Software Quality Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 381–391 | Cite as

Proposing a multi-agency development framework

  • Phil Clipsham
  • Elaine Major
  • Liz Bacon
  • Pradeep Manickam
Article

Abstract

Systems used in complex, multi-agency environments have a number of inherent problems and challenges that in many cases, lead to systems failure. The area of system failure has been the subject of extensive research in the past. It has been well documented in a number of places that information systems are difficult to build and are prone to failure. This paper examines system failure from a social perspective in the context of building systems in complex environments. Through a case study modelling approach, a framework has been developed to assist in building information systems in such complex multi-agency environments. The paper introduces this framework through a study of a number of challenges confronting the builder of information systems in complex, social, multi-agency environments. We examine the role of task accountability and problems identifying authority as key reasons why systems are rejected by users. We introduce a task accountability model to help understand this problem. We conclude by identifying work still to be carried out within the study.

Keywords

Multi-agency environment System failure Case study modelling Task accountability 

References

  1. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. New Jersey, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Standish.Group. (1999). The Chaos Report. Dennis, MA: Standish Group International, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Haringey Children’s Services Authority Area Joint Area Review (2008), Ofsted.Google Scholar
  4. Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: an empirical approach. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jermier, J., Slocum, J. W., Jr., Fry, L. W., & Gaines, J. (1991). Organizational subcultures in a soft bureaucracy: resistance behind the myth and façade of an official culture. Organization Science, 2(2), 170–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lord Laming (2003), The report of an inquiry, The victoria climbié inquiry, HMSO.Google Scholar
  7. Ludman, M., Knight, B., Windall, G., Petridis, M., