A Comparison of Five Alternative Approaches to Information Systems Development

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 (ISO), 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 livari, 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; livari, 1991; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Baskerville, etal. 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; livari, 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; livari, 1991; Hirschheim and Klein, 1992; Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen 1995, 1996; livari, 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.

[1]  Philip Kraft,et al.  The Collective Resource Approach: the Scandinavian Experience , 1994, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Framewor Inspec,et al.  “ Object-Oriented Information Systems Analyis : A Compari son of Six Object-Oriented Analyis Methods " , 2022 .

[3]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  System Development Methodologies: Unanswered Questions and the Research-Practice Gap , 1993, ICIS.

[4]  P. Kraft Programmers and Managers , 1977, Heidelberg Science Library.

[5]  K. Nygaard,et al.  The Trade Unions ‐ New users of research , 1975 .

[6]  Christopher Westrup,et al.  Information systems methodologies in use , 1993, J. Inf. Technol..

[7]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Systems Without Method: The Impact of New Technologies on Information Systems Development Projects , 1992, The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies in Information Systems Development.

[8]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[9]  Goran Go INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIFICATION AS RULE RECONSTRUCTION , 1983 .

[10]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  Studying system development methodologies: an examination of research methods , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[11]  Morten Kyng Collective Resources Meets Puritanism , 1994, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it-up or Hands-on the Future , 1992 .

[13]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  Systems development methodologies: unanswered questions , 1995, J. Inf. Technol..

[15]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Systems Thinking, Systems Practice , 1981 .

[16]  David W. Embley,et al.  OO Systems Analysis: Is It or Isn't It? , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[17]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization , 1982, Adv. Comput..

[18]  F. Caeldries Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution , 1994 .

[19]  Rob Kling,et al.  Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations , 1987 .

[20]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  Towards a Framework to Choose Appropriate IS Approaches , 1986, Comput. J..

[21]  Carson C. Woo,et al.  Investigating Information and Knowledge Gathering Methods: A Speech Act Lexicon Perspective , 1992, ISCO.

[22]  Julius T. Tou,et al.  Information Systems , 1973, GI Jahrestagung.

[23]  Finn Kensing,et al.  Generating visions: future workshops and metaphorical design , 1992 .

[24]  R. Keat The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas , 1980 .

[25]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[26]  J. Searle,et al.  Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[27]  W. G. Astley,et al.  Structural Sources of Intraorganizational: Power: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1984 .

[28]  R. Whitley The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .

[29]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Modelling Offices Through Discourse Analysis: A Comparison and Evaluation of SAMPO with OSSAD and ICN , 1992, Comput. J..

[30]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The Case for ETHICS , 1994, MIS Q..

[31]  K. Lyytinen,et al.  Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis , 1996 .

[32]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Designing for a dollar a day , 1988, CSCW '88.

[33]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design , 1993, CACM.

[34]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Who Needs an Object-Oriented Methodology Anyway? , 1995, J. Object Oriented Program..

[35]  Donald A. Sch The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[36]  David Hakken Work‐Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts , 1989 .

[37]  Terry Winograd,et al.  A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work , 1987, SGCH.

[38]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Mapping situations within a system development project , 1985, Inf. Manag..

[39]  Åke Sandberg Trade union-orientated research for democratization of planning in work life-problems and potentials , 1983 .

[40]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Setting the Stage for Design as Action , 1992 .

[41]  John R. Searle,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1970 .

[42]  W. G. Astley,et al.  Administrative Science as Socially Constructed Truth. , 1985 .

[43]  Kaj Grønbæk Rapid Prototyping With Fourth Generation Systems – An Empirical Study , 1989 .

[44]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition , 1986 .

[45]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Designing Human Systems For New Technology: The Ethics Method , 1983 .

[46]  M. Kyng,et al.  Introduction: Situated Design , 1992 .

[47]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Mis problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective , 1977 .

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

[49]  Ronald M. Lee,et al.  Legal procedures as formal conversations: contracting on a performative network , 1989, ICIS '89.

[50]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1990 .

[51]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  MIS Problems and failures: a sociotechnical perspective part I: the cause , 1977 .

[52]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Research methods in information systems , 1985 .

[53]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Review: Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies , 1995 .

[54]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  A speech-act-based office modeling approach , 1988, TOIS.

[55]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  A rational design process: How and why to fake it , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[56]  S. Brinkkemper,et al.  A formal approach to the comparison of object-oriented analysis and design methodologies , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[57]  David E. Avison,et al.  Applying methodologies for information systems development , 1992, J. Inf. Technol..

[58]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Two views of information modeling , 1987, Inf. Manag..

[59]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design , 1991, CACM.

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

[61]  Richard Whitley,et al.  THE TRANSFORMATION OF BUSINESS FINANCE INTO FINANCIAL ECONOMICS: THE ROLES OF ACADEMIC EXPANSION... , 1986 .

