 |
1. INTRODUCTION
|
The field of information systems (IS) has grown dramatically over the past three decades. Recent trends have transformed the IS landscape. These trends include: the evolution of implementation technology from centralized mainframe environments towards distributed client-server architectures, embracing the internet and intranets; changes in user interface technology from character-based to graphical user interfaces, multimedia, and the World Wide Web; changes in applications from transaction processing systems towards systems supporting collaborative work; and the use of information technology as an enabler of business process reengineering and redesign. These technology changes coupled with changes in organizations and their operating environment, such as the growth of the network and virtual organization, internationalization and globalization of many organizations, intensified global competition, changes in values such as customer orientation (service quality) and Quality of Working Life, have imposed new demands on the development of information systems.
These changes have led to an increasing discussion about information systems development (ISD), and in particular, the various methods, tools, methodologies, and approaches for ISD. We believe such discussion has opened the door for new, alternative IS development approaches and methodologies.
Our paper takes up this theme by describing five alternative ISD approaches, namely the Interactionist approach, the Speech Act-based approach, Soft Systems Methodology, the Trade Unionist approach, and the Professional Work Practices approach. Despite the fact that most of these approaches have a history of over 15 years, their relevance to IS development is not well recognized in the mainstream of IS practice and research, nor is their institutional status comparable to traditional approaches such as structured analysis and design methods. Therefore we characterize the five approaches as 'alternative' in the sense of alternative to the orthodoxy.
The selection of the five approaches is essentially based on the finding that research on ISD approaches and methodologies has been dominated by a single set of philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of the phenomena studied and what constitutes valid knowledge about those phenomena (Hirschheim and Klein,1989; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; and Iivari, 1991). The idea behind the selection of the five ISD approaches has been to include approaches which challenge the dominant assumptions. These alternative approaches typically build upon radically different conceptions of the goals, meaning, function and processes of ISD. Part of the rationale for our paper is to meet the need of a concise yet penetrating way of introducing alternative ways of system development to a wider audience. The way in which the approaches are introduced, highlights their underlying principles and features. This naturally leads to a critical examination of their strengths and weaknesses. From this angle the paper adds more detail to the earlier work on mapping the terrain of the complex literature on IS development (cf. Episkopou and Wood-Harper, 1986; Hirschheim and Klein, 1989; Iivari, 1991; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Baskerville, et al. 1992; Avison et al. 1992; Avgerou and Cornford, 1993; Fitzgerald, 1994; Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen 1995; Avison and Fitzgerald,1995; Jayartna and Fitzgerald, 1996; Wynekoop and Russo, 1997; Iivari, Hirschheim and Klein 1997).
The paper can be expected to be of interest to the IS community in three respects. Firstly, the five alternative approaches are likely not to be as widely known as they deserve to be. The following meets the need of a concise introduction to them. Secondly, the paper continues our earlier work on mapping the terrain of the complex literature on IS development (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989; Iivari, 1991; Hirschheim and Klein, 1992; Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen 1995, 1996; Iivari, Hirschheim and Klein, 1997). Thirdly, it is our contention that the five alternative approaches point the direction which some important IS research will likely take in the future to strengthen the interpretive and critical traditions (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Hirschheim and Klein, 1994) within the field.
|
2. REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE
|
The Interest in ISD Approaches
In the current discussion about ISD it is possible to detect two countervailing trends and this paper can be viewed as a contribution to both. The first trend reflects the belief by some that the interest in methodologies has been waning for reasons of their supposed deficient practicality. Even though there is little empirical research on the actual use of ISD methodologies, existing evidence (e.g. Hardy et al. 1995, Chatzoglou and Macaulay, 1996) suggests that their use is limited in practice, and as far as they are used, they are not literally applied (cf. Westrup 1993). Chatzoglue and Maculay (1996), for example, report that nearly half of the projects (47%) did not use a methodology in their survey of 72 projects within the UK, while another British survey, Hardy et al. (1995), suggest an encouraging figure (18%) for the non-use of methodologies. Hardy et al. (1995) report that 38% of methodologies used were in-house developed and were customized in 88% of cases. Wynekoop and Russo (1993), report the findings of a survey of over 100 organizations which indicated that 65% of organizations had developed their own methodology in-house and 89% of the respondents believed that formal methodologies should be adapted on a project-by-project basis. Mathiassen (1988) went so far as to question the practicality of methodologies in guiding the work of seasoned practitioners, suggesting that methodologies are primarily intended for beginners as the primary vehicle by which they are initiated into the field (cf. Andersen, et al. 1990). More moderately, Unhelkar and Mamdapur (1995) propose a metaphor of a "road map" for ISD methodologies, suggesting that a methodology may not be able to recognize all situational factors (e.g. roadblocks) and is more useful for a "foreigner" (beginner) than for a "seasoned" practitioner (Henderson-Sellers, 1995).
At the same time, there is a second trend of resurgence in methodology interest for several reasons. Firstly, the recent interest in object-orientation has created a new wave of ISD methodologies. Since the late 1980's dozens of object-oriented methodologies has been published leading to an increasingly complex methodology landscape (Monarchi and Puhr, 1991; Hong, et al. 1993; Iivari, 1994). Secondly, Computer Aided Systems/Software Environments/Engineering (CASE) with their companion methodologies (Vessey, et al. 1992) have also brought ISD methodologies to the forefront. Most current CASE tools support a specific, standard methodology, such as Modern Structured Analysis or some object-oriented methodology. The tight coupling between methodologies and CASE tools is suspected to stifle the evolution of IS methodologies (Bubenko, 1988). The latest CASE research has focused on more flexible CASE environments leading to the idea of method engineering as an engineering discipline to design, construct and adapt ISD methodologies and methods (Kumar and Welke, 1992; Harmsen, et al. 1994). Thirdly, software quality (e.g. ISO 9000-3) has been brought to the forefront in Software Engineering (Computer, 1996), the common view being that the quality must be built in the software right from the beginning. This obviously requires some sort of methodology. Finally, there has been considerable research and industry interest in software process maturity and improvement since the publication of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) by the Software Engineering Institute sponsored by the DoD (Humphrey, 1989). CMM identifies five maturity levels which are based on an increasingly disciplined, standardized and predictable software process (Paulk, et al. 1995).
Untangling the Methodology Jungle
Avison and Fitzgerald (1988) coined the phrase "methodology jungle" to describe the status of ISD methodologies as a whole, as an unorganized collection of numerous methodologies which are more or less similar to each other. Bubenko (1986) estimated a decade ago that there existed hundreds of ISD methodologies, and more recently Jayaratna (1994) estimated the number to be of order of 1000. In such a state, it is clear that the highest priority should not lie in developing new methodologies but in better understanding the existing stock and the collective methodology knowledge embedded in them. And as far as new methodologies are concerned, one should be careful that a new methodology differs in some significant way from existing ones.
Iivari, Hirschheim, and Klein (1997) suggest that categorizing ISD methodologies into classes of similar methodologies, begins to address the problem of the methodology jungle. They define an ISD approach as a set of fundamental goals, guiding principles, concepts, and principles for the ISD process for IS development, which drive interpretations and actions in information systems development. The goal specifies the general purpose of the approach. Guiding principles form the common "philosophy" (cf. Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995) of the approach which ensures that its methodology instances form coherent wholes (cf. Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen, 1995). Fundamental concepts define the nature of an IS implicit in the approach as well as the focus and unit of analysis in ISD. Principles of the ISD process express essential aspects of the ISD process in the approach. The methodology instances of an ISD approach are stipulated to share these fundamentals. An ISD methodology, on the other hand, can be interpreted as "an organized collection of concepts, methods1, beliefs, values and normative principles supported by material resources" (Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen, 1995). More specifically, an ISD methodology is codified into a set of goal-oriented procedures which guide the work and cooperation of the various parties (stakeholders) involved in the building of an information systems application. These procedures are usually supported by a set of preferred techniques and tools and activities (cf. Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen, 1996). A technique, in this context, consists of a well-defined sequence of elementary operations which more or less guarantee achievement of certain outcomes if executed correctly.
