CC BY
68
ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS
_ /Том 10. № 6 (60). 2015 /
D. Stelzer, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany, [email protected]
Business Informatics: characteristics, challenges and opportunities from a German perspective
The study explores characteristics of the German academic discipline «Wirtschaftsinformatik». It is based on a literature review of fourteen publications on the history of the discipline and on a comparison of research approaches of «Wirtschaftsinformatik» and the North-American sister discipline «Information systems». The study identifies four characteristics of the academic discipline «Wirtschaftsinformatik» and derives six challenges and opportunities for the business informatics community worldwide.
Keywords: Business Informatics, Wirtschaftsinformatik, information systems, academic discipline, history, research approaches, behavioral science, design science.
Preface
Problem Statement
Business informatics is a section of applied informatics. The purpose of business informatics1 is the development and application of theories, concepts, models, methods and tools for analyzing, designing, and using information systems in business settings. Scholars in business informatics make use of findings from business administration and computer science (and sometimes economics) and extend this knowledge by specific findings [16, p. 2]. Business informatics may be considered as a) a section or b) a sister discipline of the academic discipline information systems. «Information Systems (IS) is a scientific discipline with global reach that investigates the development, use, and impact of information and communication technologies (IT)» [23]2.
1 The term «business informatics» was selected as an analogy for the Russian label «Бизнес-информатика». For a more detailed discussion of an apppropriate labeling of the academic discipline see section 2 of this study.
2 For a more detailed discussion of the relationship between the two scientific disciplines see section 5 of this study.
Compared to other disciplines, business informatics is a fairly young field of research and study. In recent years, several efforts have been made to compare the German academic discipline «Wirtschaftsinfbrmatik (WI)»3 with the North-American discipline information systems (IS)4 [e.g., 8; 30; 31; 38]. However, to the author's best knowledge systematic comparisons with business informatics disciplines in other countries, e.g., in Russia, are still lacking or have not been published in English [e.g., 27].
WI, i.e., business informatics as it is practiced in German speaking countries, seems to be a scientific discipline «still under construction» [20, p. 322]. Perceived challenges and opportunities, insights gained and experiences made in this community may also be helpful for colleagues in other parts of the world.
3 «Wirtschaftsinformatik» is the current German label for the academic discipline which is called «business informatics» in this article. However, since lately, the prevalent German translation for «Wirtschaftsinformatik» is «business information systems engineering».
4 For reasons of brevity the term «Wirtschaftsinformatik» is abbreviated with WI and information systems with IS in the rest of this study.
Objective
The objective ofthis study is to describe characteristics, challenges, and opportunities for the business informatics community from the perspective of the German academic discipline WI. It may help non-German scholars and students in business informatics to familiarize with some features of the German discipline WI.
German speaking scholars have sharpened the profile of their academic discipline by comparing it with characteristics of the North-American sister discipline IS [e.g., 8; 30; 38]. Hopefully, this study will similarly help international scholars to compare the German discipline WI with their understanding, definition, and shaping of business informatics. Such endeavors will, in return, help German scholars to learn from their international colleagues.
Method
The method used for preparing this study was a literature review of the history of the German academic discipline WI. A structured approach recommended by Webster and Watson [51] was used to identify relevant publications for the review. The history of WI was reconstructed from these publications and subsequently characteristics of, and challenges and opportunities for the academic discipline business informatics were deduced.
Structure
This paper is organized in the following way. As English translations for the German term WI have changed over time and different translations convey different meanings, the next section discusses candidates for translating the German label «Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI)» into English. Section 3 describes how relevant publications were identified and analyzed. Section 4 gives an overview of the historical evolution of the German academic discipline WI. Section 5 compares research approaches of WI and the North-American sister discipline IS. Section 6 describes characteristics of WI. Section 7 discusses challenges and opportunities for the business
informatics community from a German perspective. The study concludes with suggesting guidelines for the further development of the academic discipline business informatics. The last section also discusses limitations of this study and gives an outlook for future research efforts in this field.
Translating the German Label «Wirtschaftsinformatik» into English
In the early stages, several labels were used for the discipline that is called «Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI)» in German today: «Elektronische Datenverarbeitung» (electronic data processing), «Automatische Datenverarbeitung» (automated data processing), «Betriebliche Datenverarbeitung» (business data processing), «EDV-orientierte Betriebswirtschaftslehre» (edp-oriented business administration) and «Betriebsinformatik» (business informatics or business computing) [20; 35; 36; 44; 45; 52].
Since the 1980s, the label «Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI)» has gained wide acceptance in German speaking countries. Translating the German label WI into English is a demanding task as potential English labels have various and ambiguous meanings. Translating WI literally into English would result in «economic informatics» or «economic computer science». However, these translations are unusual and not common as they do not account for the specific characteristics of the German version of the discipline.
Simply adopting the name of the North-American sister discipline, i.e., IS, would bear the risk of blurring the differences between the German and the North-American approach of conducting research5. A second reason for not adopting the North-American label is the generic wording. Information systems can be found in various domains, e.g., in chemistry, medicine, or in the defense sector. Pointing out the focus of the German discipline on designing, implementing, operating, and evaluating information sys-
For a more detailed discussion see section 5.
5
tems in economic and business contexts, calls for a more specific label.
The name «business information systems» might have been a better option, however this term again had the disadvantage of not distinguishing clearly enough between the German and the North-American research approach.
As of recently, the majority of German scholars translate WI with the English label «business information systems engineering» or «business and information systems engineering», respectively. These labels communicate several messages: «Business» highlights the business and management perspective of the discipline. The term «information systems» underlines the close ties with international scholars who are interested in exploring information systems in business settings. «Engineering» emphasizes the design-oriented focus of WI and addresses colleagues from neighboring disciplines, e.g., industrial engineering or applied informatics (6). Although many scholars use the terms «business information systems engineering» some authors also translate WI with «business informatics» [e.g., 23].
Literature Review
The following sections describe the method and findings of the literature review that was conducted to deduce characteristics, challenges and opportunities of business informatics from a German perspective.
