
Case studies of software implementation projects from the E2.0 Cases database were analysed for use cases,
collaboration scenarios, actions and collaborative features. Fig. 3 shows the three types of information that were
conceptualised for the database: (1) general information about the sources (e.g. title, year, industry) in the table
“Sources”, (2) information about included use cases and collaboration scenarios in the table “Cases” (e.g. name of use
case, name of matching collaboration scenario) and (3) actions as well as features relating to collaboration scenarios
in a table “Actions” (e.g. action, matching collaborative feature). The latter two tables are separated in order to better
reflect the potential reusability of each item.
The web views of the catalogue are generated dynamically from these SQL database tables using PHP scripts and
include two main pages: use cases and collaboration scenarios. By means of a dynamically generated menu item or
an overview page, each use case can be accessed. It is represented with its description, number of mentions in the case
studies as well as a dynamic graphical representation showing related collaboration scenarios and the number of their
occurrences. For example, the use case “knowledge management” includes 36 occurrences of the scenario
“documenting information” and 24 occurrences of the scenario “sharing information” amongst other scenarios. The
 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873 871
6 Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

occurrences are calculated from the database entries. Similar to use cases, specific collaboration scenarios can be
accessed from a dynamically generated menu.
Cases Sources
Fall_Case_ID Case_ID
Use_Case Titel
Scenario_ID Jahr
Use Cases … …
Org.

Collaboration Scenarios
Actions
Actions
Collaborative Features (C4)
SW

Akt_Scenario_ID
Software Components Aktion
Collaborative_Feature
…

Fig. 3. Catalogue database design relating to IRESS (examples; simplified)

The information for scenarios is more extensive including not only descriptions and explanations, but also results
queried and calculated from the database such as actions (and their number of occurrences) included in a scenario,
most commonly used collaborative features (including number of occurrences) as well as dynamically generated
diagrams for relevant actions, e.g. a collaborative feature graph. The latter includes all actions and collaborative
features relating to the selected collaboration scenario as well their numbers of occurrences based on the database
entries. Filters allow the user to discover the scenario more specifically, e.g. by selecting an industry or a company
size, resulting in dynamically recalculated and redrawn page contents.

3.3. Phase 3: Validation of the Revised IRESS Framework and Population of the Catalogue

The catalogue was implemented as a proof-of-concept for the revised IRESS Framework. The revised framework
underwent an additional conceptual evaluation with the help of an industry research programme20. Feedback from
practitioners given in a workshop confirmed general applicability and understanding of the concepts.
We additionally validated our findings by means of an online questionnaire. 22 participants from 17 early-user
companies responded to the survey, which contained three content parts (in addition to statistical information): (1)
occurrence of use cases, (2) occurrence of collaboration scenarios and (3) further aspects such as respondents’
feedback on the concepts. Respondents were asked to state the occurrence of use cases and collaboration scenarios on
a scale from “4 (always/very often)”, “3 (often)”, “2 (occasionally)”, “1 (rarely)” to “0 (never)”. A “no answer” option
was available. The question regarding use cases and scenarios was: “How intensively does your company use the
collaboration system for one of the following business activities?” For each item a short explanation was given based
on the list of use cases and collaboration from the original IRESS Framework6, e.g. “knowledge management” with
the description “Activities involving the documentation of experiences and expertise of employees making this
knowledge available for others”.
Respondents were able to relate to and to understand IRESS. This was particularly reflected by the respondents’
feedback that was requested in the last part of the survey. Statements like “everything comprehensible" or remarks on
the way Enterprise Social Software is worked with in wikis support this. 13 use cases (cf. Table 1) can be found in at
least 18 of the 22 participating companies.
The use cases “idea and innovation management”, “knowledge management” and “workshop organisation” are the
most frequently occurring. “Idea and innovation management” is a creative processes in a company used to exchange
and work on ideas in a flexible way. “Knowledge management” is concerned with making information available
across the company. “Workshop organisation” comprises the organisation and the support of workshops. According
to respondents the organisation of a large percentage of workshops are nowadays supported by Enterprise Social
Software. Further examples include project-related use cases such as “event management”, “project organisation” and
software development”, which are usually limited in time, as well as more permanent and communication-focused
use cases such as “inter-employee communication” and “internal business communication”. “Team organisation”,
872 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873
Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 7

which can be placed between these two groups, occurs in 94% of the responses. The survey findings support the
applicability of IRESS from a conceptual standpoint as well as its practical applicability.