Emerging from the concept of ISD approach, is the need for methodology customization (or more formally "method engineering", cf. Kumar and Welke, 1992). One should note, however, that customization is neither easy nor necessarily being successfully performed (Hardy, et al. 1995). Iivari, Hirschheim and Klein (1997) suggest the concept of an ISD approach as a class template of its specific ISD methodologies would be a useful intellectual tool in the customization process, allowing customization as an instantiation of a specific approach. The concept of approach leads to focusing on the fundamental goals, guiding principles, concepts, and principles for the ISD process in the customization process.
To conclude, this paper takes the position that ISD methodologies are still important. At the same time one should recognize additional roles of ISD methodologies which are complementary to the traditional idea that methodologies are rules systems to be applied literally. These roles include to serve as convenient knowledge representation forms, ideals of a "rational" design process (Parnas and Clements, 1986), vehicles of learning (Checkland, 1981), and to provide concepts and metaphors for expert communications (Madsen, 1989). Hence methodologies deserve continued attention even though the focus of this attention may be shifting to new aspects. However, the paper goes beyond specific methodologies to consider ISD approaches, and in particular, the paper goes beyond the prevailing "functionalist" approaches when introducing and discussing five alternative ISD approaches.
|
3. SELECTION OF APPROACHES
|
There has been considerable interest in the underlying assumptions of IS research covering both their broad philosophical (paradigmatic) assumptions (e.g. Klein and Welke,1982; Mumford, et al. 1985; Banville and Landry, 1989; Hirschheim and Klein, 1989; Iivari, 1991; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Nissen, et al. 1991; Hirschheim and Klein, 1992; Hirschhein, Klein and Lyytinen 1995, 1996; Iivari and Hirschheim, 1996) as well as more specific aspects of IS development, such as the values held by IS designers, and the views of IS users (e.g. Hedberg and Mumford, 1975; Bostrom and Heinen, 1977; Dagwell and Weber, 1983; Kumar and Welke, 1984; Kumar and Bjorn-Andersen, 1990). Hirschheim and Klein (1989) applied the paradigmatic framework of Burrell and Morgan (1979) to categorize IS development approaches. Their literature analysis suggested that there exists an identifiable "orthodoxy" which ignores those based on fundamentally different assumptions. Orlikowski and Baroudi's (1991) analysis of 155 empirical research articles published from 1983 to 1988 provides confirmatory evidence. They report that existing IS research exhibits a single set of philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of the phenomena studied and what constitutes valid knowledge about those phenomena. They also introduced two additional research philosophies for consideration - the interpretive and the critical - illustrating each through an example. Iivari's (1991) paper based on the analysis of fourteen books representing seven contemporary traditions or "schools of thought" of IS development - Software Engineering, Database Management, Management Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, Implementation Research, the Sociotechnical approach and the Scandinavian Infological approach - also confirms the existence of an "orthodoxy".2
If we accept the notion of a prevailing "orthodoxy" to ISD, it is natural to seek out its counterparts and this has provided the motivation and criterion for selecting "alternative" approaches for analysis. It is our preconception that the following five approaches represent philosophical assumptions which make them significantly different from the dominant textbook "orthodoxy":
1. the Interactionist approach,
2. the Speech Act (SA)-based approach,
3. the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM),
4. the Scandinavian Trade Unionist approach, and
5. the Professional Work Practice (PWP) approach.
The selection of the five approach as a contrast to the prevailing "orthodoxy" is argued in more detail in Iivari, Hirschheim and Klein (1997). As noted in the Introduction, these five approaches are called 'alternative' because their relevance to IS development is not widely recognized as the seven contemporary traditions or "schools of thought" of ISD analyzed in Iivari (1991), nor do they have an institutional status comparable to them.
|
4. SYNOPSES OF FIVE ALTERNATIVE ISD APPROACHES
|
The survey of the five approaches is based on the published literature, much of which we might add was not readily (easily) available. Before proceeding to a detailed review of the five approaches, a brief description and listing of the key literature references of each of the approaches is provided.
The Interactionist approach refers to the body of research conducted at the University of California at Irvine by Kling as his colleagues (e.g. Kling and Scacchi, 1980, 1982; Kling and Iacono, 1984; Kling, 1987; Iacono and Kling, 1988; and Kling and Iacono, 1989). The Speech Act-based (SA) approach to IS development draws its basic concepts from the linguistic philosophy of Searle (Searle, 1969, 1979; Searle and Vanderveken, 1985). It has stimulated considerable debate in the IS community over a number of years (e.g. Flores and Ludlow, 1980; Goldkuhl and Lyytinen, 1982, 1984; Lehtinen and Lyytinen, 1986; Winograd and Flores, 1986; Auramaki, et al. 1988; Flores, et al. 1988; Dewitz and Lee, 1989; Dietz and Widdershoven, 1991; Dobson, et al. 1991; Donaldson Dewitz, 1991; Kensing and Winograd, 1991; Auramaki, et al. 1992a, 1992b). Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is a general systems approach developed by Checkland and his colleagues at the University of Lancaster (Checkland, 1981; Wilson, 1984; Checkland and Scholes, 1990). Although SSM was originally a general systems approach, without any specific orientation towards information systems, its advocates are increasingly perceiving it to be well suited to IS development (e.g. Checkland and Scholes, 1990). Within the IS community SSM has been incorporated as an integral part in such approaches as MULTIVIEW (Avison and Wood-Harper, 1990) and FAOR (Schafer, et al. 1988). The Trade Unionist approach is a tradition which has evolved mainly in Scandinavia as a trade union response to the challenge of Scandinavian co-determination arrangements and laws enacted in the mid-1970's which ensured the employees and unions the right to participate in the design of and decision-making concerning computer systems (cf. Ehn and Kyng, 1987). This approach was initially based on a strong 'class politics' perspective to organizations (Kling and Scacchi, 1982). This Marxist ideology has, however, been weakening recently and the approach is in a transition towards "cooperative design" (Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991a) that has raised considerable interest lately (Kuhn and Muller, 1993; Bansler and Kraft, 1994). The Professional Work Practices (PWP) approach has been developed during the 1980's in Denmark by Mathiassen and his colleagues (Lanzara and Mathiassen, 1985; Gronbaek, 1989; Jepsen, et al. 1989; Nielsen, 1989; Andersen, et al. 1990).
The Interactionist Approach
The principal strength of the interactionist approach is that it can shed light on such organizational issues of ISD as user resistance, work around, and/or the failure to realize the full technical potential of IS. This approach refers to the body of research conducted at the University of California at Irvine by Kling and his colleagues (Kling and Scacchi, 1980, 1982; Kling and Iacono, 1984; Kling, 1987; Iacono and Kling, 1988; and Kling and Iacono, 1989). The adjective "interactionist" is selected to characterize the most distinctive aspect of the approach -- its view of organizations. The adjective has not directly been used lately by the representatives of this tradition to characterize their approach, but it is used in Kling's (1980) "The Social Analyses of Computing", and to denote one of the six perspectives for analyzing computing in Kling and Scacchi (1980). In this work Kling and Scacchi distinguish six perspectives, i.e. the rational, structural, human relations, interactionist, organizational politics and class politics perspective. They then assert that "the interactionist and organizational politics perspectives go farther in providing appropriate languages and conceptions of social dynamics to help explain attractions and dilemmas of computer use in organizations than do their competitors" (p. 259 in Kling and Scacchi (1980)). In a later paper, Kling and Scacchi (1982) further suggest that the formal-rational, structural, interactionist and (organization) political perspectives have dominated the literature. We grouped the formal-rational and structural perspectives together and called them simply "structural". Similarly, we grouped the interactionist and political perspectives together and called them simply "interactionist".
One can identify two phases in the conceptualization of ISD within the Interactionist approach: the first phase is based on the distinction between the discrete-entity model and the web-model; the second phase on the distinction between the tool and institutional viewpoint of information systems.
The distinction between the discrete-entity model and the web-model has been applied as an analytical device to analyze different aspects of IS as are indicated in Table 1. These aspects were suggested in Kling and Scacchi (1982) and are important for interpreting the earlier research done within the interactionist approach. "The basic unit of analysis of the discrete-entity model is a computing resource" (Kling and Scacchi, 1982, p. 9), the use of which is isolated "from the actual work practices and organization of labor within which automated data systems are typically developed and used" (p. 3). In distinction to this, "web models make explicit the salient connections between a focal technology and its social and political contexts" (p. 3). The assumptions of these two models are summarized in Table 1 and is borrowed from Kling (1987). Kling and Scacchi (1982) claim that the discrete-entity model is fairly flexible, because it employs not only ideas from the formal-rational perspective, but also from the structural and political. In contrast, the web model cannot be framed in the formal-rational perspective, but can
apply any of the other three theoretical perspectives (p. 24), i.e. the structural, political and interactionist.
The distinction between the tool and institutional views has been used in a similar way as the discrete entity and web model to analyze social and organizational aspects of IS (cf. Table 2). It was proposed by Kling and Iacono in later papers (Iacono and Kling, 1988; Kling and Iacono, 1989). Unfortunately, the authors do not explain the relationship between this later distinction and the earlier one of discrete-entity model vs. web-model, but we conclude that the distinction between the tool view and the institutional view is an evolutionary step towards a more structural view of organizations. Iacono and Kling (1988) contend that computer-based information systems (CBIS), developed from complex, interdependent social and technical choices are better conceptualized as institutions than as tools. They suggest (p. 104) that when "analysts emphasize the information-processing capabilities of a computer-based technology, they are foregrounding its 'toolness' or instrumental value of IS for particular social units". On the other hand, when "analysts emphasize the social and political choices that organizational actors have made over time, they are foregrounding its institutional character". Kling and Iacono's analysis of the social, political and technical determinants of the two views is summarized in Table 2. Their viewpoint suggests that "the image of a CBIS as a tool is associated with tremendous personal freedom", "there is an underlying assumption that computer-based technologies have no inherent politics: they are consistent with any social order" and "attention is focused on a future of technological perfection". In contrast, "institutional analyses emphasize the social use of CBIS and social control over computing arrangements", "politics play an important role" and the focus lies on "the developmental trajectories of CBIS. Institutions develop a character based on the interest they have served in the past, their organizing ideologies, and the world views which bind their participants together" (pp. 104-105).
Kling and Iacono propose that characterizing CBIS as institutions is important for three reasons (Iacono and Kling, 1988; Kling and Iacono, 1989). First, the usability of CBIS is more critical than the abstract information-processing capabilities of the underlying technology. Second, CBIS that are well-used and have stable social structures are more difficult to replace than those with less developed social structures and fewer participants. Third, CBIS vary from one social setting to another according to the ways in which they are organized and embedded in organized social systems.
While the interactionist approach's focus on the broader organizational issues is valuable, it unfortunately has not proposed any clear methods or methodologies for IS development which are based on the web model or the institutional view of IS.
Speech acts are basic units of communication expressing a human intent, such as making a promise or asserting a claim. To understand the meaning of a speech act the social situation in which it occurs (its context) must be taken into account. This typically consisted of the speaker, the hearer, time, and place of the communication. The context also includes the set of possible worlds covering all features of speakers, hearers, times, and other aspects.
In the context of classical IS development, assertives take a prominent place in that the contents of files and data bases are interpreted as "statements of fact" (see Hirschheim, Klein, Lyytinen 1995 for a detailed review of the literature). In distinction to this, some authors of the speech act-based approach (e.g. Winograd and Flores, 1986) paid special attention to directives and commissives as being of particular importance for management from the five categories of illocutionary points. While the direction of fit in the case of assertives is from word-to-world aimed at getting the word to match the independently existing state of affairs of the world, the direction in the case of directives and commissives is world-to-word, i.e. the illuctionary point is a commitment to alter world to match the word (Winograd and Flores 1986 see the obtaining of such commitments as the essence of management). In the former case adjectives such as "true" and "false" characterize how well the matching has taken place while in the latter case adjectives such as "fulfilled" and "unfulfilled" can be used to characterize how well the matching has taken place.
Even though the pioneering works on the SA-based approach in North America and Europe have had a common theoretical root, they have differed somewhat in their application. Winograd and Flores et al. (1986, 1987/1988) and Flores, et al. (1988), for example, have focused on discourses as ordered sequences of speech acts, especially those related to directives and commissives, whereas Lyytinen et al. (e.g. Lehtinen and Lyytinen, 1986) have covered a wider variety of illocutionary points and have also focused on the propositional content of speech acts. Since the early 1990's, speech act theory has aroused considerable interest in the IS community, leading to a number of methodologies or methodology fragments as is evident from the growing number of references.
This brief synopsis indicates that SA theory consists of a rich set of concepts for the analysis of intricate social communications, but its weakness is that it easily leads to a very complex approach. Efforts to adopt some simplified subset of SA theory has led to a number of IS development approaches that makes the current state SA-based approach quite fragmented (cf. Auramaki, et al. 1988).
The strength and distinguishing feature of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is its explicit focus on problem formulation by helping to identify the "relevant" systems from the perceptions of possibly disagreeing stakeholders. Although SSM is a general systems approach without any specific orientation towards information systems, its developers have increasingly advocated its application to IS development for which it is well suited (e.g. Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. 53). It also has aroused considerable interest within the larger IS community especially in Europe and Australasia. For example, soft systems thinking is an integral part of such methodologies as MULTIVIEW (Wood-Harper et al. 1985; Avison and Wood-Harper, 1990) and FAOR (Schafer, et al. 1988). It also has an extensive case history documentation. In order to keep our discussion as close as possible to what Checkland intended, the following synopsis of SSM is primarily based on the original texts of SSM, in particular Checkland and Scholes (1990).7
The development of SSM has very heavily relied on action research. In distinction to other views of action research, Checkland and Scholes underline the crucial importance of intellectual frameworks (in their case SSM) as a precondition for effective learning in action research (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. 16).
Originally, the inquiry process of SSM consisted of seven stages (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990): (1) the identification of the problem situation which is considered to be problematic, (2) the expression of the problem situation, (3) the formulation of root definitions of relevant systems, (4) the formulation of conceptual models of the relevant systems, (5) the comparison of the models and the real world, (6) description of systemically desirable and culturally feasible changes, and (7) action to improve the problem situation. Stages 1-2 and 5-7 are 'real-world' activities whereas stages 3 and 4 are 'systems thinking' activities.
Checkland and Scholes (1990) propose a revised version of SSM which is described in Figure 1. The most essential change in the new version is the incorporation of cultural analysis as a parallel stream to logic-based analysis. The logic-based stream starts with selecting relevant systems. Their choice may be primary task-based or issue-based. A primary task refers to purposeful action (official task) of some institutional arrangement (an organization or a department) in the real world. An issue-based relevant system does not necessarily have an institutionalized counterpart in the real world - it is a nominal system which may be created from scratch. The naming of the relevant systems is based on root definitions which express the core purpose of a purposeful activity system. The core purpose is always expressed as a transformation process in which some entity is transformed into some new form of that same entity in order to achieve some longer term aim. SSM proposes the CATWOE mnemonic to help with formulating complete root definitions: C = customers (the victims or beneficiaries of T), A = actors (those who would do the T), T = transformation process (the conversion of input to output), W = Weltanschaung (the worldview which makes this T meaningful in context), O = owners (those who could stop T), and E environmental constraints (elements outside the system which it takes as given).
The logic-based analysis stream also requires the analyst to compare the new system models with the actual reality as perceived. SSM suggests four ways of doing the comparisons: informal discussion, formal questioning, scenario writing based on operating the models, and trying to model the real world in the same structure as the conceptual models.