Literature Search
To identify relevant sources, the following databases and search-engines were used: ACM Digital Library, AIS Electronic Library, EBSCO, ELSEVIER Scopus, ELSEVIER ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, INFORMS PubsOnline, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, Springer Link, and Web of Science. A keyword search was performed, including («Wirtschaftsinformatik» and «Geschichte») or («business informatics» and «history»). Ten sources were identified in the first round search. In a second step the cita-
tions in these publications were reviewed to determine relevant prior articles. Two more sources were identified in this step. In a third step the Web of Science was searched to identify sources citing the publications identified in the previous steps. Two more articles were identified in this step. Consequently, a total of fourteen publications were analyzed.
Literature Analysis
These fourteen sources were read in full and coded. The in-depth analysis revealed three clusters of publications. References in each cluster refer to the same data set and describe the history of WI in a similar way.
Table 1 shows the concept matrix displaying the year of publication, the objective and the research method used in each of the fourteen literature sources. For reasons of clarity the literature sources are arranged in three clusters. The clusters are separated by blank lines. The sources in the clusters are sorted by year of publication. BISE denotes the title of the journal Business & Information Systems Engineering.
Authors of five publications have analyzed milestones of WI, i.e., events that are considered to be important for the evolution of the academic discipline. Three publications are based on a literature analysis. Authors of four sources have interviewed contemporary witnesses or analyzed autobiographical material provided by experts. Two other sources have analyzed the historical evolution of the German journal Business & Information Systems Engineering, formerly known as WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK and its predecessors.
Five publications [21; 22; 35; 39; 48] use milestones to structure the history of the academic discipline WI, seven other publications [7; 8; 20; 23; 32; 42; 43] divide the evolution into phases. Two sources [4; 19] do not use any time scaling. A closer look at the seven phase models revealed three distinct approaches. The other four publications quote one of the three distinct models. Each of the three phase models is typical for one of the three clusters indicated in
ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS
\ Vol. 10. No. 6 (60). 2015 \ _
Table 1. Overview of sources on the history of «Wirtschaftsinformatik»
Year Literature Source Objective Research method
1998 Mertens (35) To describe the history and to discuss selected issues of WI Analysis of milestones
2002 Heinrich (21) To give an overview of events considered to be important for the development of WI Analysis of milestones
2005 Heinrich (19) To explore research methodology in WI Literature analysis
2009 Becker et al. (4) To describe research methodology in selected WI-research projects from 2004 to 2009 Literature analysis
2011 Heinrich (20) To describe the genesis and development of WI Analysis of autobiographical material provided by 16 well-known WI scholars
2011 Heinrich et al. (22) To give an overview of historical states and events that are characteristic for WI Interviews with journal editors and university professors and analysis of meeting protocols of the Scientific Commission WI
2013 Heinrich, Riedl (23) To explain the dominance and advocacy of the design oriented research approach in WI and to discuss its future strategic focus Based on (20)
2014 Ortner (39) To describe the history of WI from the perspective of interdisciplinarity of informatics and business administration Analysis of milestones
2005 Stahlknecht, Hasen- To describe milestones in the history of WI Analysis of milestones kamp (48)
2007 Schauer (42) To reconstruct and to describe the historical evolution of WI since the 1950s Literature analysis
2007 Schauer, Frank (43) To compare research objectives, methods and findings in WI and IS Interviews with contemporary witnesses and literature analysis
2010 Laudon et al. (32) To give an overview of the phases of the Analysis of milestones
historical evolution of WI
2012 Buhl et al. (7) To intensify the discourse of the IS and WI Analysis of the history of the
communities to increase mutual understand- BISE / WI journal ing and to create awareness for the need to complement each other
2012 Buhl et al. (8) To make recommendations for a successful Analysis of the history of the
global IS and WI community BISE / WI journal
table 1. Each of the three approaches subdivides the history of WI into four phases, although time frames and criteria for subdividing the phases differ. Tables 2 to 4 give an overview of the three phase models.
Heinrich et al. use key characteristics of the particular historical phases as labels. Their overview is based on an analysis of autobiographical material provided by sixteen well-known WI scholars who provided career autobiographies in
Table 2. Phases of the history of «Wirtschaftsinformatik» by Heinrich et al.
Heinrich et al. [20; 23]
1950s — 1960s: Becoming aware of a specific problem area
1970s: Becoming independent and expansion 1980s — 1990s: Becoming a brand 2000 — today: In the age of globalization
which they document their perceptions and observations regarding the genesis and development of the academic discipline.
Table 3. Phases of the history of «Wirtschaftsinformatik» by Schauer
Schauer [42]
1950-1970: Technological development as a foundation
1970-1980: First attempts to institutionalize the discipline
1980-1990: Establishing the discipline
1990 — today: Wirtschaftsinformatik as an independent discipline
Schauer uses different states of establishing and institutionalizing the academic discipline as a criterion for subdividing the WI history into phases. Her overview of the history is based on interviews with contemporary witnesses and on a literature analysis.
Table 4. Phases of the history of «Wirtschaftsinformatik» by Buhl et al.
Buhl et al. (7, 8)
1959 to 1970: Electronic Data Processing
1971 to 1989: Applied Informatics
1990 to 2008: «Wirtschaftsinformatik»
Since 2009: Business & Information Systems Engineering
Buhl et al. label the phases with the varying titles of the major scientific German journal in WI. Since 1959, the journal title was changed three times. Buhl et al. use the titles to denominate the historical phases.
History of the German Academic Discipline «Wirtschaftsinformatik»
The following section gives a brief overview of the historical evolution of the German academic discipline WI. It draws on publications on the WI history mentioned in the previous section. The following outline is structured according to the phases described by Heinrich et al. [20; 23].
This approach was selected because it is described in most detail.
1950s and 1960s: Becoming Aware of a Specific Problem Area
Heinrich characterizes the first phase, the 1950s and 1960s, as «becoming aware of a specific problem area». In these two decades, numerous options of deploying computer systems in companies and public authorities emerged. Specialists had to adapt corporate organizations to computerized tasks and processes and to customize computer systems to specific organizational requirements. Providers and users of computer systems began to cooperate in order to explore opportunities of efficiently using application systems. At the end of the 1960s, some German universities established courses in computer science and informatics, respectively. At that time, discussions about establishing specialized courses on designing and applying computer systems for business tasks began. Some Austrian, German and Swiss universities also established chairs and institutes specializing in data processing in business settings.
