Against Structured Approaches: Information Requirements ... - CiteSeerX

Against Structured Approaches: Information Requirements Analysis as a Socially Mediated Process R D Galliers and J A Swan Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, England email: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Information systems (IS) development approaches are considered with particular reference to information requirements analysis. The majority can be classified as adopting a unitary, objective perspective. This fails to fully recognise the interpretative, inter-subjective nature of information and the importance of informal as well as formal data processing systems. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion on tools and methods for systems development by providing a contrasting perspective on information requirements analysis as a process which is socially mediated. A framework is developed which places information requirements in the context strategic IS development. This features social communication networks centrally in this process and raises implications for practice in IS development.

1. Background There has been considerable emphasis in the literature on information systems (IS) development on using structured approaches as a means of identifying information requirements for systems development. An assumption underpinning such approaches is that formal, Information Technology-based data processing systems are the medium through which information requirements can be best met (c.f. Avison and Fitzgerald, [1]. This is so, despite the fact that authors in the IS field [2] and in the field of organization theory [3] have long emphasised the significance of the informal, political and interpretative aspects of information. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion of automated tools in IS development by providing a contrasting perspective on information requirements analysis as being socially mediated and thereby requiring awareness of the socio-political aspects of the IS development process and associated techniques. The paper argues that such a perspective might usefully complement the more formal, automated tools and

methods upon which there continues to be a heavy reliance. The mainstream IS literature implies that investment and development of Information Technology (IT) within firms is a rational process which begins with an initial identification of information requirements, based on objective analysis of mission statements and/or current operations, and then assumes that required data will be made available through current and/or planned IT systems. Decisions are made to develop and/or invest further in IT systems where they are deemed to generate new or additional information that the organization needs to manage its day-to-day operations and strategic planning. Thus, through formal planning and ongoing development and modification of formal data processing systems, the organization's information requirements can be met. This perspective is underpinned by at least two major assumptions: first, unitary assumptions - i.e., that information requirements are geared towards a single set of goals or objectives which can be specified in advance and which are uniformly adhered to throughout an organization; second, assumptions of objectification i.e., that all knowledge relevant to information requirements can be codified and formalised into IT systems. This paper argues, first, that many tools and methods for IS development are predicated on such assumptions. While some approaches recognise the limitations of a unitary, objective perspective, (e.g. [4]) it is still the case that relatively little attention is given to the subjective nature of information use in organizations. Second, this paper contends that this emphasis on rational, unitary approaches, and on formal, IT-based data processing-systems, is misplaced. As a consequence, tools and methods based on such assumptions are, at best, incomplete. It is suggested that, even if it were possible to rationalise decisions concerning information requirements analysis, reliance on formal data-processing systems is not the only, nor the optimal, way to identify or meet information requirements in firms. This paper argues that an different approach is needed if information

Proceedings of The Thirtieth Annual Hawwaii International Conference on System Sciences ISBN 0-8186-7862-3/97 $17.00 © 1997 IEEE

1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

requirements analysis and, more broadly, IS development, is to be more realistically understood - one which is underpinned by assumptions of pluralism and subjectivity. Pluralism, because social actors within organizations do not all adhere to the same unitary objectives. Subjectivity (and inter-subjectivity), because much of the knowledge relevant to information requirements analysis is tacit or socially constructed, and therefore not able to be codified into formal data processing systems. These arguments are supported by referring to earlier case studies which have revealed that IT investment and design decisions rarely follow the rational path implied by such approaches [5] [6]. The paper also draws upon earlier literature on information requirements analysis that incorporates the informal alongside formal data processing systems and emphasises the interpretative quality of information [7, 8]. A framework is presented which attempts to begin to describe IS development, and information requirements analysis in particular, as a socially-mediated process involving the development of organizational and technical knowledge via formal and informal intra- and inter-organizational communication networks. This perspective highlights the need for on-going review of the needs and priorities of different stakeholders involved in the process of change as well as both intended and unintended outcomes of IS strategy and implementation. Finally, the manner in which IS services/support is organized and implications associated with the management of IS development are discussed in relation to this framework. The paper is structured as follows. First we attempt a classification of many of the approaches to information requirements analysis and IS development that can be found in the literature. For this purpose we use an adaptation of Hirschheim and Klein’s [9] framework, which is itself based on a framework first developed by Burrell and Morgan [10]. Common approaches to information requirements analysis and IS development are briefly described and evaluated, and are found to be wanting in their lack of acknowledgement of the interpretative, political, informal and social aspects of information. These aspects of information are then considered in more detail. As a result of this analysis, we argue that information requirements can be better understood by viewing the process as socially mediated rather than as technical systems design per se. Our aim is to fuel a debate between two schools of thought (unitary, objective versus pluralistic, subjective) with a view to providing new insights which might inform IS development thinking and practice in the future. Finally,

