Information Systems Research Methods: The Technology Transfer Problem 1

The IS research community has moved away from concentration upon the technical issues associated with IS and now tends to focus on more behavioural issues. This paper discusses the evolution of IS research themes and summarises the methodologies which illustrate this shift in emphasis and the current trends in IS research. The paper then argues that the "accepted" taxonomies of IS research methodologies characteristic of these trends do not adequately support technology transfer and the diffusion of innovation, essential to effective applied IS research. The paper concludes that systems development should be considered a legitimate research activity within the technological domain of IS. We illustrate the technology transfer capabilities of systems development by means of two IS research projects currently underway. INTRODUCTION For some time now, there has been debate within the information systems (IS) research community over the choice of research methodologies and their suitability for different aspects of IS research. Traditionally the IS community focused primarily on the technical problems associated with the use of IS in industry, commerce and administration, possibly because systems developers had difficulties getting the computerised systems to work effectively (Keen, 1980; see also Backhouse et al, 1991). IS professionals have since acknowledged that political, organisational and social concerns have an impact on the effective use of IS within a company (Backhouse et al, 1991; see also Mumford et al, 1985). The field of IS, consequently, is a discipline in which practitioners must understand both the human and technological factors associated with IS with equivalent proficiency (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1991). This paper was published in the proceedings of AACIS=94" the 5 Australasian Conference on Information Systems , Melbourne.Victoria, September 27-29, 197-208. The IS research community has also adopted this "softer" philosophy because it now tends to focus on behavioural issues and, subsequently, has shifted away from the technical issues associated with IS (Keen, 1987; see also Backhouse et al, 1991). Despite this shift, Keen still argues that the primary "mission" for IS research "... is to study the effective design, delivery, use and impact of information technologies [IT] in organisations and society" (Keen, 1987:3). Each term used in Keen's definition of the IS research objectives provides a broad dimension of study for a researcher: effective: IS research should focus on improving practice through research into the design, delivery, use and impact of IT design: systems design is fundamental to IS, so that IS researchers must understand the design process to identify potential and unlikely applications of IT delivery: IS research should consider the requirement for IS to work both organisationally and technologically use and impact: IS research should consider the consequences and contributions of IT within the perspective of the entire organisation, as well as the development and implementation process information technologies: alternative approaches, such as executive information, group decision support and expert systems, offering additional facilities, can be considered in addition to traditional IT solutions (including software, data and telecommunications) in organisation and society: the application of IT within these contexts should be the focus of study, in contrast to studying IT itself. As Keen (1987) suggests, the IS discipline must have a sound theoretical base to support the study of practical issues and innovations. Consequently, there is a need for basic (pure) research to be undertaken, both in terms of cross-disciplinary research and of study within individual reference disciplines (such as Sociology, Management or Computer Science). Nonetheless, since the spiralling impact of IT on the business world has provided much of the impetus for IS research over the past two decades, IS research has tended to be (and remains) primarily applied in nature. While "... scientists [must] produce work that is original and is valued by others in the same field ... for the applied scientist at least, the idea or product must [also] be useful" (Smith, 1990:12; see also Leedy 1993). Smith's views can be generalised to all researchers and, in the case of applied researchers in IS, it is apparent that the business community is the group to which the product must be useful. It is clearly not sufficient, however, that a product of IS research be useful it must also be used. It is therefore crucial to the derivation of benefit from an applied research programme that a "technology transfer" process take place. In the examination of Information Systems research (and, particularly, of IS research methods) which follows, however, we find little evidence of support for a technology transfer programme or for research methods sufficient to underpin such a programme within the IS research community in a fully adequate manner. In this paper we discuss: ! the nature of Information Systems and IS research ! IS research methods; and ! the inability of "accepted" IS research methods fully to support technology transfer and the diffusion of innovation. We then consider some of the problems of technology transfer and suggest appropriate research methods to address these issues. Finally, we discuss two specific research projects currently underway (involving technology transfer) to illustrate the limitations of the existing IS research taxonomies and to demonstrate the way in which prototypical software development may be used as an IS research method (after Nunamaker et al, 1990-91). THE NATURE OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS "An information system is a system which assembles, stores, processes and delivers information relevant to an organisation (or to society), in such a way that the information is accessible and useful to those who wish to use it, including managers, staff, clients and citizens. An information system is a human activity (social) system which may or may not involve the use of computer systems." (Buckingham et al, 1987:18) Information Systems has attracted researchers from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, management science, economics, sociology, psychology and behavioural science (see Bariff and Ginzberg, 1982; Keen, 1987; Avison and Fitzgerald, 1991; Backhouse et al, 1991). The multi-disciplinary background of the community has provided a rich domain having a plethora of views, experiences and backgrounds on which to base its understanding of the development, use and impact of IS. It has also, however, resulted in contention regarding the desirable nature and boundaries of IS. That the field of IS has no well defined domain is evident from the number of articles beginning with a "working definition" (see, for example, Cooper, 1988) or with a statement of the perspective from which the article is written (for example, management and organisational, as opposed to technical), or which discuss the very nature of Information Systems itself (Mumford, 1991; Banville and Landry, 1992). Keen (1987:13) comments: "The IS research field has found it difficult to build coherence and visibility. Yet it continues to attract interest and commitment. The main reason is surely that the people who view themselves as part of this community are concerned with organisational effectiveness rather than just technology." Agreeing with Keen's views, Avison and Fitzgerald (1991:7) note that: "It seems to be the case that for a subject [such as IS] to be considered a legitimate discipline of knowledge there must be a general agreement that its object of study is unique and possesses social utility... Clearly information systems possesses social utility, though there is no firm agreement on what is the object of study." The existence of multiple "reference disciplines" (Keen, 1980), particularly as some disciplines are considered to be more relevant than others (Teng and Galletta, 1990), adds to the confusion caused by the lack of an agreed definition for IS. The diversity of opinion on the nature of IS is not surprising considering the discipline's history. Nevertheless, this is a source of difficulty for IS researchers who must decide how to map out future directions for research in the area and to justify a research topic in an effort to make it academically respectable. An empirical study carried out by Farhoomand (1992) has ranked the popularity of research "themes" in IS (originally reported by McKenney in McFarlan, 1984:337) during the years 19771985 (see Table 1). Ranking of IS Research Themes Key IS Issues 1. Databases, systems, software design Improved IS planning 2. Management of and user planning for IS Facilitation and management of end-user computing 3. Human-computer interface Integration of data processing, office automation and tele-communications 4. Implementation Improved software development and quality 5. DSS, decision theory Measuring and improving IS effectiveness/productivity 6. Data management, information resource management Facilitation of organisational learning usage of IT 7. Information requirements analysis Aligning the IS organisation with that of the enterprise 8. Organisational design Specification, recruitment and development of IS human resources 9. Technology transfer Effective use of organisation's data resources 10. Impact Development and implementation of DSS Table 1 IS Research Themes 1977-1985 (Farhoomand, 1992) It is clear from this ranking that IS development (including information requirements analysis, software design and software implementation) was considered to be an important and researchable sub-domain of IS at that time. Elsewhere in the IS literature, software development is frequently reported as a research area (Teng and Galletta, 1990; Watson and Brancheau, 1992). Land (1992) and Galliers (1992; 1993), however, in their discussions of the IS research