The journal «elektronische datenverarbeitung» (electronic data processing) was founded in 1959 [18]. The objective of the journal was to provide companies with an overview of computers and guidance on how to use them. Companies urgently needed computer specialists. However, neither business administration departments nor the upcoming computer science departments at universities were able to meet the growing demand for academically trained information specialists. During this period no German university offered courses in WI. Most experts hired by companies were mathematicians or graduates from business administration courses. Although research focused on hardware and software, «some visionaries anticipated the need for an interdisciplinary approach and a management perspective» [8, p. 309].
1970s: Becoming Independent and Expansion
Heinrich calls the second phase, the 1970s, «becoming independent and expansion». This
phase was marked by the establishment of the first university courses in business informatics in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Standards for
university teaching and publication of research
findings were defined for the first time. The importance of electronic data processing in companies grew and various computer manufacturers and software companies were founded. German universities were modernized and various interdisciplinary courses of study were established. One example was WI, a course of study at the intersection of business administration and computer science or informatics, respectively. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) published guidelines for teaching management information systems in 1972. Some German universities based their curricula on these recommendations. In the middle of the 1970s some German universities established courses in WI for the first time. In 1972, the leading journal was renamed from «elektronische datenverarbeitung» to «Angewandte Informatik» (applied informatics). The change of name reflected the fact that electronic data processing was not a typical characteristic of the academic discipline any more [18]. However, it focused on applying solutions from computer science and informatics to business and economic problems. The journal broadened the spectrum of subjects to economic, technical, and social impacts of computers. In 1975, the «Wissenschaftliche Kommission Wirtschaftsinformatik» (Scientific Commission WI, abbreviated WKWI) — a section of the «Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft» (German academic association for business research, abbreviated VHB) was established. The focus of this commission is on initiating research projects, organizing conferences, promoting young scholars, preparing guidelines and recommendations for university curricula, providing mass media with scientific contributions, and lobbying in the political arena. During this period, the German software and computer industry developed successfully: Nixdorf Computer AG was founded in 1968, Robotron in 1969, Software AG in 1969, and SAP in 1972.
1980s and 1990s: Becoming a Brand
The third phase, the 1980s and 1990s, is labeled «becoming a brand». This period was characterized by widespread diffusion of computer technology in companies and public administration. As a consequence, there was a rapidly growing demand for university graduates with profound knowledge in IT. The name «Wirtschaftsinformatik» gained wide acceptance in German speaking countries and first attempts to canonize teaching and research topics were made. By 1989, six universities in West Germany [28] and several universities in the former German Democratic Republic [29] offered courses in WI. Almost all university chairs in WI were located at economic faculties or faculties of economic and social sciences. In this period, teaching and research focused on designing «effective and efficient application systems» and handling of «heterogeneous and — for that time — large amounts of data». Research put a stronger emphasis on science and strived for extending the focus on «generalizable and transferable knowledge» [8, p. 310].
At the same time, WI scholars emphasized differentiating from other disciplines, namely from informatics, computer science and business administration. Research saw a dynamic evolution and specialization of research topics, accompanied by a growing loss of coherence and identity. A trend to internationalize the discipline started that had focused on German speaking countries before. The «Fachbereich Wirtschaftsinformatik» (technical committee «Wirtschaftsinformatik») was established as a special interest group of the German informatics society (Gesellschaft für Informatik) in 1983. Members are practitioners and scholars specializing in WI. Tasks and objectives of the technical committee are similar to the Scientific Commission WI.
In 1990, the leading journal was renamed from «Angewandte Informatik» to WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK [18]. The change of name reflected the major focus of the discipline on business and economic aspects. Teaching fo-
cused on business process improvement and — with the rise of the Internet/WWW — on IT as an enabler of global trade relations with a focus on E-Commerce and E-Business. German scholars became increasingly acquainted with the — slightly different — culture of the North-American IS community and a growing exchange with North-American IS scholars began.
In 1993, the Scientific Commission WI published a profile of the research discipline WI that defined research objectives and methods [53]. The commission acknowledged various scientific foundations, mainly business administration, social sciences, applied informatics, and applied mathematics. The commission also acknowledged different research approaches as equally adequate, e.g., engineering, economic and social science research. Also in 1993, the international conference «Wirtschaftsinformatik» was organized for the first time. Since then, this conference has been held every two years in Austria, Germany or Switzerland. It has become a key forum for presenting and discussing research findings by WI scholars from German speaking countries and from other parts of the world. The international conference «Wirtschaftsinformatik» is comparable to similar conferences in other parts of the world, e.g., the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), or the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS).
Since 2000: In the Age of Globalization
Heinrich calls the last phase, since 2000, «in the age of globalization». Internationalization was perceived as a key challenge for the discipline. An increasing number of German speaking junior scholars gained international experience, especially in the North-American community. They perceived a growing importance of publishing in international journals and at international conferences although these publication channels are dominated by North-American approaches to exploring IS. This led to an assimilation of the German academic discipline
WI to the North-American discipline IS [20]. However, the convergence of the two research disciplines also engendered criticism as many German speaking scholars feared a loss of identity of the German approach. This led to the publication ofthe Memorandum on Design-Oriented Information Systems Research [38] that was written by ten and signed by 111 full professors from the German-speaking scientific community. In this memorandum the majority of German speaking WI professors acknowledged that the focus of research in WI is on design science.6
In 2000, the international conference WI was complemented by the multi conference WI (MKWI). This conference combined various smaller conferences and workshops that had been separated before. Since then, the MKWI has been held every two years in Germany.
During the first years of this phase most German universities discontinued diploma study programs and established bachelor and master programs in WI [42]. Today nearly 50 German universities offer bachelor and master courses in WI (plus approximately ten universities in Austria and Switzerland that offer German courses of study).
The German academic association for business research published a journal rating called VHB-JOURQUAL for the first time in 2003. Since then, this rating has been repeated twice [50]. The rating is based on assessments of business research journals by members of the association. The latest version of the rating is structured in 22 parts. One of them focuses on WI. The Scientific Commission WI released a similar rating that comprises 118 research journals and 58 conference proceedings and lecture notes specializing in WI [54]. Both ratings provide directions for selecting journals or conference proceedings for scholars in German speaking countries.