The stream of cultural inquiry consists of three types of analyses: analysis of the intervention, social system analysis and political system analysis. The first, includes a role analysis of the intervention focusing on three roles: the 'client' who caused the study to take place, the 'would-be problem solver' who wishes to do something about the situation in question and the 'problem owner'. For social system analysis Checkland and Scholes propose a model of three interacting elements: roles, norms, and values. A 'role' refers to a social position that is recognized as significant by people in the problem situation. 'Norms' are expected behaviors characterizing a role, and 'values' are the standards used to judge the performance in a role. In the context of social system analysis, the authors point out that the nature of the social system is not likely to emerge from direct questions because the answers are merely likely to reiterate the official myths. Instead, after each conversation, interview, or perusal of documents, etc., one should review the experience in order to form 'best judgments' about the meanings of roles, norms and values in question.
Political system analysis treats politics as a process by which differing interests reach accommodation, with which different parties decide to "go along" even though the conflicts endemic to human affairs continue to exist. Checkland and Scholes recognize the sensitivity of political analysis to public exposure: Politics is ultimately concerned with power and its disposition, and the results of the political analysis will reveal overt and covert power relationships. If these are made public (along with potential vested interests), they can easily become a potent means of power in the real politics of the situation (p. 51). Therefore users of SSM should be circumspect about the use of political analysis.
The purpose of the logical and cultural streams of inquiry and action is to encourage a structured debate about the changes that could help with the problematic situation at hand. SSM proposes that the changes should be 'systemically desirable' and 'culturally feasible'. One problem with SSM in this context is that it does not give clear guidelines on how to proceed from the debate on the relevant human activity systems to the implementation of "systematically desirable and culturally feasible" changes. The likely reason for this is the strict conceptual separation between human activity systems and the real world. Human activity systems by definition are not domain descriptions of the real-world, they are supposedly purely "notional" systems. If so, this precludes their use as constitutive models for the desirable and feasible changes in the real-world action, because in that case they would describe possible real-worlds and if implemented, would then describe the real-world (the model of the activity system could serve as the documentation for the new system). Even if this point is waved as a mere conceptual difficulty, SSM does not advocate that the activity system should become the new system - hence it is not clear how the transition from the status quo to an improved, feasible system is to be made (of course, structured methods do not solve this problem either, i.e. how to get from the functional model of the existing system to a new and improved functional model).
In conclusion, we can say that SSM has a number of strengths in the area of problem formulation, but its major weakness from the viewpoint of IS development is that its role in IS development is not particularly well articulated. Checkland and Scholes (1990) suggest an approach to IS development which is essentially based on recognizing rather than avoiding conflicts. It does this by defining multiple human activity systems to stimulate debate about their relevance and about the legitimacy of alternative root definitions (world views) behind them. Once a 'truly relevant' system has been agreed upon, one can analyze information flows, data and processing needs. For each activity identified in the relevant human activity, one can ask what information would have to be available to enable someone to do this activity and what information would be generated by doing it (pp. 56-57). From there one can proceed to using more conventional IS development methods (p. 313).9
Compared to the other five approaches, SSM is a relative complete, well documented methodology the viability of which is well illustrated in many published cases. It is somewhat surprising that it has not received more widespread attention.
The strength of the trade unionist approach is its focus on political-institutional power issues. It therefore appears to be best suited to organize the cooperation between management and collective bargaining units or trade unions. It suggests that the improvement of systems development is an issue of industrial democracy. This carries on the tradition that has evolved since the early 1960's mainly in three Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian background of the approach can largely be explained by the high unionization of the Scandinavian labor force leading to strong national labor federations and by large social democratic parties with strong links to the national federations (Ehn and Kyng, 1987). This has created a favorable situation for the co-determination arrangements and laws in the mid-1970's which ensured employees and unions the right to participate in the design of and decision-making on computer systems. However, the opportunity to participate in ISD posed a considerable challenge to trade unions for the following reason. Trade unions had traditionally dealt with distribution issues such as pay, working hours, and terms of employment. With the participation in systems development, they were confronted with design and manufacturing issues which are often more unstructured. There were no clearly formulated union objectives and demands. The unions' and employee's previous experience were of limited value (Sandberg, 1985). The recognition of this challenge was an important motivation for the formulation of trade union strategies for the development of computer-based systems.
This third phase emphasizes "cooperative design". As mentioned above, it theoretically leans more on the philosophies of Heidegger and Wittgenstein rather than on Marx. Bodker et al. (1991a) nevertheless, express their sympathy for users if they are members of "resource weak groups" (as opposed to management or executives), and refer to the trade union-centered approaches for organizing development projects for such resource weak groups (pp. 146-147). At the same the trade-unionist approach has lost most of its it critical edge, and has quite ironically approached the sociotechnical approach in many respects. Bjerknes and Bratteteig (1995) remark that despite the intellectual conflict between the sociotechnical approach and trade unionist approach (see Ehn, 1988), it is difficult to see a difference between the two in practice. This is more so in the case of the "cooperative design" in which the "design process is viewed as a (rather harmonious) dialogue between a designer and a user about the design of a particular computer application", the assumption being that the cooperative process leads to improved work situation and that organizations are willing to introduce the proposed changes (Bjerknes and Bratteteig, 1995). 12
The "cooperative design" approach in particular has recently aroused considerable interest (Kuhn and Muller, 1993). It has focused on the technical prerequisites of user participation in the actual building of IS. To facilitate the greatest possible role for users, it has aimed at developing various tools, techniques and principles to support effective user participation. In research, these tools are explored through experimenting with prototypes. This makes it difficult to evaluate how effective they would be in practice, because little research has been done to evaluate how effective these tools are in developing successful systems, in particular when these cover larger organizational units. The experience with cooperative prototyping tools is mainly based on action research projects with considerable research intervention and funding from researchers (Clement and Van den Besselaar, 1993). Clement and Van den Besselaar also report considerable difficulty with sustaining the continued use of the participatory design approaches after the research intervention when the novelty wanes and other work priorities reassert themselves. The attempts to transfer the ideas of "cooperative design" to North America have also aroused considerable debate in Scandinavia (Kraft and Bansler, 1994; Kyng, 1994).
Even though the proponents of the trade union tradition have used various names to characterize their approach, the label "trade unionist" emphasizes its most distinctive features. These are its origin, the Scandinavian industrial relations as its social background, the role of trade unions as sponsors and partners of its major research projects, and its belief in trade unions as legitimate representatives of resource weak groups.
The strength of the PWP approach is its emphasis on studying the actual work practices of systems professionals before attempting to improve them. Its advocates criticize methodologies for not paying sufficient attention to what system practitioners actually do and if what they do is deficient, to take a realistic look how it could be changed for the better. In this sense the focus of the PWP approach has been on the relationship between IS development methods and practice. From this perspective, new methodologies are to be considered as one of the options for improving the working practices, but by no means the only one. The empirical base for the strategy of the PWP approach is derived from investigating the conditions which determine the actual working practices of systems developers. The empirical base of the PWP approach appears to be stronger than its theoretical underpinnings. Its theoretical base is inspired by organizational learning theories, in particular, the "Reflective Practitioner" (Schon, 1983).13
The basic organizational action learning perspective of the PWP approach is summarized in Figure 2 (ibid, p. 43). It is based on three dichotomies: product-oriented vs. process-oriented view, reflection vs. action, and vision vs. present reality. "Performance" in Figure 2 refers to the actual systems development comprising the reflective functions (analysis and design) and innovative action function (realization). "Management" on the other hand corresponds to project management. The approach especially underlines experience, reflection and learning in the development of working practices towards increased professionalism. Its development is heavily based on empirical experience from practical systems development projects, without any strong theoretical preconceptions. This may explain why the underlying theoretical assumptions of the approach are weakly documented. In addition to the dissertation of Mathiassen (1981), the ideas of Argyris and Schon (e.g. Argyris and Schon, 1978; Schon, 1983) seem to form the only consistent source of inspiration.