[62]  Ron Weber,et al.  System designers' user models: a comparitive study and methodological critique , 1983, CACM.

[63]  David E. Avison,et al.  Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools , 1988 .

[64]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Paradigmatic Influences on Information Systems Development Methodologies: Evolution and Conceptual Advances , 1992, Adv. Comput..

[65]  Linda A. Macaulay,et al.  Requirements capture and IS methodologies , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[66]  Paul Johannesson,et al.  Representation and Communication - a Speech Act Based Approach to Information Systems Design , 1995, Inf. Syst..

[67]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  The systems development dilemma: Whether to adopt formalized systems development methodologies or not? , 1994, ECIS.

[68]  Maurice Landry,et al.  Can the field of MIS be disciplined? , 1989, CACM.

[69]  Rob Kling,et al.  Computing as Social Action: The Social Dynamics of Computing in Complex Organizations , 1980, Adv. Comput..

[70]  Peter Holm,et al.  Speech Acts On Trial , 1996, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[71]  Kuldeep Kumar,et al.  Implementation Failure and System Developer Values: Assumptions, 7[tuisms and Empirical Evidence , 1984, ICIS.

[72]  Sandra Donaldson Dewitz,et al.  Contracting on a performative network: using information technology as a legal intermediary , 1992 .

[73]  David E. Avison,et al.  Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach , 1985 .

[74]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Back to thinking mode: diaries for the management of information systems development projects , 1989 .

[75]  Brian Wilson,et al.  Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications , 1990 .

[76]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  Multiview - An Exploration in Information Systems Development , 1986, Aust. Comput. J..

[77]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Modelling Offices Through Discourse Analysis: The SAMPO Approach , 1992, Comput. J..

[78]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Analyzing Information Systems Development a Comparison and Analysis of Eight IS Development Approaches , 1996, Inf. Syst..

[79]  Brad Hartfield,et al.  Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction , 1988, TOIS.

[80]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Managing the software process , 1989, The SEI series in software engineering.

[81]  K. Lyytinen,et al.  Information systems as rational discourse: an application of Habermas's theory of communicative action , 1988 .

[82]  P BostromRobert,et al.  MIS Problems and failures , 1977 .

[83]  L. Mathiassen,et al.  Professional systems development: experience, ideas and action , 1990 .

[84]  Janis A. Bubenko,et al.  Information System Methodologies - A Research View , 1986, Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice.

[85]  Rob Kling,et al.  Computer Systems as Institutions: Social Dimensions of Computing in Organizations , 1988, ICIS.

[86]  Kaj Grønbæk,et al.  Design in Action: From Prototyping by Demonstration to Cooperative Prototyping , 1992 .

[87]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Institutional Character of Computerized Information Systems , 1989 .

[88]  Peter Axel Nielsen Reflections on Development Methods for Information Systems: A Set of Distinctions Between Models , 1989 .

[89]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Work-oriented design of computer artifacts , 1989 .

[90]  H. Klein,et al.  Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions , 1991 .

[91]  Kim Halskov Madsen,et al.  Breakthrough by Breakdown: Metaphors and Structured Domains , 1988 .

[92]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[93]  Tone Bratteteig,et al.  User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development , 1995, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[94]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodology companions , 1992, CACM.

[95]  Rob Kling,et al.  The control of information systems developments after implementation , 1984, CACM.

[96]  D. Morgan,et al.  Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. , 1983 .

[97]  Tony Cornford,et al.  A review of the methodologies movement , 1993, J. Inf. Technol..

[98]  J. Barrie Thompson,et al.  The use, limitations and customization of structured systems development methods in the United Kingdom , 1995, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[99]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  Capability Maturity Model , 1991 .

[100]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  A cross-cultural comparison of IS designer values , 1990, CACM.

[101]  David E. Monarchi,et al.  A research typology for object-oriented analysis and design , 1992, CACM.

[102]  Rob Kling,et al.  Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research , 1980, CSUR.

[103]  M. Beardsley Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts , 1981 .

[104]  Fernando Flores,et al.  DOING AND SPEAKING IN THE OFFICE , 1980 .

[105]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Situational method engineering for informational system project approaches , 1994, Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle.

[106]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Four paradigms of information systems development , 1989, CACM.

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

[108]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development , 1991 .

[109]  G. Schäfer,et al.  Functional analysis of office requirements: a multiperspective approach , 1988 .

[110]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Action based model of information system , 1986, Inf. Syst..

[111]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Systems Development and Trade Union Activities , 1980 .

[112]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  From System Descriptions to Scripts for Action , 1992 .

[113]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Planning and control from the perspective of labour: A short presentation of the demos project☆ , 1978 .

[114]  Finn Kensing Generation of visions in systems development: a supplement to the tool box , 1987 .

[115]  I. Von Bulow The bounding of a problem situation and the concept of a system's boundary in soft systems methodology , 1989 .