In 2009, the German journal WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK was complemented by an English edition that was translated one-to-one
6 The difference to the behavioral science approach is outlined in section 5.
from the German edition. Its name is Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE). The reason for publishing an additional English edition was that German scholars found that their publications were not sufficiently recognized in the English-speaking world. The new journal was meant to increase global attention for the German academic discipline WI and also to highlight the German focus on engineering and design science. Since 2015 the German edition has been discontinued and the journal is published in English only.
Since several years, teaching extended the focus from business processes to digital markets, digital ecosystems, and digital goods. German researchers witnessed a growing separation of some scholars focusing on behavioral science and others on design science. The difference between these approaches will be discussed in the next section.
«Wirtschaftsinformatik» and Information Systems
Although the German academic discipline WI and the North-American discipline IS have various similarities, they also differ in several aspects [4; 7; 15]. Ulrich Frank, a German WI professor, once illustrated this situation with an analogy from sports: German football and American football share the same label and some more characteristics. Both are team sports, both teams run after a ball, and in both forms of sports players score goals. However, German football
and American football are not identical. Indeed, taking a closer look reveals two widely different games. The shape of the balls is different, players play by different rules, they use different equipment, and they are trained differently. On top of this, the indicators of success are different: Scoring goals is the key to success in playing (non-American) football. However, in American football the number of touchdowns is much more important than the number of goals scored.
Comparing German WI and North-American IS leads to a similar situation. At first appearance, both disciplines seem to be almost identical. However, a closer look reveals several differences. The two disciplines share the same research topic, namely IS in business settings, but topics of research and approaches to gain insights are different.
The dominant research paradigm in the North-American IS discipline is behavioral science. It strives for describing and explaining antecedents and consequences of IS deployment and success. Famous examples for behavioral science research fields are the IT productivity paradox [5] and DeLone and McLean's model of IS success [10; 11]. Behavioral science has its roots in natural science. North-American researchers emphasize methodological rigor and the advancement of theoretical foundations [15]. Figure 1 shows a behavioral science research process model.
A prototypical research process in the behavioral science approach is structured as follows. Scholars base their research approaches
Fig. 1. Behavioral Science Research Process Model
on theoretical models or theories, respectively. Alternatively, they may also strive for constructing new theoretical models or theories. They then postulate hypotheses, collect empirical data, analyze the data with statistical methods, deduct conclusions, and attempt to augment the original theoretical models or theories. For a more detailed overview of behavioral science research in business informatics see [2; 9].
The dominant research paradigm in the German academic discipline WI is design science. It strives for designing, implementing and evaluating information system artifacts that support solving real-world problems [24; 25; 38]. Famous examples for design science research fields are event driven process chains [46] and reference models for designing business application systems [13]. Design science has its roots in engineering and the sciences of the artificial [47]. German scholars emphasize practical relevance and strive for artifacts that are effective, efficient, and provide utility [15].
Figure 2 shows a design science research process model based on [40].
A prototypical research process in the design science approach is structured as follows. The starting point of the process is the identification of a problem. Scholars justify their research endeavor by showing the importance of the problem to be solved. They then define objectives of a solution, usually by formulating requirements. The third step in the process consists of designing and developing an artifact. Scholars then demonstrate the feasibility and applicability of the arti-
fact by applying it in a suitable context. The evaluation phase strives for verifying and validating the effectiveness and efficiency of the artifact. Communicating the research results in scholarly and professional publications completes the design science research process [40]. For a more detailed overview of design science research in business informatics see [24; 25; 34; 40].
The two disciplines, behavioral and design science, have different strengths and weaknesses. Strengths that are attributed to the behavioral science approach are theoretical foundation and methodological rigor. Weaknesses are that some research results seem to be of little or no value for decision makers in practice [15; 24; 26]. Some North-American MBA-programs have eliminated IS modules from their curricula and IS study programs have issues with recruiting enough talented students [8; 14; 17; 42].
Strengths of the design science approach are that research results have practical relevance and support creating utility in companies and public administration [8, 38, 43]. Due to its strong connections to industry the WI community draws substantial funding from companies. Graduates of university courses are in great demand [7; 23; 42]. Weaknesses are that the German approach is accused of lacking scientific credibility and methodological rigor, that it does not produce generalizable knowledge, and may not be helpful in creating or augmenting theories in the IS field. As a consequence, scholars often have difficulties in publishing their findings in top ranking journals [8; 15; 35].
Process Iteration
Fig. 2. Design Science Research Process Model [40]
Characteristics of the Academic Discipline «Wirtschaftsinformatik»
The following sections characterize the German academic discipline WI in more detail. The struggle with the identity of the discipline, the close relations to industry, and the weak theoretical and methodological foundation are used to exemplify key features of WI. The last paragraphs of this section explain factors that have enabled progress of the academic discipline WI in the last 50 years.
Identity of the Discipline
Business informatics, WI, and IS are relatively young scientific disciplines. Thus, it is no surprise that German scholars still struggle with the identity of the discipline.
Most scholars agree on the fact, that WI is an interdisciplinary subject [39] or an integration discipline [19; 37] that builds a bridge between business administration or management and informatics or computer science. However, WI seems to be more closely related to business administration or management than to informatics or computer science [35]. This means that WI is rather a section of economics than of informatics.
Most scholars also agree that the research focus of WI differs from its North-American sister discipline IS [7; 35; 43]. The German WI community seems to be closely related to industry, the North-American IS community tends to focus on theory building and publishing.
There is a controversial debate over the question whether WI is a scientific discipline or rather a collection of lessons learned or just an art. Some authors hold that WI may not be considered a scientific discipline yet [19; 20; 37; 41]. Schauer [42] found that critical reflections on the scientific status of the academic discipline are rare. Heinrich criticizes that most scholars focus on design and neglect description and explanation [19]. He holds that WI has focused on using, rather than producing, insights [20]. Thus, he concludes that WI is not a scientific discipline
yet, however, it is making considerable progress towards this goal [19].
Close Relations to Industry
Since its beginnings, the WI community has had intensive and close relations to industry [7; 42]. All levels of academic education are linked with companies in cooperations or research projects. A considerable portion of research funding stems from industry. WI degree programs are highly attractive for students and graduates are in high demand [7].