From this framework more specific tools have been derived to support professional learning and reflection. The types of contributions of the PWP approach include: maps for diagnosing problematic situations (diagnostic, ecological and virtual maps, Lanzara and Mathiassen, 1985; Andersen, et al. 1990); the use of metaphors (Madsen, 1989) in generating visions (Kensing, 1987; Kensing and Madsen, 1991); and the systematic maintenance of professional diaries to document how decisions were made through the development process (cf. Lanzara and Mathiassen 1984; Jepsen, et al. 1989).
P1 Analysis and design are mutually dependent, and should therefore be performed concurrently in order to support each other.
P2 Product-oriented reflection (analysis and design) and realization affect each other, and should therefore be performed concurrently in order to support each other.
P3 It is not possible to perform qualified analysis and design strictly according to given guidelines. The activities require experience, intuition, imagination, and reflection.
P4 The project group's relation to the users is of decisive importance to the quality of the analysis. If direct cooperation cannot be established between developers and users, precise requirements specifications and knowledge about the application situation are needed.
P5 Good design is a question of flying high - and keeping both feet firmly on the ground. New visions and unconventional solutions must be created. It must at the same time be possible to introduce them into the organization.
P6 Technically oriented analysis and design may result in perfect solutions to wrong problems. Qualified analysis and design require technical, organizational and social competence.
P7 Qualified analysis and design require that different perspectives are applied. The choice of techniques and tools, and the choice of how to organize the process depend upon the situation.
P8 Neither the analysis nor the design activities can move unidirectionally from totality to detail. Knowledge of details and the concrete conditions are prerequisites for obtaining a comprehensive view of the situation.
P9 Tests do not solve any problems. Plan with time for repairs, thus preventing permanent firefighting.
P10 Qualified realization requires thorough planning of the conversion. The overall design should include the conversion plan.
M1 Evaluation and planning are mutually dependent, and should therefore be performed concurrently in
order to support each other.
M2 Process-oriented reflection (planning and evaluation) and regulation affect each other, and should
therefore be performed concurrently in order to support each other.
M3 Systems development is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. The most important prerequisite for qualified management is therefore transparency in both processes and product.
M4 It pays to establish the project systematically.
M5 Baselines and checkpoints are better than traditional phases. Traditional division into phases confuses time and content, thus making dynamic regulation of the project difficult.
M6 Project plans must facilitate evaluations. They must be in writing and contain evaluation criteria and procedures.
M7 Only the systems developers know enough to make realistic plans and to evaluate the status of the project.
M8 It is important that all participants in a project understand and accept the plan.
M9 It is necessary to apply several estimation techniques. The plan should be based on a problem estimate, and express the degree of uncertainty in the estimate.
M10 It is necessary to plan with management activities. Management typically constitutes 15% to 25% of the effort.
PM1 A systems development project should be organized in a way which ensures direct and close interaction between performance and management activities.
PM2 The most important intermediate products are the plan and the overall design.
In summary, the basic research question of the PWP approach is to ask how experience, reflection and learning can be marshaled in the development of good working practices towards increased professionalism. The fundamental answer suggested in Andersen et al. (1990, p. 60) is that better working practices can be learned by a combination of three strategies. The first is theoretical study (i.e. learning of new methods and tools or frameworks of analysis). The theoretical learning strategy must always be combined with the second strategy, seeking a broad spectrum of practical experience (i.e. by working with accomplished masters of the art). These two strategies should help new practitioners to design and maintain their own ways of learning. An important avenue to achieve professionalism is to help practitioners improve their capabilities to reflect upon their experiences and then change their behaviors accordingly. In this way both successes and failures become important assets for improving the practice. Professional diary keeping is to help track the experience record of success stories and failures - what worked and what did not. The third strategy for improving learning is building open-minded professional attitudes which encourage practitioners to actively seek out pertinent information by interacting with the professional community and through the study of the literature. In order to support good professional attitude formation, Anderson et al. also state that an environment and tradition for professional systems development should contain elements such as the following (p. 9): Active system developers, sufficient resources, exchange and evaluation of experience and study of relevant literature. Almost ironically, the PWP approach has failed to see the importance of methods in this process of reflection and learning, not as methods to be followed obediently, but as intellectual frameworks with which the experience can be compared and reflected upon (cf. SSM above).
Whereas the five approaches cannot be considered "full-scale" IS development methodologies, they nevertheless represent significant streams of IS research and have the potential of becoming complete methodologies. Although their current contribution is mainly cognitive in nature, i.e. broadened awareness of the phenomena related to IS development, they also provide a fair amount of practical support for IS development at least in the limited areas that are discussed in the above synopses.
Table 5 summarizes the five ISD approaches in terms of their goals, guiding principles, fundamental concepts, and principles of the ISD process (see section 2 of the paper). The characterization of the interactionist approach in Table 5 is based on the web and institutional views rather than the discrete-entity and tool views. This follows from Kling and Scacchi's (1982) preference for providing a rich set of ideas to characterize the web and institutional views. Table 5 is able to summarize only some of their major points. However, the Interactionist approach is very embryonic as an ISD approach, because it has not been elaborated into a concrete methodology for ISD. Nevertheless, we propose to treat it as an approach to exemplify a case of an ISD approach without any methodology instances. Furthermore, Kling and Scacchi (1982) clearly recognize the possibility of elaborating the web model to the level of a more concrete ISD methodology (p. 71).
The SA-approach is an example of an approach with a number of methodology instances. Its interpretation in Table 5 is not entirely based on the abstraction of common features of existing methodologies, but also on its theoretical background. To illustrate this, Table 5 identifies discourse/conversation analysis and propositional content analysis (information modeling in Lehtinen and Lyytinen, 1986) as a fundamental aspect of the SA-based approach. This is based on our interpretation of Speech Act theory (see also Ljungberg and Holm, 1995). As noted in section 4.2 however, Winograd et al. (1986, 1987/1988, 1988) do not address the propositional content of the subject of content analysis. Consequently, we interpret the SA-based methodology of Winograd et al. as partial in this respect. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into details of these specific methodologies. We only wish to point out with this example that each methodology instance of the SA-based approach may use slightly different activities, techniques and tools for discourse and propositional content analysis.
SSM is an example of an ISD approach with a number of methodology instances. For example, SSM (according to Checkland, 1981 and Checkland and Scholes, 1990), SSM (Wilson's 1984 version), MULTIVIEW (Avison and Wood-Harper, 1990) and FAOR (Schafer, et al., 1988) are all methodology instances. SSM can be considered as both an approach and a methodology in parallel. We interpret the extension of the SSM to include the stream of cultural analysis (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) in addition to the stream of logic-based analysis as an evolution of SSM as an approach. At the same time, Checkland and Scholes cautiously distance themselves from the seven stage model (Checkland, 1981) of the stream of logic-based analysis. This can be interpreted as an evolution of SSM as a methodology from Checkland's (1981) original version. Even though techniques like rich pictures and CATWOE are intimately associated with SSM, they are techniques which do not define SSM as an approach.
Although the trade unionist approach has evolved through a number of generations, these have implied certain changes in emphasis and focus which we interpret as a continued expansion and enrichment of the approach. The development of the trade unionist approach has mainly taken place at the level of an approach. As a methodology the trade unionist approach is still somewhat embryonic, proposing some specific techniques (such the union-led shadow project organization, mock-ups, prototypes) but needing further development of tools, techniques and activities.
PWP has also mainly been developed as an ISD approach. It includes a limited repertoire of specific techniques (such as diagnostic mapping techniques, metaphorical design, future workshops and use of diaries). As an ISD approach, it has been particularly explicit in stating a number of principles for the process of ISD. These principles revolve around the dualities listed under the entry 'concepts' in Table 5 and should be addressed concurrently.