Table 1. Results from the survey: use cases Table 2. Results from the survey: collaboration scenarios
# Name of use case Positive mentions # Name of collaboration Positive mentions
(N = 17 companies) scenario (N = 17 companies)
UC3 Idea and Innovation 17 (100%) CS3 Sharing Files 17 (100%)
Management CS7 Retrieving Information 17 (100%)
UC12 Knowledge Management 17 (100%) CS10 Documenting Information 17 (100%)
UC13 Workshop Organization 17 (100%)
CS11 Sharing Information 17 (100%)
UC2 Event Management 16 (94%) CS1 Alerting to News 16 (94%)
UC4 Inter-Employee 16 (94%) CS5 Finding an Expert 16 (94%)
Communication
CS6 Joint Authoring 16 (94%)
UC5 Internal Business 16 (94%)
Communication CS8 Enriching Information 16 (94%)

UC9 Project Organization 16 (94%) CS14 Posting News 16 (94%)

UC10 Software Development 16 (94%) CS15 Solving a Problem 16 (94%)
UC11 Team Organization 16 (94%) CS16 Creating Meeting Minutes and 16 (94%)
Tasks
UC8 Human Resource Management 14 (82%)
CS17 Discussing Topics 16 (94%)
UC1 Sales Opportunity and 12 (71%)
Quotation Management CS12 Conducting a Meeting 15 (88%)
UC6 Customer Communication 8 (47%) CS2 Conducting a Survey 14 (82%)
UC7 Management Accounting 8 (47%) CS4 Administering Documents 14 (82%)
CS9 Rating Information 14 (82%)
CS13 Organizing a Meeting 14 (82%)
CS18 Conducting a Poll 13 (76%)

The collaboration scenarios provided in the survey (cf. Table 2) were also frequently chosen. At least 14 of the
aforementioned 22 participants from 17 companies provided an answer for the each collaboration scenario. Of the
collaboration scenarios four collaboration scenarios are used in every company: “sharing files”, “retrieving
information”, “documenting information” and “sharing information”. These scenarios have a focus on a general
exchange of information and can be found in many use cases. Almost all companies use most of the other collaboration
scenarios as well. The eight collaboration scenarios “alerting to news”, “finding an expert”, “joint authoring”,
“enriching information”, “posting news”, “solving a problem”, creating meeting minutes and tasks” and “discussing
topics” occur in 16 of the 17 companies. Interestingly, 76% of the companies make use of every collaboration scenario.
Therefore, all of the provided collaboration scenarios can be considered relevant and the ability to understand them is
supported by these results.
The concepts of IRESS as well as its use for a collaboration catalogue that would allow practitioners and researchers
to easily access information about these concepts (such as use cases and collaboration scenarios) based on real life
information were therefore supported by the results of the survey. Based on the comments in the feedback section of
the survey, further population of the catalogue is possible and we see it as relevant to practice and theory alike.

4. Conclusion and Outlook

Our work to develop a catalogue for use cases and collaboration scenarios was motivated by the need to provide
concrete examples of actual use of ESS in companies. The web application and the contained examples are designed
to help companies with their evaluation projects and the subsequent adoption process for social software. Our research
process was guided by a Design Science Research approach. We evaluated and revised the existing IRESS Framework
and thus closed the evaluation loop suggested by Kuechler and Vaishnavi19. The population of the collaboration
 Johannes H. Glitsch et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 866–873 873
8 Johannes H. Glitsch and Petra Schubert / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

catalogue is still ongoing. We are currently investigating related research areas including the application of process
mining25 to make collaboration scenarios graphically visible. We are also applying methods of Social Collaboration
Analytics3 to be able to show the occurrence of our collaboration scenarios in the content databases and activity logs.

References

1. Ellis CA, Gibbs SJ, Rein G. Groupware: some issues and experiences. Commun ACM 1991;34(1):39-58.
2. Riemer K, Steinfield C, Vogel D. ECollaboration: On the nature and emergence of communication and collaboration technologies. Electron
Mark 2009;19(4):181-188.
3. Schwade F, Schubert P. Social Collaboration Analytics for Enterprise Collaboration Systems: Providing Business Intelligence on Collaboration
Activities. In: 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Hilton Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA; 2017:401-410.
4. Williams SP, Schubert P. Social Business Readiness Survey 2014. Koblenz: University of Koblenz-Landau, Working Report of the Research
Group Business Software; 2015.
5. Bughin J, Hung Byers A, Chui M. How Social Technologies Are Extending the Organization. McKinsey Survey Report; 2011.
6. Schubert P, Glitsch JH. Use Cases and Collaboration Scenarios: How employees use socially-enabled Enterprise Collaboration Systems (ECS).
Int J Inf Syst Proj Manag 2016;4(2):41-62.
7. Scheer A-W. ARIS – Business Process Modeling. 2nd ed. Berlin et al.: Springer; 1999.
8. Schubert P, Glitsch JH. Adding Structure to Enterprise Collaboration Systems: Identification of Use Cases and Collaboration Scenarios. In:
Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems. Vilamoura, Portugal: Elsevier Masson SAS; 2015:161-169.
9. Schubert P, Williams SP. The Concept of Social Business : Oxymoron or Sign of a Changing Work Culture ? In: 26th Bled eConference .
eInnovations: Challenges and Impacts for Individuals, Organizations and Society. Bled, Slovenia; 2013:222-235.
10. Leonardi PM, Huysman M, Steinfield C. Enterprise Social Media: Definition, History, and Prospects for the Study of Social Technologies in
Organizations. J Comput Commun 2013;19(1):1-19.
11. Dahan M, Shoval P, Sturm A. Comparing the impact of the OO-DFD and the Use Case methods for modeling functional requirements on
comprehension and quality of models: A controlled experiment. Requir Eng 2014;19(1):27-43.
12. Jacobson I. Use cases – Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Softw Syst Model 2004;3(3):210-220.
13. Dobing B, Parsons J. How UML is Used. Commun ACM 2006;49(5):109-113.
14. Richter A, Mörl S, Trier M, Koch M. Anwendungsszenarien als Werkzeug zur (V) Ermittlung des Nutzens von Corporate Social Software. In:
Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2011. Zurich, Switzerland;2011:5.
15. Niemeier J. Der Wandel der Unternehmen durch Social Media setzt sich fort. http://www.centrestage.de/2011/05/11/der-wandel-der-
unternehmen-durch-social-media-setzt-sich-fort/. Published 2011.
16. Houy C, Fettke P, Loos P. Einsatzpotenziale von Enterprise-2.0-Anwendungen - Darstellung Des State-of-the-Art Auf Basis Eines
Literaturreviews. Working Report of the Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik (IWi) im DFKI; 2010.
17. Stiemerling O, Cremers AB. The use of cooperation scenarios in the design and evaluation of a CSCW system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng
1998;24(12):1171-1181.
18. Williams SP. Enterprise 2.0 and Collaborative Technologies. Working Report of the Research Group Business Software, May 2010, University
of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany; 2010.
19. Kuechler B, Vaishnavi V. Theory Development in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project. In: 3rd International Conference
on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Atlanta, Georgia, USA; 2008:1-15.
20. Williams SP, Schubert P. Connecting Industry: Building and Sustaining a Practice-based Research Community. In: 50th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Hilton Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA; 2017:1-10.
21. Koch M, Richter A. Enterprise 2.0: Planung, Einführung Und Erfolgreicher Einsatz von Social Software in Unternehmen. 2nd ed. München,
Germany: Oldenbourg Verlag; 2009.
22. Osimo D, Szkuta K, Foley P, et al. Enterprise 2.0 Study: D4 Final Report. Bruxelles; 2010.
23. Richter A, Behrendt S, Koch M. APERTO: A Framework for Selection, Introduction, and Optimization of Corporate Social Software. Vol 12.;
2012.
24. Hausmann V, Williams SP. Issues for the long-term management of Social Business Documents. Int J Inf Syst Proj Manag 2016;4(3):45-61.
25. van der Aalst WMP. Business Process Management: A Comprehensive Survey. ISRN Softw Eng 2013:1-37.