we begin to consider some implications of adopting a pluralistic, subjective stance for managing the process of IS development. We suggest that the use of ‘techniques’ that address the socio-political aspects of IS development, rather than being sidelined as a problem to be solved by specialists in other domains, should be at the forefront of thinking among IS specialists to complement (not replace) more formal automated tools (e.g., CASE tools). 2. A Classification of IS Development Approaches A number of authors have attempted a classification of IS development approaches over the years [1, 9, 11, 12]. For the purposes of this paper, we will utilise the latter two classifications while incorporating significant features of the former. Hirschheim and Klein [9] remind us that IS developers approach their task differently depending on their explicit and implicit assumptions about the nature of organizations, the design task itself and their role in that process. Depending on those assumptions, different IS development approaches are adopted, each having different outcomes. Utilising Burrell and Morgan’s [10] framework, they identify four paradigms for IS development. Figure 1 is an adaptation of their model. It distinguishes between those approaches which adopt a rational analysis of organizational objectives and/or business processes, following well defined steps, with a view to the identification of new or enhanced IT-based system opportunities, with those that focus more on the informal and subjective nature of information use in organizations (cf., the more systemic or holistic approaches which form part of the earlier Wood-Harper and Fitzgerald framework, [11]). It also contrasts those approaches that assume a single view of organizational priorities and imperatives with those that adopt a pluralistic view, acknowledging the varying cognitive perspectives of different stakeholders and the role of cognitive and political processes amongst the actors within human organizations [5]. Avison and Fitzgerald [1] adopt a somewhat different stance in classifying IS development approaches. They identify a number of “themes” in systems development that have arisen from the perceived inadequacies of the traditional systems development life cycle approaches adopted in the early days of commercial data processing [13]. These “themes”, while by no means mutually exclusive, provide a useful basis for identifying the most common approaches to information requirements analysis and IS development. They include: - structured approaches to process modelling, with an emphasis on analysis of processes and functional


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

decomposition, and with a clear distinction being made between application logic and the computer representation of that logic (see, for example, Yourdan and Constantine [14]). - data modelling/database approaches, which focus on understanding and documenting data and their relationships rather than the above concentration on processes (for example, Date [15]) - object-oriented approaches, which rely on the identification of objects which exhibit behaviour, to which actions are directed and which have an identity and a state, the objective being to facilitate code re-use (for example, Booch [16]; Coad and Yourdan [17]). - prototyping - a means of developing systems in situations where the analyst is unsure of user requirements, the prototype system being continually refined in line with user responses until a satisfactory outcome is achieved (for example, Martin [18]). - software engineering and formal methods, which offer a disciplined approach to programming following clear and unambiguous specification of requirements designed to decrease the time spent on testing and maintenance of the resultant system (for example, Jackson [19]; Andrews and Ince [20]). - participative approaches, which rely heavily on user involvement not just with respect to requirements specification but system design in addition (for example, Land and Hirschheim [21]). - knowledge acquisition - an attempt to acquire and structure knowledge via the representation of rules prior to building expert systems (for example, Turban [22]). - systems approaches, based on concepts emanating from General Systems Theory [23] with a set of interrelated elements, making up “the system”, displaying emergent properties (for example, Checkland [24)]. Checkland divides systems approaches into two schools of thought: hard and soft, with the latter being his preferred option, given its pluralistic outlook; - strategic planning approaches - the identification of IS that will support the business strategy and which might provide new business opportunities (for example, Earl [25]). - business process reengineering (BPR), with a focus on radical change in business processes enabled by IT, the objective being to reduce costs by doing away with outmoded rules and procedures (for example, Davenport and Short [26], Hammer [27]). An attempt is made in Figure 1 to locate the above approaches within a framework which utilises the two dimensions identified above: unitary - pluralist and objective/formal - subjective/informal. Figure 1 echoes the framework adopted by Hirschheim and Klein [9] but

differs from it in that it de-emphasises the conflictual nature of alternative requirements, preferring to see these not as assumed stances, but the very nature of information requirements of the various social actors in organizations. Unitary

Objective / Formal

Software Engineering Knowledge Acquisition Structured Approaches Data Modelling Object Oriented Approaches Strategic Planning Approaches BPR

Hard Systems Approaches Participative Methods

Prototyping

Subjective / Informal Soft Systems Approaches

Pluralist

Figure 1. A framework for the classification of IS development approaches (after Burrell and Morgan [10], Hirschheim and Klein [9]). As can be seen, the majority of information requirements analysis approaches, and associated methodologies, adopt a unitary/objective stance, with a few exhibiting a pluralistic/subjective orientation. This may be a reflection of a preoccupation that has existed among systems developers with tools for automating the process: “The hope of automating some aspects or even all of the IS development process is an abiding one, and has intrigued developers for many years” [1] p.72. Why is this so? First, it is clear that there are “aspects of the systems development process [that] are repetitive or rule-based and therefore susceptible to automation.” [1] p.72. In addition, a common complaint about IS projects is that they overrun deadlines, and systems developers give the appearance of being more concerned with technical design and model building than with information requirements. Automation of these aspects, it is argued, leads not only to greater efficiency but also to increased effectiveness in that simple errors and inconsistencies can be eliminated [28]. Case study evidence suggests, however, that there are negative aspects to the automation of the process [29]. In one project which utilised a participative approach, it became clear that the IS members of the team were more interested in interacting with the CASE tool than with the other team members. The attitude of the IS specialists


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

T

/ AL M

MAL DP SYSTE OR M S ERS

T FIL

MEMORY KNOWLEDGE

F IN

SYCHOLOGIC /P A L RMATION O F

IGNED DP DES SY ST EMOT E IO NA THE IN

M

D

FO R

Although today even the most structured and formal of IS development methods acknowledge the requirements of IS users, we argue that the unitary, rational model continues to underpin many approaches to IS development and information requirements planning. While there is evidence to suggest that in some cases companies do apply simple capital investment appraisal techniques to decisions related to the investment, design and use of IT within firms [31], there is counter evidence to suggest that such decisions are mediated by cognitive and political processes among various social actors within organizations and occur with very little attention to formal information requirements [5]. A subjective, pluralist stance views perceptions of the ‘real’ world as cognitively and socially constructed. Individuals engage in sensemaking when dealing with complex problems an use unique cognitive schema (mentally represented concepts and relationships among concepts) are used to construct and simplify problems [32]. Schema enable individuals to use past experience to select, interpret and reconstruct information available via formal data processing systems and via informal and social systems. Schema therefore allow individuals to generate expectations about events which can be used to initiate some kind of action. Any action taken would then

'REAL' W OR L HE S ER US

3. The informal, subjective nature of information

generate additional information which could modify existing schema and generate further action. Some information may be formal and codified but much is more tacit and informal. Thus the process of acquiring and using information is often emergent and unpredictable, with decisions generating unintended consequences that then shape further decisions. This interpretative quality of information has been recognised by more recent research in the IS field [7, 8, 30]. For example, Figure 2 (amended by Galliers [33] from Land [7]) illustrates this as well as the importance of informal as well as formal data processing when information users acquire and interpret information.

L

seemed to be that it was the users’ role to identify initial requirements and implementation issues, while theirs was to utilise the technology and ensure that aspects of the design process, such as entity-relationship modelling, were internally consistent. The communication between the IS and business representatives on the team became so limited that the IT Director embargoed the use of the CASE tool within weeks of the commencement of the project, and required his staff to play a full part in discussions regarding stakeholder requirements and implementation issues. Figure 1 shows that there are hardly any examples of approaches that incorporate the subjective quality of information which we discuss in more depth in the following section. It can certainly be argued that prototyping approaches attempt to take account of the subjective wishes of IS users but, notwithstanding, a single (unitary) design is the outcome. Of the approaches considered above, the only example of the pluralistic/subjective orientation for which we argue is that subset of the systems approaches, commonly labelled soft systems approaches. Perhaps the most well known example of the latter is soft systems methodology [24, 30].

DATA INFORMATION ACTION

Figure 2. The role of informal data in informing (Galliers, [33], after Land [7]). Whilst the interpretative and informal quality of information is addressed in such approaches, the impact of individual interpretations on the actual decisions taken and their outcomes need to be understood within the wider social and political context. Individuals involved in decisions relating to information requirements planning and systems design carry with them their own idiosyncratic perceptions of problems and potential solution, but the final investment decision (or nondecision) is a negotiated process for all bar the most


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

simple technologies [34]. Some individuals have more power in the decision process than others and the final IT system purchased is not always optimal in business or efficiency terms [35]. For example, Robertson et al [6] describe a case where the decision to invest in a new IS for production management was led by Manufacturing and Production specialists who chose to invest heavily in a new manufacturing resources planning system (MRP2) using information provided through both formal and informal channels by IT consultants. In this case key members from other functional areas (e.g., purchasing) had other ideas about the problems they were facing and did not believe MRP2 to be the optimal solution. Ultimately, the new systems proved to be unworkable, in part because of lack of commitment from these other functional groups who had knowledge that was needed to implement the system that they chose not to share. For example, the Purchasing Director only nominally involved himself in implementation and sent a very junior employee, who lacked power and expertise to be part of the implementation team. In this case Manufacturing specialists, led by information received from consultants, had the power to make an investment decision but they did not have sufficient knowledge or power to gain the information they needed to see it through. 4. The Relevance of Networks The example above illustrates how IS development decisions are negotiated by individuals within firms with different agendas. These individuals rely just as heavily on information which is diffused through informal, social communication networks both within and outside organizations as on any formal data or information assessment processes [6]. For example, the initial decisions about information requirements and systems development were influenced by the relationship that developed between the Manufacturing Specialists and the IT consultant. Other research on innovation emphasises the role of ‘boundary spanning’ individuals who get involved in inter-organizational networks and therefore have the opportunity to learn new ideas relevant to the adoption and design technologies [36, 37]. However, the extent to which this knowledge is then translated into terms that are meaningful for the firm and utilised in requirements and systems development decisions also depends on the degree to which particular individuals are able to develop internal networks through which they are able to influence the decision process. Thus the knowledge that an organization has available to inform its decisions regarding IS/IT is shaped by a wide variety

of internal and external social networks that its members are involved in at different points in the process [5] [6]. Further, research on inter-organizational networking has shown the information that is diffused via particular networks is influenced by the vested interests of the particular social groups involved. For example, IT consultants and software suppliers will tend to provide only positive information about new systems, presenting these as relatively unproblematic even when their implementation requires major organizational change. Further, IT suppliers can be very good at penetrating other social networks, such as those provided by professional associations, through which they will diffuse information about their particular systems [6]. This is not unreasonable given it is in the in interests of these groups to sell systems. 5. Implications for Strategic IS Development The emphasis on formal data processing for information requirements analysis and planning is paralleled by a considerable emphasis on IT in strategic information systems planning (SISP) and organizational change. For example, relatively recent developments such as those in Business Process Reengineering (BPR) [26, 27] place great emphasis on the importance of IT as an enabler of radical organizational change. In many instances SISP is merely synonymous with the development of an IT strategy in which much more attention is given to the technical than to the informational or strategic aspects of the technology [38]. Information and technology are treated almost as separate entities. This is despite a growing literature on technological innovation which emphasises that technology is knowledge and information which is embedded in a variety of ways in organizations [39]. According to this perspective, technology is socially constructed and therefore defined by, and inseparable from, the social, cognitive and political processes in organizations. Viewing information requirements analysis and IS development as a socially-mediated process means that it is very difficult, in reality, to codify information requirements and systems development into formalrational systems. This message is not new. However, here we wish to make the case more strongly, arguing that even if such codification were possible, it would be neither complete nor desirable. It would be incomplete because formal data processing systems and associated tools and methods can only provide a partial means of identifying and meeting information requirements in firms. Some information will always be embedded in


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

ways other than formal data processing systems, for example in organizational structures, organizational routines and procedures; physical layouts of factories and equipment; organizational stories, myths languages and cultures; individual and group attitudes; informal social networks and so forth [40]. Much of this information which is relevant to developing an organization's strategy and day-to-day operations is tacit or non-verbal and therefore impossible to harness via the medium of formal data processing systems. Relying solely on structured approaches to information requirements analysis and IS development is also undesirable because by formalising the process the organization can reduce its propensity to innovate. For example, most organizations will have formal networks through which they receive and exchange information. An example would be a joint venture where both partners offer to contribute certain types of information to the venture. However, the information exchanged through such arrangements is usually closely monitored and bound by the formal system used to generate the exchange. In contrast, informal networking activity, which is very often through personal networks developed by employees, allows for a much more open and varied exchange of information [41]. Macdonald and Williams [41] note that in high-technology industries many firms appreciate that much of the information they need is gained through informal and personal networks of employees. Therefore their strategy is to develop opportunities for such networking activities, whilst accepting that their outcomes will be uncertain. As a result of the above analysis, the development of strategic IS plans should place much greater emphasis on informal as well as formal information flows and needs, both within and outside organizational boundaries. In addition, as lately accepted by one of the founding fathers of BPR, greater emphasis also needs to be placed on change management and implementation issues [42] and on organizational arrangements for the provision of IS services. Overall, then, we argue that a more balanced, holistic approach to strategic IS is required: one which acknowledges the role of formal IT systems, but does not pretend that they are the major, let alone sole, feature in the equation. Rather, consideration needs to be given to: (i) Information requirements analysis and planning i.e., on identifying that information, both formal and informal, which is needed in order to support, question, review and develop the business strategy. In line with the above arguments, this process should involve individuals and groups with relevant knowledge and differing perspectives on information requirements. It should also recognise that information is organizationally as well as

technically embedded. In practice this means that IS specialists need to be concerned with project management, recognising it as negotiated process, not a technical problem. Tools such as cognitive mapping methodologies [43] could be used, for example, to begin to reveal individuals’ subjective beliefs regarding problems and likely solutions and to encourage self reflection and negotiation among individuals with different areas of expertise and different interests. (ii) Gaining knowledge via intra- and interorganizational networks - i.e., the exploitation of formal and informal communication channels among individuals internally within organizations and also externally across organizations in order to acquire knowledge that is relevant for the design and implementation of strategic IS plans. Networking is not a panacea solution but is clearly relevant to IS development where organizations need to keep abreast of rapid changes in information, systems and practices. In practice, there are a variety of ways in which networking could be encouraged, for example, by supporting involvement in professional or trade associations, providing time to attend meetings, seminars, exhibitions, supporting electronic networking with email and internet connections and so on. However, given the huge range of potential networks available, there remains a problem of selecting those that appear to be most worthwhile, without formalising the activities to the extent that they actually become less useful [41]. This should also consider mechanisms to facilitate the translation of knowledge developed through networking into organization-specific solutions [36]. (iii) Change management strategy - the means by which the strategic IS plan can be implemented. This should include attention to technical but also social, cognitive and political aspects of the change management process, for example, the vested interests of different social groups - internal and external to the organization in the change process. The argument presented here suggests that some aspects of change are a result of an emergent rather than a managed process. Therefore recognition and monitoring of the unintended consequences of decisions taken is an important aspect of change management. This could include, for example, regular audits of technical and organizational knowledge bases including, for example, changes in technical systems and the use of equipment alongside changes in organizational routines, in professional staff and so forth. (iv) IS service/support strategy - i.e., the means by which the delivery of the required IS services may be organised. This should include detailed consideration of issues such as outsourcing of IT expertise and users'