The synopses and comparison of the approaches not only aimed at introducing the five approaches but also allows us to recognize their strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, we can look how the approaches complement each other. Each of these is explored in the next sections.
The strength of the Interactionist approach lies in its rich and articulated view of organizations. In interactionism, information systems are clearly considered to be first of all, social systems and only secondarily, technical systems. Even though it focuses on organizational symbolism and organizational politics, it also recognizes the potential value of the other views, i.e. the formal-rational, structural, human relations and class politics perspectives of IS. Currently, the Interactionist approach is an analytical framework for analyzing, understanding and interpreting IS development situations without concrete methods on how to actually develop systems.
The SA-based approach clearly has the most rigorous theoretical background - SA theory. It is also the most concrete in many respects as an IS development approach. It has led to a number of technical implementations. The SA-based approach is quite means-end-oriented without any consideration of the actual consequences of IS development and even less critical of the consequences. The conceptual complexity of the SA theory has led to a fragmented situation in which there are a great number of specific IS development methods applying some subset of the theory. They have not yet coalesced into a systematic, cooperative, approach covering all aspects of ISD.
SSM as an IS development approach also has a firm theoretical background. The obvious strength of SSM lies in problematic situations in which there is considerable controversy on the very nature of the human activity system to be supported by an information system. As suggested by FAOR (Schafer, et al. (1988)) SSM may also be useful as a general learning approach in less problematic situations. A clear weakness of SSM is that it is weakly integrated with IS development. It has been subject to evolution during the 1980's as a general systems approach and been updated in Checkland and Scholes (1990). Furthermore, even though Checkland (1981) suggests that the lack of a critical perspective in SSM is a matter of practice rather than principle, there are several aspects in SSM that reflect the values of those in power, i.e. management.
The most distinctive aspect of the Scandinavian trade unionist approach has been its critical view of IS and the primacy given to workers' interests. As pointed out above this aspect has been weakening in the recent evolution of the approach. On the other hand, this less radical ethical stance may explain the increased interest in the trade unionist approach. Its latest two stages - 'collective resource' approach and 'cooperative design' approach - have also advocated a tool perspective of computer artifacts. Even though the tool view can be considered as an ideal, it has led to a quite technical view of computer artifacts (information systems), a view that has lost sight of the possible role of information systems as a means of control and domination. It also explains the artifact-oriented design and development of work in which work is not subjected to any explicit analysis, design and evaluation.
The strength of the Professional Work Practice approach is that it is firmly grounded in IS development practice. The approach is practical and seemingly quite clear, but lacks clarity and structure at a more theoretical level. This is likely so because it lacks a clear, unifying theoretical background. The PWP approach especially focuses on experience, reflection and learning in the development of working practices towards increased professionalism of IS developers, but it does not recognize the potential value of articulated methods as intellectual frameworks facilitating effective learning. The PWP approach as articulated in Andersen et al. (1990) is eclectic. It adopts a collection of concepts, ideas and methods the underlying assumptions of which make it look "orthodox" in some respects.
While the five approaches discussed in this paper were characterized as "alternatives" to the more traditional ISD approaches, it is interesting to ask: "to what extent are the approaches complementary to themselves?" It is our belief that the essences of the five ISD approaches can be interpreted to be broadly complementary. For example, SSM as an approach can be perceived as a general method of inquiry into organizational design and redesign, preceding IS development. SSM is particularly useful when there is a wide spectrum of different meanings and interests related to the organization and its future development. Even though SSM has been described as an approach for IS development, its actual integration with ISD is relatively underdeveloped (Wood-Harper, et al. 1985; Avison and Wood-Harper, 1990). The interactionist approach, on the other hand, has more specific concepts for analyzing the organizational roles and meanings of information systems. It could prove powerful in illuminating the "tragedy and comedy" (Churchman, 1978) of organizational change related to the organizational implementation of information systems. In that sense it could enrich SSM.
Other complementary contributions could be expected from the SA-based approach. Even though the SA-based approach offers some suggestions for the organizational modeling of information systems (Goldkuhl and Lyytinen, 1984), its core contribution lies in modeling communication as structured discourses consisting of speech acts. In that sense it could complement both SSM and the interactionist approach. The strength of the trade unionist approach, in particular in its latest generation, is its support for informal interaction and communication between professional IS developers and users based on mock-ups and prototypes. These methods could complement the relatively formal requirements analysis associated with the SA-based approach. Finally, the PWP approach has focused mainly on project management and its related issues rather than on organizational modeling, redesign, requirements analysis, technical design and implementation. In that sense it could complement all the preceding approaches.
This present paper has introduced and evaluated five ISD approaches selected to contrast the "orthodoxy" of prevailing ISD approaches. The value of the paper is three-fold. Firstly, it provides condensed surveys of the approaches for a reader who may not have the possibility of studying the original references. Secondly, it includes a condensed evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Third, the paper helps researchers to envision possible directions which future research on ISD approaches might take.
This paper is a piece in our wider research programme on the fundamental aspects of ISD approaches. The paradigmatic assumptions of the five approaches are analyzed in detail in an accompanying paper (Iivari, Hirschheim and Klein, 1997). These two papers together confirm our expectation that the five approaches do, indeed, significantly differ in several respects from the assumptions of the dominant "orthodoxy". As was indicated in the introductory literature review, several earlier research projects employing a variety of research methods, reached the conclusion that IS research is dominated by the functionalist tradition. It is comforting to note that the dominant "orthodoxy" has not completely stifled deviating work.
The results indicate that the five approaches do not form a coherent alternative to the dominant tradition of systems development. There are important differences among them. Each represents a different school of thought with some cross-connections and mutual reinforcements readily apparent. An implication of this point is that the five alternative IS development approaches indicate a fragmentation of IS as an academic discipline. It is thus consistent with Banville and Landry's (1989) diagnosis of the community structure of IS as an academic discipline, namely that it is a fragmented adhocracy. Our comparison provides a type of cognitive map to some of the loosely coupled schools of thought or approaches which Banville and Landry's saw as typical of an adhocracy. This diagnosis puts IS in the company of other related academic disciplines. For example the trend towards increased fragmentation has taken place in management and organizational theory as is discussed in Whitley (1984), (1985) and Astley (1985). In view of the high strategic task uncertainty in IS research, multiple and fluid problem formulations are to be expected. Possibly they are even desirable, testifying to the vigor of a new academic discipline attempting to cope with the complex nature of its subject matter.
Andersen, N., Kensing, F., Lundin, J., Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Rasbech, M. and Sorgaard, P., (1990), Professional Systems Development: Experience, Ideas and Action, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead
Argyris, C. and Schon, D., (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA
Astley,W.G. and Sachdava, P.S., (1984), "Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 104-113
Astley, W.G., (1985), "Administrative science as socially constructed truth", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 473-513
Auramäki. E, Hirschheim, R. and Lyytinen, K. (1992a), "Modeling offices through discourse analysis: The SAMPO approach", The Computer Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, 342-352
Auramäki. E, Hirschheim, R. and Lyytinen, K. (1992b), "Modeling offices through discourse analysis: A comparison and evaluation of SAMPO with OSSAD and ICN", The Computer Journal, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 492-500
Auramäki, E., Lehtinen, E. and Lyytinen, K. (1988), "A speech-act-based office modeling approach", ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 126-152
Avgerou, C. and Cornford, A. (1993), "A review of the methodologies movement", Journal of Information Technology, Vol.8, , pp.277-286.
Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G. (1988), Information Systems Development Methodologies: Techniques and Tools, Blackwell, Oxford
Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G., (1995), Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, Second edition, McGraw-Hill, NY
Avison, D., Shah, H., Powell, P., and Uppal, P. (1992), "Applying methodologies for information systems development", Journal of Information Technology, Vol.7, pp.127-140.
