PEArL: a systems approach to demonstrating authenticity in information systems design

The process of information systems (IS) design has been dominated by the demands inherent in providing a technical solution to a perceived problem or need. Engineering IS design methods applied in order to satisfy the problem situation tend to have a preoccupation with verifying specifications as being mathematically correct. Difficulties arise when the ideas underpinning verification are extended in an attempt to ‘prove’ the validity of a proposed design for an IS. A pure engineering approach does not facilitate a response to the subjective elements within social situations, which experience has shown to be essential in demonstrating the pertinence of new designs to those concerned. We suggest that, by applying interpretivist systems ideas, it is possible to support concerned individuals in reflecting upon crucial aspects of the inquiry, enabling those individuals to judge the relevance or ‘authenticity’ of the learning, according to their own values and beliefs. The elements of participants, engagement, authority, relationships and learning are suggested as being crucial. These make up the mnemonic PEArL, which is offered as an aide-mémoire for those concerned with IS design.

[1]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[2]  M. D. Myers,et al.  Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[3]  John Mingers,et al.  A framework for linking Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Jackson System Development (JSD) , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[4]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[5]  G. Midgley.  Dealing with coercion: Critical Systems Heuristics and beyond , 1997 .

[6]  Jonathan Rosenhead,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1991 .

[7]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Analysing information systems evaluation: another look at an old problem , 1998 .

[8]  Ann Taket,et al.  Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. , 1991 .

[9]  M. Foucault,et al.  Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 , 1980 .

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

[11]  MSc Mbcs CEng Michael Bronzite BSc.  System Development , 2000, Springer London.

[12]  P. J. Lewis,et al.  Linking soft systems methodology with data‐focused information systems development , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[13]  J. Habermas.  Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action , 1990 .

[14]  Roger S. Pressman,et al.  Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach , 1982 .

[15]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research , 1996, J. Inf. Technol..

[16]  Haridimos Tsoukas,et al.  Analogical Reasoning and Knowledge Generation in Organization Theory , 1993 .

[17]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Critical heuristics of social systems design , 1987 .

[18]  Finn Kensing,et al.  Participatory Design: Structure in the Toolbox , 1992 .

[19]  John Mingers.  Using Soft Systems Methodology in the Design of Information Systems , 1995 .

[20]  Sir,et al.  Freedom In A Rocking Boat , 1970 .

[21]  J. Sartre,et al.  Being and Nothingness , 2022 .

[22]  Desmond D'Souza,et al.  Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach , 1998 .

[23]  G. Susman,et al.  An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. , 1978 .

[24]  Peter Checkland,et al.  O.R. and the Systems Movement: Mappings and Conflicts , 1983 .

[25]  Ying Liang,et al.  An approach to object identification, selection and specification in object‐oriented analysis , 1998, Inf. Syst. J..

[26]  Oscar Nierstrasz,et al.  Research directions in software composition , 1995, CSUR.

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

[28]  D. P. Dash.  Current Debates in Action Research , 1999 .

[29]  P. Checkland,et al.  Action Research: Its Nature and Validity , 1998 .

[30]  Frank Land,et al.  How to Assess Your It Investment: A Study of Methods and Practice , 1993 .

[31]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology , 2020, Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide.

[32]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Computer systems in work design--the ETHICS method : effective technical and human implementation of computer systems , 1979 .

[33]  Philip Powell,et al.  Information Technology Evaluation: Is It Different? , 1992 .

[34]  Finn Kensing,et al.  PD: structure in the toolbox , 1993, CACM.

[35]  Mark Lycett,et al.  Information systems development: a perspective on the challenge of evolutionary complexity , 1999 .

[36]  Enid Mumford,et al.  The reality of participative systems design: contributing to stability in a rocking boat , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

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

[39]  Donna Champion,et al.  Interpretivist Modelling for Information System Definition , 2000 .

[40]  F. A. Stowell,et al.  Towards client‐led development of information systems , 1991, Inf. Syst. J..

[41]  J Korn.  Qualitative Modelling of Information Systems , 2002 .

[42]  E. Mitleton-Kelly,et al.  Systems Engineering for Business Process Change , 2000, Springer London.

[43]  Ian Graham,et al.  Requirements engineering and rapid development , 1998 .

[44]  Frank Stowell,et al.  Client-Led Design: A Systemic Approach to Information System Definition , 1995 .

[45]  Paul N. Finlay,et al.  Validity of Decision Support Systems: Towards a Validation Methodology , 1997 .

[46]  Bridget Somekh,et al.  The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology , 1995 .

[47]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Systems Design Ethical Tools for Ethical Change , 1996 .