Weak Theoretical
and Methodological Foundation
In 1998, Mertens found that the theoretical foundation of WI was weak [35]. Heinrich criticizes that most WI scholars are not well trained in applying research methods, that they lack knowledge of theory of science and of research methodology [19]. Accordingly, research in WI often lacks methodological rigor although it is characterized by high practical relevance [7].
North-American scholars criticize the lack of methodological rigor in many research projects that focus on designing and evaluating artifacts. As a consequence, some German speaking scholars may have difficulties in publishing their findings in top-ranking journals [3].
Schauer and Frank suggest that the WI community should eliminate its weaknesses (methodological rigor of research projects) and simultaneously preserve its strengths (practical relevance of research findings) [43]. Heinrich and Riedl [23] suggest a 'theory-driven design approach' as a viable strategy for the future orientation of the business informatics community.
Factors That Have Made Progress Possible
The following paragraphs summarize factors that have played a significant role toward promoting progress in the academic discipline WI. The list does not aim to be complete. However, it may help scholars in other countries to learn from the experiences gained in German speaking countries.
• The achievement of a «critical mass» of university chairs and institutes was crucial for the WI community. More than 100 professors are specializing in WI at German universities. In 2014, the Scientific Commission WI had 260 members (full professors, assistant professors and young scientists). Nearly 50 German (plus approximately ten Austrian and Swiss) universities offer bachelor and master courses in WI. The considerable number of university courses, institutes, professors and scientists is an important basis for the dynamic scientific exchange and progress of the academic discipline.
• It is helpful for the scientific community that scholars have established professional institutions that initiate research projects, organize conferences, promote young scholars, prepare guidelines and recommendations for university curricula, and engage in lobbying activities in the political arena. Key institutions for the WI community in Germany are the Scientific Commission WI (a section of the German academic association for business research) and the technical committee WI (a special interest group of the German informatics society).
• The establishment of (national and international) scientific journals and conferences, the implementation of rigorous peer reviews and double blind review processes and the publication of ratings for research journals and conference proceedings has raised the awareness of WI scholars to publish their research findings in highly respected outlets [7].
• The BISE journal's realignment, i.e., the transformation from a German journal, named WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, to an international journal named Business & Information Systems Engineering that is published in English has helped the German community to gain international visibility. This journal not only provides internationally oriented scholars from German speaking countries with a visible and acknowledged platform, but also addresses international scholars who strive to publish relevant and rigorous research results [8].
• The German WI community has learned from the academic exchange with colleagues from other business informatics communities, especially from the North-American IS community [7]. This has helped German scholars to define the profile of WI more clearly. Academic debates with international colleagues have also given incentives to start a process of striving for theory-driven research approaches and of improving methodological rigor.
Challenges and Opportunities for Business Informatics
The following sections discuss six topics that were derived from the analysis of the historical evolution of WI in German speaking countries and from the confrontation of behavioral and design science approaches. Each topic implies challenges and opportunities for the further development of business informatics as an academic discipline worldwide.
Being an Interdisciplinary Field of Teaching and Research
As stated above, WI scholars have often found their community between conflicting priorities of different academic disciplines. The same seems to apply for other business informatics communities worldwide. Is business informatics a section of applied informatics or of applied economics? Is it an engineering discipline or a social science? Should scholars focus on information engineering or on information economics? Should they pursue theoretic or pragmatic research objectives?
Being «stuck in the middle» between engineering and social sciences or between informatics and economics may be a problem. However, it may also be considered as an opportunity if scholars perceive the different approaches to practicing science as complements and not as contradictions. It gives scholars the freedom to select research objects, objectives and methods from two (or even more) scientific disciplines.
Several authors have emphasized the importance of accepting and making use of complementary theories and multiple research methods. Scholars in business informatics should particularly seek for options to combine behavioral and design science methods [20; 37; 43].
Ortner notes, that the triumph of ubiquitous computing will increasingly require interdisciplinary knowledge of various sectors of applied informatics, e.g., legal informatics, administrative computer science, social informatics and business informatics [39]. The fact that business informatics is an interdisciplinary field of research and teaching, should be perceived as an opportunity and not as a fault.
Accentuate Rigorous Research and Practical Relevance
Most authors agree that the research focus of business informatics needs to be improved [7; 19; 20; 23]. Consequently, business informatics communities worldwide should check whether scholars' knowledge of theory of science and research methodology [19; 20] is in need of improvement. Suitable endeavors bear the chance to enhance methodological rigor in research projects. Simultaneously, scholars should select research objectives that are practically relevant and strive for close relations to industry. This should support the pursuit of methodological rigor and practical relevance. Schauer and Frank suggest that business informatics scholars should preserve practical relevance while simultaneously exploring topics and issues that are sufficiently abstract, original, and justified and that contribute to the scholarly body of knowledge [43]. As business informatics is an applied science, scholars shouldn't have too many problems in pursuing both goals simultaneously.
Acknowledge Behavioral and Design Science Research
Comparing the German and the North-American approach to exploring IS in a business context has led to a perceived dichotomy between behavioral and design science as
described in section 5 of this study. However, a closer look reveals that this may be an inappropriate perspective on business informatics as a research discipline.
Hevner and Chatterjee state that «there is a complementary research cycle between design science and behavioral science to address fundamental problems faced in the productive application of information technology ... Technology and behavior are not dichotomous in an information system. They are inseparable. They are similarly inseparable in IS research» [24, pp. 11-12].
Figure 3 illustrates the complementary nature of design and behavioral science research. It implies «that truth (justified theory) and utility (artifacts that are effective) are two sides of the same coin and that scientific research should be evaluated in light of its practical implications. In other words, the practical relevance of the research result should be valued equally with the rigor of the research performed to achieve the result» [24, p. 12].
Accordingly, various German speaking scholars [15; 19; 23] recommend striving for mutual convergence of the two research approaches. This could help both — the German and the North-American — communities and other business informatics communities worldwide to benefit from each other.
In a response to the Design-Oriented Information Systems Research Memorandum [38]
IS Artifacts Provide Utility
IS Theories Provide Truth
Fig. 3. Complementary nature of design and behavioral science research [24]
editors of four top-ranked IS journals (European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Information Systems Research, and MIS Quarterly) deny that there is a specific 'North-American' behavioral model of research. Instead they hold that «most of the IS research carried out not just in North America, but also in most other parts of the world encompasses at least: (i) design science research on the design of IT-based artifacts; (ii) behavioral research on understanding issues like user acceptance or other individual or team level impacts of IT; (iii) economic research on the value of IS; and (iv) strategic and organizational research on the management and impacts of IT in organizations» [3, p. 12]. This shows that discussions that focus on the dichotomy of design versus behavioral research may be too narrow and inappropriate.
The confrontation of behavioral and design science approaches is closely related to the «rigor versus relevance»-debate [12; 33; 49]. This debate discusses the schism between excessive methodological rigor and diminishing practical relevance of (behavioral) IS research. The ongoing debate shows that rigor and relevance are not mutually exclusive characteristics but two complementary properties. Scientific disciplines that are not purely theoretical or focus on basic foundational research only should strive for both: methodological rigor and practical relevance of research approaches.
Discussions that focus on the dichotomy of design versus behavioral science or rigor versus relevance are obviously too narrow and inappropriate. Exploring IS in business settings requires design and behavioral research. Respective research approaches should use rigorous methods and strive for research results that are practically relevant.
Establishing an Academic Infrastructure
Establishing an academic infrastructure is a prerequisite for a good progress of an academic discipline. Key elements of such an infrastructure are a critical mass of universities and scholars, professional associations, and scientific journals
and conferences complemented by peer review processes and journal and conference rankings.
A critical mass of universities that offer relevant courses, professors and young scientists that produce research findings and discuss these findings needs to be achieved in order to form an academic community. Professional associations and societies help scholars and practitioners to initiate essential activities, e.g., guidelines and recommendations for university curricula or lobbying activities in the political arena, that individual universities or scholars could probably not achieve alone. Scientific journals and conferences provide scholars with opportunities to publish their research results and to discuss their findings with peers. Journals and conference proceedings published in English improve international visibility. Peer review processes help to improve the quality of publishing research findings. Journal and conference rankings give guidance to scholars when selecting outlets for publication.
Education and Training of Students
The Humboldtian model of higher education [1] suggests a holistic combination of research and studies and a unity in research and teaching. Accordingly, Heinrich [20] pleads for a balanced ratio of behavioral and design science content in WI studies. Ifthe North-American and the German speaking communities should conduct behavioral and design science research and strive for both, methodological rigor and practical relevance, appropriate conclusions for educating and training of students must be drawn. Students should be trained in applying design and behavioral science research methods. Universities should enable students to contribute to practically relevant research results that are achieved with methodological rigor. Bachelor studies in business informatics could lay essential foundations by teaching students basic elements of business administration (or management, respectively), informatics (or computer science, respectively), business informatics, economics, law, mathematics (and statistics, respectively), and soft skills. Master studies could
focus on educating students in applying research methods for design and behavioral science.
Internationalization
In 1998, Mertens wrote that German scholars had not sufficiently published their findings in Anglo-American outlets. This had often led to situations where originally German ideas and innovations were re-invented and successfully published by Anglo-American colleagues [35]. Although this situation seems to have improved in previous years [4; 42] there still seems to be much to do [15].
In recent years, German WI scholars have focused on comparing their research with and distancing themselves from the North-American approach to exploring IS in an economic context [e.g., 7; 15; 38; 39]. On the one hand, this has led to a clear profile of the German approach and German speaking scholars have been admonished to ensure both, practical relevance and methodological rigor of their research. On the other hand, limiting the geographical and cultural focus on the North-American part of the world has led to a focus that may be too narrow.
Frank, Schauer, and Wigand [15] hold that a «more intensive international exchange among the various research communities ... should contribute to further develop the field into a more mature and satisfactory state» (p. 391). An increasing number of corporations operate worldwide and global communication infrastructures, e.g., the Internet and mobile communication networks, are not limited to North-America and German speaking parts of the world.
As a consequence, it would be advisable for scholars in business informatics to broaden the geographical and cultural focus. They should engage in a more intensive international exchange with research communities in French and Spanish speaking parts of the world, in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, to name just a few examples.
Broadening the geographical and cultural focus of the scholarly debate might help to achieve more differentiated and comprehensive research
results, and eventually also to accomplish more appropriate teaching in business informatics.
Conclusion
The last section of this study recapitulates suggestions for the further development of business informatics, discusses limitations of this study and gives an outlook for future research efforts.
Suggestions for the Further Development of Business Informatics
This section summarizes suggestions for the further development of the academic discipline business informatics. The propositions were derived from the insights presented in the previous sections. The list does not aim to be complete. However, it might be a helpful foundation for scholars in business informatics worldwide to successfully shape the future of their discipline:
• As business informatics is an interdisciplinary field of teaching and research, scholars should acknowledge and use different approaches to practicing science: engineering and social sciences, informatics and economics.
• Methodological rigor and practical relevance are not mutually exclusive but complement each other. Scholars in business informatics should therefore strive for rigorous research that is practically relevant.
• Similarly, business informatics needs design science and behavioral science. The business informatics community should therefore strive for mul-tidisciplinary approaches to science that encourage research endeavors of complementary nature.
• An appropriate academic infrastructure comprising a critical mass of universities and scholars, professional associations, research and teaching guidelines and scientific journals and conferences are a prerequisite for a sustainable academic discipline.
• Master students in business informatics should be trained to select and to apply design and behavioral science research methods. This should support building an adequate basis for recruiting young scientists.
• Internationalization is a key success factor for any business informatics community worldwide. Therefore, scholars should be encouraged to arrange international cooperations, to discuss research methods and findings with international colleagues, and to publish research findings in international settings. Young scientists should be motivated to stay and work abroad and gain international experience. The internationalization strategy should not be limited to single parts of the world but should encompass as many international communities as possible.
Discussion
This study was performed from a German perspective. Although publications from international scholars were analyzed, the dominant view on business informatics in this study may be biased.
In recent years, North-American and German scholars have intensively analyzed and compared features of the academic disciplines IS and WI. Insights gained from these studies may also be interesting for business informatics students and scholars in other parts of the world, e.g., in Russia. However, giving useful advice to these communities would require a detailed analysis of strengths and weaknesses, challenges and opportunities of the relevant communities. This analysis is not in the scope of this study but builds an interesting field of future work.