Avison, D.E. and Wood-Harper, A.T., (1990), Multiview, An exploration in information systems development, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford
Banville, C. and Landry, M., (1989), "Can the field of MIS disciplined?", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 48-60
Baskerville, R., Travis, J. and Truex, D. (1992), "Systems without methods: The impact of new technologies on information systems development projects", in Kendall, K.E., Lyytinen, K. and DeGross, J.I. (eds.), The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems development, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 241-269
Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T., (1995), "User participation and democracy: A discussion of Scandinavian research on systems development", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2, April, pp. 73-97
Bostrom, R.B. and Heinen, J.S., (1977), "MIS problems and failures. A socio-technical perspective: Part I: The causes", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3
Bubenko, J. (1986), "Information systems methodologies – A research view", in Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.), Information systems design methodologies: improving the practice, North-Holland, Amsterdam
Bubenko, J. (1988), Selecting a strategy for computer-aided software engineering (CASE), SYSLAB report No. 59, University of Stockholm, Sweden
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., (1979), Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, Heineman, London
Bödker, S. et al., (1987), "A Utopian experience, On design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers", in Bjerkenes, G., Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (eds.): Computers and Democracy, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 251-278
Bödker, S., Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M., (1991), "Setting the stage for design as action", in Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 139-154
Bödker, S. and Grönbæk, K., (1991a), "Design in action: From prototyping by demonstration to cooperative prototyping", in Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 197-218
Bödker, S. and Grönbæk, K., (1991b), "Cooperative prototyping studies - users and designers envision a dental case record system", in Bowers, J.M. and Benford, S.D. (eds.), Studies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 315-332
Carlsson, J. et al., (1978), "Planning and control from the perspective of labor: A short presentation of the DEMOS project", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3/4, pp. 249-260
Chatzoglou, P.D. and Macaulay, L.A., (1996) "Requirements capture and IS methodologies", Information Systems Journal, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 209-225
Checkland, P., (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Churchman, C.W. (1978), The Systems Approach and its Enemies, Basic Books, New York
Dagwell, R. and Weber, R., (1983), "System designers' user models: A comparative study and methodological critique", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 987-997
Dewitz, S.K. and Lee, R.M., (1989), "Legal procedures as formal conversations: Contracting on a performative network", in DeGross, J.I., Henderson, J.C. and Konsynski, B.R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 53-65
Dietz, J.L.G., (1992), "Subject-oriented modeling of open active systems", in Falkenberg, E.D., Rolland, C. and El-Sayed E.N. (eds.), Information Systems Concepts: Improving the Understanding, IFIP Transactions A-4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 227-238
Dietz, J.L.G. and Widdershoven, G.A.M, (1991), "Speech acts or communication action", in Bannon, L., Robinson, M. and Schmidt, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 235-248
Dobson, J.E., Martin, M.J., Olphert, C.W. and Powrie, S.E., (1991), "Determining requirements for CSCW: the ORDIT approach", in Stamper, R.K., Kerola, P. and Lyytinen, K. (eds.), Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 333-353
Donaldson Dewitz, S., (1991), "Contracting on a performative network: Using information technology as a legal intermediary", in Stamper, R.K., Kerola, P. and Lyytinen, K. (eds.), Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 271-293
Ehn, P., (1988), Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm
Ehn, P. and Kyng, M.,(1987), "The collective resource approach to systems design", in Bjerkenes, G., Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (eds.): Computers and Democracy, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 17-57
Ehn, P. and Kyng, M., (1991), "Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up and hand-on the future", in Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 169-195
Ehn, P., Kyng, M., Sundblad, Y. et al, (1983), "The Utopia Project", in Briefs, U., Ciborra, C. and Schneider, L. (eds.): Systems Design For, With, and By the Users, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 439-449
Ehn, P. and Sandberg, A., (1983), "Local union influence on technology and work organization", in Briefs, U., Ciborra, C. and Schneider, L. (eds.): Systems Design For, With, and By the Users, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 427-437
Ehn, P. and Sjögren, D., (1991), "From system descriptions to scripts for action", in Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 241-268
Emblay, D.W., Jackson, R.B. and Woodfield, S.N., (1995), OO-systems analysis: Is it or isn't it, IEEE Software, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1995, pp. 19-33
Episkopou, D. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1986), "Towards a framework to choose appropriate IS approaches", The Computer Journal, Vol.29, No.3, pp.222-228.
Fitzgerald, B. (1994), "The systems development dilemma: whether to adopt formalized systems development methodologies or not?", Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Information Systems, W. Baets (ed.), Nijenrode University, pp.691-706.
Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B. and Winograd, T. (1988), "Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction", ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 153-172
Flores, F. and Ludlow, J.J., (1980), "Doing and speaking in the office", in Fick, G. and Sprague, R.H. Jr. (eds.): Decision Support Systems: Issues and Challenges, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, pp. 95-118
Goldkuhl, G. and Lyytinen, K., (1982), "A language view of information systems", in Ross, C. and Ginz-berg, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information, Ann Arbor, pp. 13-29
Goldkuhl, G. and Lyytinen, K., (1984), "Information system specification as rule reconstruction", in Bemelmans, Th.M.A. (ed.): Beyond Productivity, Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 79-94
Grønbæk, K., (1989), "Rapid prototyping with fourth generation systems - an empirical study", Office: Technology and People, Vol. 5. No. 2, pp. 105-125
Grønbæk K., (1991), Prototyping and Active User Involvement in Systems Development: Towards a Cooperative Prototyping Approach, PhD thesis, Aarhus University
Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.) (1991a), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey
Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M., (1991b), "Introduction: Situated design", in Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 1-24
Hammer, M. and Champy, J., (1993), Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution, Nicholas Brealey, London, 1993
Hardy, C.J., Thompson, J.B. and Edwards, H.M. (1995), "The use, limitations and customization of structured systems development methods in the United Kingdom", Information and Software Technology, Vol. 37, No. 9, pp. 467-477
Harmsen, F., Brinkkemper, S. and Oei, H. (1994), Situational method engineering for information system project approaches, in Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. and Olle, T.W. (eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, IFIP Transactions A-55, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp.169-194
Hedberg, B. and Mumford, E., (1975), "The design of computer systems: man's vision of man as an integral part of the systems design process", in Mumford, E. and Sackman, H. (eds.): Human Choice and Computers, American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, pp. 31-59
Henderson-Sellers, B. (1995), "Who need an object-oriented methodology anyway", Journal of Object Oriented Programming, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 6-8
Hirschheim, R. and Klein H.K., (1989), "Four paradigms of information systems development", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 1199-1216
Hirschheim, R. and Klein H.K., (1992), "Paradigmatic influences on information systems development methodologies: Evolution and conceptual advances", in Yovits, M. (ed.), Advances in Computers, Vol. 34, pp. 293-392
Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K., (1994), "Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: The case for ETHICS", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 1, March, pp. 83-109
Hirschheim, R. and Klein H.K. and Lyytinen, K., (1995), Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Hirschheim, R. and Klein H.K. and Lyytinen, K., (1996), "Exploring the intellectual foundations of information systems", Accounting , Management and Information Technologies, Vol. 6, No. 1 / 2, pp. 1-64
Humphrey, W.S. (1989), Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Hong, S., van den Goor, G. and Brinkkemper, S., (1993), "A formal approach to the comparison of object-oriented analysis and design methodologies", Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. X, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 689-698
Iacono, S. and Kling, R., (1988), "Computer systems as institutions: Social dimensions of computing in organizations", in DeGross, J.I. and Olson, M.H. (eds.): Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. 101-110
Iivari, J., (1991), "A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 249-272
Iivari, J., (1994), "Object-oriented information systems analysis: A comparison of six object-oriented analysis methods", in Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. and Olle, T.W. (eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, IFIP Transactions A-55, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 85-110
Iivari, J. and Hirschheim, R., (1996), "Analyzing information systems development: a comparison and analysis of eight IS development approaches", Information Systems, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 551-575
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H., (1997) "A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies", accepted for publication Information Systems Research
ISO 9000-3 (1991), Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001 to the development, supply, and maintenance of software, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Janson M.A. and Woo, C.C., (1992), "Investigating information and knowledge gathering methods: A speech act lexicon perspective", in Falkenberg, E.D., Rolland, C. and El-Sayed E.N. (eds.), Information Systems Concepts: Improving the Understanding, IFIP Transactions A-4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 239-257
Jayaratna, N., (1994), Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies, NISAD: A Systematic Framework, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead
Jayartna, N. and Fitzgerald, B. (1996), (eds.) Lessons Learned from the Use of Methodologies: Fourth Conference on Information Systems Methodologies
Jepsen, L., Mathiassen, L. and Nielsen, P., (1989), "Back to thinking mode: diaries for the management of information systems development projects", Behavior and Information Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 207-217
Johannesson, P., (1995), "Representation and communication - a speech act based approach to information systems design", Information Systems, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 291-303
Kensing, F., (1987), "Generation of visions in systems development", in Docherty, P., Fuchs-Kittowski K., Kolm, P. and Mathiassen, L. (eds.), Systems Design for Human and Productivity - Participation and beyond, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 285-301
Kensing, F. and Madsen, K.H., (1991), "Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphorical design", in Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.), Cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 155-168
Kensing, F. and Winograd, R., (1991), "The language/action approach to design of computer-support for cooperative work: A preliminary study in work mapping", in Stamper, R.K., Kerola, P. and Lyytinen, K. (eds.), Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 311-331
Klein, H.K. and Truex, D., (1995), "Discourse Analysis: A semiotic approach to the investigation of organizational emergence", in P.B. Andersen and B. Holmqvist, The Semiotics of the Workplace, Walter DeGruyter.
Klein, H.K. and Welke, R.J., (1982), "Information systems", in Huff, S. (ed.): ASAC, Vol. 3, Part 4, pp. 106-116
Kling, R., (1980) "The social analyses of computing", ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 61-110
Kling, R., (1987), "Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations", in Boland, R.J. and Hirschheim, R.A. (eds.): Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 307-362
Kling, R. and Iacono, S., (1984), "The control of information systems developments after implementation", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 27, No. 12, pp. 1218-1226
Kling, R. and Iacono, S., (1989), "The institutional character of computerized information systems", Office: Technology and People, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7-28
Kling, R and Scacchi, W., (1980), "Computing as social action: The social dynamics of computing in complex organizations", in Yovits, M.C. (ed.): Advances in Computers, Vol. 19, pp. 249-327
Kling, R and Scacchi, W., (1982), "The web of computing: Computer technology as social organization", in Yovits, M.C. (ed.): Advances in Computers, Vol. 21, pp. 1-90
Kraft, P., (1977), Programmers and managers, Springer, New York
Kraft, P. and Bansler, J.P., (1994), "The collective resource approach: The Scandinavian experience", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 71-84
Kuhn, S. and Muller, M.J., (1993), "Participatory design", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 24-28
Kumar, K. and Björn-Andersen, N., (1990), "A cross cultural comparison of IS designer values", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 528-538
Kumar, K. and Welke, R., (1984), "Implementation failure and system developer values: Assumptions, truisms and empirical evidence", in Maggi, L., King, J. and Kraemer, K. (eds.): Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Tucson, pp. 1-13
Kyng, M., (1989), "Designing for a dollar a day", Office: Technology and People, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 157-170
Kyng, M., (1991), "Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 12, pp. 65-73
Kyng, M., (1994), "Collective Resources meets puritanism", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 85-96
Kyng, M. and Mathiassen, L., (1982), "Systems development and trade union activities", in Björn-Andersen, N. (ed.), Information Society, for richer, for poorer, North-Holland, Amsterdam
Lanzara, G. and Mathiassen, L., (1985), "Mapping situations within a systems development project", Information & Management, Vol. 8, pp. 3-20
Lehtinen, E. and Lyytinen, K., (1986), "Action based model of information system", Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 299-317
Ljungberg, J. and Holm, P. (1996), "Speech acts on trial", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 29-52
Lyytinen, K. and Hirschheim, R., (1988), "Information systems as rational discourse: An application of Habermas' theory of communicative action", Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 4, No. 1/2, pp. 19-30
Lyytinen, K. and Klein, H., (1985), "The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas as a basis for a theory of information systems", in Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (eds.): Research Methods in Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 219-236
Lyytinen, K., (1986), Information Systems Development as Social Action: Framework and critical implications, Jyväskylä Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics 8, Jyväskylä
Lyytinen, K., (1987), "Two views of information modeling", Information & Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 9-19
Madsen, K.H., (1989), "Breakthrough by breakdown: Metaphors and structured domains", in Klein, H.K. and Kumar, K. (eds.), Systems Development for Human Progress, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 41-53
Mathiassen, L. (1988) Oral presentation in the panel on "Information Systems Development Methodology Evaluation" in the Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Monarchi, D.E. and Puhr, G.I., (1992), "A research typology for object-oriented analysis and design", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 35-47
Mumford, E., (1983), Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS method, Manchester Business School, Manchester
Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (eds.), (1985), Research Methods in Information Systems, North-Holland, Amsterdam
Nielsen, P.A., (1989), "Reflections on development methods for information systems: A set of distinctions between methods", Office: Technology and People, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 81-104
Nielsen, P. (1995) "Action research into participative IS development", working paper, Aalborg University, Department of Computer Science, Denmark
Nissen, H.-E., Klein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R. (eds.), (1991), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent Traditions, North-Holland, Amsterdam
Nygaard, K. and Bergo, O.T., (1974), "The trade unions - New users of research", Personnel Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 5-10
Orlikowski W.J. and Baroudi, J.J., (1991), "Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions", Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-28
Parnas, D.L. and Clements, P.C., (1986), "A rational design process: How and why to fake it?", in Ehring, H. et al. (eds.), Formal Methods and Software Development, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. (1995), "Capability maturity model, Version 1.1", IEEE Software, July, pp. 18-27
Sandberg, A.. (1983), "Trade union-oriented research for democratization of planning in work life - problems and potentials", Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 59-71
Sandberg, A., (1985), "Socio-technical design, trade union strategies and action research", in Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R.A., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (eds.): Research Methods in Information Systems, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 79-92
Schon, D., (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, Temple Smith, London
Schäfer, G. et al., (1988), Functional Analysis of Office Requirements: A multiperspective approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Searle, J.R., (1969), Speech Acts, An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Searle, J.R., (1979), Expression and Meaning, Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Searle, J.R. and Vanderveken, D., (1985), Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Unhelkas, B. and Mandapur, G. (1995), "Practical aspects of using a methodology: A road map approach", Report of Object Analysis & Design, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 34-36, 54
Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S. and Tractinsky, N. (1992), "Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodology companions", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1992, pp. 90-105
von Bulow, I., (1989), "The bounding of a problem situation and the concept of a system's boundary in soft systems methodology", Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 16, pp. 35-41
Westrup, C. (1993), "Information systems methodologies in use", Journal of Information Technology, Vol.8, pp. 267-275
Whitley, R. (1984), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Claredon Press, Oxford, UK
Whitley, R. (1985), The transformation of business finance into financial economics: the roles of academic expansion and changes in U.S. capital markets, Working Paper, Manchester Business School, Manchester
Wilson, B., (1984), Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Winograd, T., (1987/1988), "A language/action perspective on the design of computer supported cooperative work", Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 3-30
Winograd, T. and Flores, F., (1986), Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex, Norwood, NJ
Wood-Harper, A.T., Antill, L. and Avison, D.E., (1985), Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford
Wynekoop, J.L. and Russo, N. (1993), "Systems development methodologies: Unanswered questions and the research-practice gap", in DeGross, J.I., Bostrom, R. and Robey, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL, pp. 181-190
Wynekoop, J.L. and Russo, N. (1997), "Studying systems development methodologies: an examination of research methods", Information Systems Journal, Vol.7, No.1, January, pp.47-65.
