Demo or Practice: Critical Analysis of the Language/Action Perspective

Despite offering several promising concepts, the Language/Action Perspective (LAP) is still not in the mainstream of Information Systems Development (ISD). Since at present there is only a limited understanding of LAP theory and practice, it remains unclear whether the lack of LAP's impact is due to shortcomings in LAP theory itself. One classic problem within ISD is the dichotomy between social perspectives and technical perspectives. LAP claims it offers a solution to this problem. This paper investigates this claim as a means to review LAP theory. To provide a structure to a critical analysis of DEMO - an example methodology that belongs to the LAP research community - this paper utilizes a paradigmatic framework. This framework is augmented by the opinion of several DEMO practitioners by means of an expert discussion. With use of a comparative evaluation of LAP theory and DEMO theory, the implication of DEMO's reflection upon LAP is determined. The paper concludes by outlining an agenda for further research if LAP is to improve its footprint in the field.

[1]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Requirements engineering: a roadmap , 2000, ICSE '00.

[2]  Stefanie Kethers,et al.  Reassessment of the Action Workflo w Approach: Empirical Results , 2000 .

[3]  Commentaries and a response in the Suchman-Winograd debate , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[4]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  The Notion of Business Process Revisited , 2004, CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE.

[5]  Giorgio De Michelis,et al.  Situating conversations within the language/action perspective: the Milan conversation model , 1994, CSCW '94.

[6]  Victor E. van Reijswoud,et al.  Business Process Re-design with DEMO , 1999 .

[7]  John Mingers,et al.  Variety is the spice of life: combining soft and hard OR/MS methods , 2000 .

[8]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Deriving Use Cases From Business Processes, the Advantages of Demo , 2003, ICEIS.

[9]  M. Bunge.  Treatise on basic philosophy , 1974 .

[10]  Bo Dahlbom,et al.  The New Informatics , 1996, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Categories, disciplines, and social coordination , 1997, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[12]  Peter Aiken,et al.  Information systems development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical foundations , 1997 .

[13]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Designing Technical Systems as Social Systems , 2003 .

[15]  Keng Siau,et al.  Advanced Topics In Database Research , 2005 .

[16]  David Jaffee,et al.  Organization Theory : Tension and Change , 2000 .

[17]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  A Meta Ontology for Organizations , 2004, OTM Workshops.

[18]  Michael Uschold,et al.  The Enterprise Ontology , 1998, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[19]  Linda Duxbury.  The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational transformation , 1993 .

[20]  Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau,et al.  Conceptual Modeling — ER ’99: 18th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling Paris, France, November 15–18, 1999 Proceedings , 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  Hans Weigand.  The language/action perspective , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[22]  Peter Gyngell,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology , 1994 .

[23]  J.L.G. Dietz.  Zo gezegd, zo gedaan , 1990 .

[24]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Subject-oriented Modelling of Open Active Systems , 1992, ISCO.

[25]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Do categories have politics? , 1993, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[26]  R. Hirschheim,et al.  The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead ... long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan , 2000 .

[27]  L. Lugiato.  Theory of open systems I , 1975 .

[28]  M. Morton,et al.  The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational transformation , 1993 .

[29]  Leslie P. Willcocks,et al.  Shaping the Future. Business Design Through Information Technology , 1991, J. Inf. Technol..

[30]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Communicative action‐based business process and information systems modelling with DEMO , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[31]  Michael Hammer,et al.  Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate , 1990 .

[32]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Generic Recurrent Patterns in Business Processes , 2003, Business Process Management.

[33]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  A Communication Oriented Approach to Conceptual Modelling of Information Systems , 1990, CAiSE.

[34]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Using DEMO and ORM in Concert: A Case Study , 2004, Advanced Topics in Database Research, Vol. 3.

[35]  John Mingers,et al.  Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies , 1997 .

[36]  J.L.G. Dietz.  Wat doen computers als ze iets zeggen , 1996 .

[37]  Jan L. G. Dietz.  The Essential System Model , 1991, CAiSE.

[38]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution , 1995 .

[39]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The Struggle with the Language in the IT - Why is LAP not in the Mainstream? , 2004 .

[40]  Roman Kopytko,et al.  From Cartesian towards non-Cartesian pragmatics , 2001 .

[41]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Action-oriented conceptual modelling , 2004, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[42]  M. Bunge.  A World Of Systems , 1979 .

[43]  Frank Lands,et al.  The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational tranformation: Edited by Michael S. Scott Morton Oxford University Press, New York, 1991, 331 pp. US $24.94, £19.95 , 1992, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  DEMO: Towards a discipline of organisation engineering , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[45]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Speech Acts or Communicative Action? , 1991, ECSCW.

[46]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[47]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[48]  B. Riesewijk,et al.  Het slagen en falen van automatiseringsprojecten Een onderzoek naar de sociaal-organisatorische implicaties van automatisering voor gebruikersorganisaties en computer service bedrijven , 1988 .

[49]  L. von Bertalanffy,et al.  The theory of open systems in physics and biology. , 1950, Science.

[50]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Understanding and Modelling Business Processes with DEMO , 1999, ER.

[51]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  The atoms, molecules and fibers of organizations , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[52]  L. Suchman.  Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered , 1993 .

[53]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Modeling business processes for Web-based information systems development , 2000, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering.

[54]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Realising strategic management reengineering objectives with DEMO , 1996 .

[55]  K. Boulding.  General Systems Theory---The Skeleton of Science , 1956 .

[56]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Modelling business processes for the purpose of redesign , 1994, Business Process Re-Engineering.