Outlook
The intent of this study was to lay the foundation for a systematic comparison of the German academic discipline WI with counterparts in other areas of the world, e.g., with the Russian discipline «Бизнес-информатика». It would be highly interesting if scholars could conduct similar analyses of business informatics communities in other parts of the world. This might be an interesting basis for mutual understanding and learning and for a dialogue that may help scholars to intensify a scientific exchange in the field of business informatics. It may also act as a stimulus for a scholarly debate on how to shape the future of the global business informatics community.
References
1. Anderson R. D. European Universities from the Enlightenment to 1914. Germany and the Humboldtian Model, Anderson R. D. (ed.) Oxford University Press, 2010.
2. Bariff M. and Ginzberg M. MIS and the Behavioral Sciences: Research Patterns and Prescriptions. ACM SIGMIS Database, 1982, no. 14 (1), pp. 19-26.
3. Baskerville R., Lyytinen K., Sambamurthy V. and Straub D. A Response to the Design-Oriented Information Systems Research Memorandum. European Journal of Information Systems, 2011, no. 20 (1), pp. 11-15.
4. Becker J., Niehaves B., Olbrich S. and Pfeiffer D. Forschungsmethodik einer Integrationsdisziplin — Eine Fortführung und Ergänzung zu Lutz Heinrichs «Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik» aus gestaltungsorientierter Perspektive. Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik, Becker, J., Krcmar, H., and Niehaves, B. (eds.) Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag 2009, pp. 1-22.
5. Brynjolfsson, E. The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology. Communications of the ACM, 1993, no. 36 (12), pp. 66-77.
6. Buhl H. U. 50 Jahre Zeitschrift WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK: Auf zu neuen Ufern. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 2009, no. 51 (1), pp. 1-6.
7. Buhl H. U., Fridgen G., Mülle G. and Röglinger M. Business and Information Systems Engineering: A Complementary Approach to Information Systems — What We Can Learn from the Past and May Conclude from Present Reflection on the Future. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2012, no. 13 (4), pp. 236-253.
8. Buhl H. U., Fridgen G., Röglinger M., and Müller G. On Dinosaurs, Measurement Ideologists, Separatists and Happy Souls — Proposing and Justifying a Way to Make the Global IS/BISE Community Happy. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2012, no. 54 (6), pp. 307-315.
9. Bukvova H. Research as a Process: A Comparison between Different Research Approaches. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 2009, no. 9 (29), pp. 238.
10. DeLone W. H. and McLean E. R. Information System Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 1992, no. 3 (1), pp. 60-95.
11. DeLone W. H. and McLean E. R. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information System Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2003, no. 19 (4), pp. 9-30.
12. Desouza K. C., El Sawy O. A., Galliers R., Loeb-becke C. and Watson R. Information Systems Research that Really Matters: Beyond the IS Rigor versus Relevance Debate. ICIS 2005 Proceedings, 2005, pp. 77.
13. Fettke P. and Loos P. Classification of Reference Models: a Methodology and its Application. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 2003, no. 1 (1), pp. 35-53.
14. Firth D., Lawrence C., and Looney C. A. Addressing the IS Enrollment Crisis: A 12-step Program to Bring about Change through the Introductory IS Course. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2008, no. 23 (2), pp. 17-36.
15. Frank U., Schauer C. and Wigand R. T. Different Paths of Development of Two Information Systems Communities: A Comparative Study Based on Peer Interviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2008, vol. 22, pp. 391-412.
16. Gesellschaft für Informatik (ed.) Rahmenempfehlung für die Universitätsausbildung in Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2007. Available at http://fb-wi.gi.de/fileadmin/ gliederungen/fb-wi/wi-empf-2007.pdf
17. Gill G. and Bhattacherjee A. Whom are we Informing? Issues and Recommendations for MIS Research from an Informing Sciences Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 2009, no. 33 (2), pp. 217-235.
18. Hasenkamp U. and Stahlknecht P. Wirtschaftsinformatik — Evolution of the Discipline as Reflected by Its Journal. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2009, no. 1 (1), pp. 14-24.
19. Heinrich L. J. Forschungsmethodik einer Integrationsdisziplin: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik. NTM-Internationale Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 2005, no. 13 (2), pp. 104-117.
20. Heinrich L. J. Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer Wissenschaftsdisziplin, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011.
21. Heinrich L. J. Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Studienführer Wirtschaftsinformatik, Mertens P. et al. (eds.) Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, Vieweg, 2002, pp. 45-52.
22. Heinrich L. J., Heinzl A. and Riedl R. Wirtschaftsinformatik —Einführung und Grundlegung. 4 ed., Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2011.
23. Heinrich L J. and Riedl R. Understanding the Dominance and Advocacy of the Design-oriented Research Approach in the Business Informatics Community: a History-based Examination. Journal of Information Technology, 2013, no. 28 (1), pp. 34-49.
24. Hevner A. and Chatterjee S. Design Science Research in Information Systems. Design Research in Information Systems. Theory and Practice, Hevner A. and Chat-terjee S. (eds.) New York et al., Springer, 2010, pp. 9-22.
25. Hevner A. R., March S. T., Park J. and Ram S. Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 2004, no. 28 (1), pp. 75-105.
26. Hirschheim R. and Klein H. Crisis in the IS field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline. Journal of the AIS, 2003, no. 4 (5), pp. 237-293.
27. Ivanova V. V. and Lesina T. A. Evolution of Business Informatics as a Science: The European, American and Russian Perspective. Ekonomika i Upravlenie — Economics and Management, 2014, no. 2, pp. 44-50 (in Russian).
28. Kemper H.-G. and Stelzer D. Wirtschaftsinformatik als Studiengang an Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreich und in der Schweiz — Ergebnisse einer Erhebung an zwölf Hochschulen im November 1989. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 1990, no. 32 (1), pp. 49-56.
29. Kupferschmidt W. 41 Jahre Hochschule für Ökonomie — eine Bilanz. Lehre — Forschung — Internationale Beziehungen. 1950-1991 Hochschule für Ökonomie «Bruno Leuschner» Berlin — Leistungen und Defizite in Lehre und Forschung/Persönliche Erfahrungen und Erinnerungen — Herausforderungen an die Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Kupferschmidt, W., Kluge P.-D. and Zellmer G. (eds.), Zielona Góra, 2012, pp. 7-29.
30. Lange C. Development and Status of the Information Systems / Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline. An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers: Part I — Research Objectives and Method. ICB-Research Report no. 2, DuisburgEssen, 2005.
31. Lange C. Development and Status of the Information Systems / Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline. An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers: Part II — Results Information Systems Discipline. ICB-Research Report no. 3, Duisburg-Essen, 2005.
32. Laudon K. C., Laudon J. P. and Schoder D. Wirtschaftsinformatik. Eine Einführung. 2 ed., München et al., Prentice Hall, 2010.
33. Lee A. S. Rigor and Relevance in MIS Research: Beyond the Approach of Positivism Alone. MIS Quarterly, 1999, no. 23 (1), pp. 29-34.
34. March S. T. and Smith G. F. Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems, 1995, no. 15 (4), pp. 251-266.
35. Mertens P. Geschichte und ausgewählte Gegenwartsprobleme der Wirtschaftsinformatik. WiSt Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 1998, no. 27 (4), pp. 170-175.
36. Mertens P. and Wedekind H. Entwicklung und Stand der Betriebsinformatik. ZfB — Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 1982, no. 52 (5), pp. 510-519.
37. Müller-Merbach H. Die Brückenaufgabe der Wirtschaftsinformatik. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 2002, no. 44 (3), pp. 300-306.
38. Österle H., Becker J., Frank U., Hess T., Karagi-annis D., Krcmar H., Loos P., Mertens P., Oberweis A. and Sinz E. J. Memorandum on Design-Oriented In-
formation Systems Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 2010, no. 20 (1), pp. 7-10.
39. Ortner E. Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Enzyklopädie der Wirtschaftsinformatik — Online-Lexikon, Kurbe K. et al. (eds.), München, Oldenbourg, 2014. Available at http://www.enzyk-lopaedie-der-wirtschaftsinformatik.de/wi-enzyk-lopaedie/lexikon/uebergreifendes/Kerndisziplinen/ Wirtschaftsinformatik/Geschichte-der-Wirtschafts-informatik
40. Peffers K., Tuunanen T., Rothenberger M. and Chat-terjee S. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2007, no. 24 (3), pp. 45-77.
41. Rolf, A. Herausforderungen für die Wirtschaftsinformatik. Informatik-Spektrum, 1998, no. 21 (5), pp. 259-264.
42. Schauer C. Rekonstruktion der historischen Entwicklung der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Schritte der Institutionalisierung, Diskussionen zum Status, Rahmenempfehlungen für die Lehre. ICB-Research Report no. 18, Duisburg-Essen, 2007.
43. Schauer C. and Frank U. Wirtschaftsinformatik und Information Systems. Ein Vergleich aus wissenschaftstheoretischer Sicht. Wissenschaftstheoretische Fundierung und wissenschaftliche Orientierung der Wirtschaftsinformatik, Lehner, F. and Zelewski, S. (eds.) Berlin, GITO-Verlag, 2007, pp. 121-154.
44. Scheer A.-W. Die Stellung der Betriebsinformatik in Forschung und Lehre. ZfB — Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 1980, no. 11/12, pp. 1279-1282.
45. Scheer A.-W. EDV-orientierte Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1984.
46. Scheer A.-W., Thomas O. and Adam O. Process Modeling Using Event-Driven Process Chains. Process-
Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology, Dumas M., van der Aalst W. M. and Hofstede A. H. (eds.) Hobo-ken, Wiley, 2005, pp. 119-145.
47. Simon H. A. The Sciences of the Artificial. 3 ed., Cambridge, London, MIT Press, 1996.
48. Stahlknecht P. and Hasenkamp U. Einführung in die Wirtschaftsinformatik. 11 ed., Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Springer, 2005.
49. Straub D. and Ang S. Editor's Comments: Rigor and Relevance in IS — Research: Redefining the Debate and a Call for Future Research. MIS Quarterly, 2011, no. 35 (1), pp. iii — xi.
50. Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft VHB-JOURQUAL, Göttingen 2015. Available at http://vhbonline.org/en/service/jourqual
51. Webster J. and Watson R. T. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 2002, no. 26 (2), pp. xiii — xxiii.
52. Wedekind H. Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Betriebsinformatik? Angewandte Informatik, 1980, no. 11, pp. 439-442.
53. Wissenschaftliche Kommission Wirtschaftsinformatik im Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft e. V. (WKWI) (ed.) Profil der Wirtschaftsinformatik. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 1994, no. 36 (1), pp. 80-81.
54. Wissenschaftliche Kommission Wirtschaftsinformatik im Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft e. V. (WKWI) (ed.) WI-Orientierung-slisten. WI-Journalliste 2008 sowie WI-Liste der Konferenzen, Proceedings und Lecture Notes 2008. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, 2008, no. 50 (2), pp. 155-163.
Д. Штельцер, докт. техн. наук, профессор, Технологический университет Ильменау, Германия, [email protected]
Бизнес-информатика: немецкий взгляд на характеристики, проблемные области и возможности
Исследуются характерные особенности немецкой академической дисциплины «Wirtschaftsinformatik». Исследование основано на обзоре литературы по четырнадцати публикациям в области истории дисциплины и сравнении исследовательских подходов, применяемых в «Wirtschaftsinformatik» и Северо-Американском аналоге под названием «Информационные системы». В исследовании выделяется четыре характеристики учебной дисциплины «Wirtschaftsinformatik» и определяется шесть перспективных направлений и возможностей приложения усилий международного сообщества бизнес-информатики.
Ключевые слова: бизнес-информатика, Wirtschaftsinformatik, информационные системы, академическая дисциплина, история, научно-исследовательские подходы, поведенческий подход, проектный подход.
About author: D. Stelzer, Dr of Economics, rer. pol., Professor, Head of the Information and Knowledge Management Department of Ilmenau University of Technology
For citation: Stelzer D. Business Informatics: characteristics, challenges and opportunities from a German perspective. Prikladnaya Informatika — Journal of Applied Informatics, 2015, vol. 10, no. 6 (60), pp. 31- 47.