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

(both IS professionals and others) relationships with IT suppliers. For example, whilst external IS suppliers provide information relevant to IS development, this tends to be objectified as standardised, universally applicable technical solutions [44]. Knowledge is ‘blackboxed’ into packaged solutions that require minimal intervention on the part of the user. Whilst there are clear efficiency gains associated with ‘blackboxing’ strategies, these often fail in complex and dynamic organizational contexts where much of the knowledge needed to develop IS is professionally or organizationally embedded [44]. In these situations in-house expertise is needed in order to reconfigure and appropriate the standard solutions proffered by external suppliers [6]. boundary

NET W N ET W

OR

information requirements planning information systems services strategy

IT strategy

OR KS

KS

boundary spanning

boundary spanning

NAL spanning SATIO ANI G ATIONAL OR ANI S RRG TE business strategy -O A IN TR IN

change management/ implementation strategy

boundary spanning

Figure 3. The role of inter- and intraorganizational networks in the strategic IS planning process (Swan and Galliers [45], after Galliers [38]) Figure 3 begins to unpack these different elements of SISP and suggests that they are inter-related. The entire process is assumed to be iterative, rather than linear or sequential, and may have important intended and unintended consequences which, if monitored and evaluated, can act as vehicles for further organizational learning and change [46]. 6. Conclusions There are clearly a number of different implications for both the theory and practice of IS development and SISP arising out of this analysis. To avoid mere repetition, it is possible to generalise these with the advice that greater attention to the informal, political and social aspects of information is required in the IS development and planning process. This conclusion might appear to suggest that a mere modification or additional gloss to current IS development theory and practice is all that would be necessary to enhance the

quality of IT systems. In fact, the argument presented here is more fundamental than that: much of IS development is predicated on the basic assumption that organizational knowledge can be codified and made available by IT systems. There is no doubt that formal data can be made available by such means. Problems occur when assumptions are made that informal ‘data’ can be made available in this way too, and can be exacerbated when the process of information requirements analysis is made more formal by the utilisation of automated development tools. There are second order implications for the role of the IS specialist in information requirements analysis and for IS curriculum design in addition. If it is accepted that information requirements analysis is more a socially mediated process than the mere codification of formal data, the very role of the systems analyst requires reassessment, as does the process of training such specialists. Greater emphasis on cognition and on the interpretative nature of information would be required. Less attention would be paid to software engineering and diagramming tools, and more to negotiation and facilitation skills. Advancements in IT are taking place at breakneck speed. Our ability to utilise IT to good effect is progressing much more slowly. In part this is due to our lack of understanding of the nature of information and its interpretative, pluralistic and changing qualities. A complete reassessment of the prevailing models and assumptions of IS development would appear to be called for. The paradox of IT success - but entirely appropriate for the postmodernist era - would appear then to rest on a de-emphasis of the technical design dimension in IS development and a re-emphasis of the human dimension. The boundary of an IS must therefore be redrawn in our minds to include the attribution of meaning, and this is a human act, not a technological one. 7. References [1] Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G., Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, London, 1995. [2] Land, F. and Kennedy-McGregor, M., ‘Effective use of internal information’, Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Information Systems Teaching (FEWIST), Aix-en-Province, April, 1981. [3] Coombes, R., Knights, D. and Willmott, H.C., ‘Culture, control and competition: towards a conceptual frameweork for the study of information technology in


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

organizations’, Organization Studies, 13, 1992, pp. 5172. [4] Avison, D. and Wood-Harper, A.T., Multiview: an Exploration in Information Systems Development, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.

[16] Booch, G. Object Oriented Design with Applications, Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA, 1991. [17] Coad, P. and Yourdan, E. Object Oriented Analysis, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.

[5] Swan, J.A. and Clark, P.A., ‘Organizational decision making in the diffusion and appropriation of technological innovation: cognitive and political dimensions’, European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2, 1992, pp. 103-127.

[18] Martin, J., Rapid Application Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs:NJ, 1991.

[6] Robertson, M., Swan, J. and Newell, S., ‘The Role of Networks in the Diffusion of Technological Innovation’, Journal of Management Studies, 33, 1996, pp. 335- 361.

[20] Andrews, D. and Ince, D. Practical Formal Methods with VDM, Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill, 1991.

[7] Land, F., ‘The information systems domain’, in: R D Galliers (ed.) Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1992, pp. 6-13. [8] Walsham, G. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Wiley, Chichester, 1993.

[19] Jackson, M.C., ‘Beyond fads: systems thinking for managers’, Systems Research, 12(1), 1983, pp. 25-42.

[21] Land, F. and Hirschheim, R. ‘Participative systems design: rationale, tools and techniques’, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 10, 1983, pp.91-107. [22] Turban, E. Decision Support and Expert Systems, 3rd. ed., Macmillan, New York, 1993. [23] von Bertalanffy, L. General Systems Theory, Braziller, New York, 1968.

[9] Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K., ‘Four paradigms of information systems development’, Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1989, pp. 1199-1216.

[24] Checkland, P.B., Systems Thinking. Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, 1981.

[10] Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann, London, 1979.

[25] Earl, M.J., Management Strategies for Information Technology, Prentice-Hall, London, 1989.

[11] Wood-Harper, A.T. and Fitzgerald, G. ‘A taxonomy of current approaches to systems analysis’, Computer Journal, 25(1), pp. 12-16.

[26] Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E., ‘The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign’. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 1990, 11-27.

[12] Byrd, T.A., Cossick, K.L. and Zmud, R.W., ‘A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques’, MIS Quarterly, 16(1), 1992, pp. 117-138.

[27] Hammer, M. ‘Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate’. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 1990, pp. 104-112.

[13] Daniels, A. and Yeates, D.A. Basic Training in Systems Analysis, 2nd ed., Pitman, London, 1991.

[28] McClure, C., CASE is Software Automation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: NJ, 1989.

[14] Yourdan, E. and Constantine, L.L., Structured Design, 2nd ed., Yourdon Press, New York, 1978.

[29] King, S. and Galliers, R. ‘Modelling the CASE process: empirical issues and future directions’, Information and Software Technology, 36(10), 1994, pp. 587-596.

[15] Date, C.J., (1986). An Introduction to Database Systems, 4th ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1986.

[30] Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester, 1990.


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE

[31] Ballantine, J.A., Galliers, R.D. and Stray, S. ‘The use and importance of financial appraisal techniques in the IS/IT investment decision-making process - recent UK evidence’, Project Appraisal, 10(4), 1995, pp. 233241. [32] Weick, K.E., The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading:MA, 1979. [33] Galliers, R.D. Research issues in information systems, Journal of Information Technology, 8(2), 1993, pp. 92-98. [34] Ciborra, C.U. ‘Management Information Systems: a contractual view’, in T. Bemelmens (ed.), Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984. [35] Abrahamson, E. ‘Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of innovations’. Academy of Management Review, 16, 1991, pp. 586-612. [36] Tushman, M. and Scanlan, T. ‘Boundary spanning individuals and their role in information transfer and their antecedents’, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 1981, pp. 289-305. [37] Alter, C. and Hage, J. Organizations Working Together. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993. [38] Galliers, R.D., ‘Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and guidelines for successful implementation’, European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 1991, 55-64.

[39] Weick, K.E. ‘Technology as an equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies’, in P. Goodman and L. Sproull (eds), Technology and Organizations, Josey Bass, San Fransisco, CA, 1990. [40] Clark, P.A., Anglo-American Innovation, De Gruyter, . New York, 1987. [41] Macdonald, S. and Williams, C., ‘The informal information network in an age of advanced telecommunications, Human Systems Management, 11, pp. 77-87. [42] Davenport, T.H., ‘Why reengineering failed: the fad that forgot people’, Premier Issue, 1996, pp. 70-72. [43] Eden, C. ‘Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA), in J. Rosenhead (ed), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, Wiley, Chichester, 1989. [44] Scarbrough, H., ‘Blackboxes, hostages and prisoners’, Organization Studies, 16, 1995, pp. 9911019. [45] Swan, J.A. and Galliers, R.D. ‘Information requirements planning as a socially mediated process’, Workshop on Requirements Engineering in a Changing World, 8th International Conference, CAiSE’96, Heraklion, Crete, May, 1996. [46] Baker, B. ‘The role of feedback in assessing information systems planning effectiveness’. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 4(1), 1995, pp. 61-80.


1060-3425/97 $10.00 (c) 1997 IEEE