Software Quality Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

PisoSIA® a stakeholder approach to assist change in information systems development projects and aid process improvement

  • Jean Davison
  • J. Barrie ThompsonEmail author
  • David A. Deeks
  • Mark Lejk


PISO® (Process Improvement for Strategic Objectives) is a method that engages system users in the redesign of their own work-based information systems. PisoSIA® (stakeholder identification and analysis) is an enhancement to the original method that helps in the identification of a system's stakeholders, analyses the impact they have on the system and also considers the effect of change upon those stakeholders. Overviews of the original and enhanced methods are provided and research investigations centred on four case studies are reported. Each of the case studies made use of the original PISO® method and two made use of the enhanced pisoSIA® method. These case studies demonstrate the worth of the enhanced approach. The stakeholder identification and subsequent analysis provides an effective complement to the original method and can clearly aid in change management within information system redesign.


Information System Operating System Information Theory System Development Development Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., and Sonnenfeld, J.A. 1999. Who Matters to CEOS? An Investigation of Stakeholders Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values, Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 507–526.Google Scholar
  2. Brugha, R. and Varvasovszky, Z. 2000. Stakeholder Analysis: A review, Health Policy and Planning 15(3): 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crabtree, B.F. and Miller, W.L. 1999. Using Codes and CodeManuals: A Template Organising Style of Interpretation, Doing Qualitative Research (2nd Edition), B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (eds.), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, pp. 163–177.Google Scholar
  4. Davison, J., Deeks, D.A., Dixon, A. Thompson, J.B. and Lejk, M. 2002a. A Report of the use of the PISO® (Process Improvement for Strategic Objectives) Method in an NHS Trust Hospital. Special Conference Edition, 7th International Conference of the UK Systems Society 2002, York, Systemist pp. 44–51.Google Scholar
  5. Davison, J., Deeks, D., and Thompson, J.B. 2002b. Developing a Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Technique for Use in Information System Redesign. In Proceedings of the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI2002), July 2002, Orlando, FL, USA. Vol. VIII, pp. 541–545Google Scholar
  6. Davison, J., Deeks, D., and Bruce, L. 2003. Stakeholder Analysis as a Medium to Aid Change in Information System Reengineering Projects. In International Conference on Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications (PISTA ′03), Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 126–131.Google Scholar
  7. Deeks, D. 2001. Work in Progress: Process Improvement for Strategic Objectives, Visual Systems Journal (Dec 00/Jan 01), pp. 10.Google Scholar
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  9. Flick, U. 1998. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. NewYork: Aldine.Google Scholar
  11. Holliday, A. 2002.Doing and Writing Qualitative Research.London: SagePublications.Google Scholar
  12. Ives, B., Olson, M.H., and Baroudi, J.J. 1983. The measurement of user information satisfaction, Communications of the ACM26(10): 785–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Chen, H.-G., and Lin, L. 2002. Reducing user-related risks duringand prior to system development, International Journal of Project Management20: 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, N. 1998. Template Analysis. InQualitative Methods and Analysis in OrganizationalResearch: A Practical Guide G. Symon and C.Cassell, (eds.), London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Lejk, M. and Deeks, D. 2002.An Introduction to Systems AnalysisTechniques(2nd Edition), Harlow: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., and Wood, D.J. 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What ReallyCounts, Academy of Management Review22(4): 853–886.Google Scholar
  17. Mullins, L.J. 1999.Management and Organisational Behaviour.5th Edition, London: Financial Times Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Mumford, E. 1995.Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: TheETHICS Approach.Hampshire, Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Munkvold, B.E. 2000. Tracing the Roots: The Influence of Socio-Technical Principles on Modern Organisational Change Practices. InThe New Sociotech:Graffiti on the Long Wall. E. Coakes, D. Willis, and R. Lloyd-Jones, (eds.), London: Springer, pp 13–25.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, M., Davison, J., and Edwards, H. 2002. Application of Template Analysis in Information Systems Research: A Technique for Novice Researchers. European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies 2002, Reading, MCIL, pp. 345–352Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Davison
    • 1
  • J. Barrie Thompson
    • 1
    Email author
  • David A. Deeks
    • 1
  • Mark Lejk
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing, Engineering and TechnologyUniversity of SunderlandSunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations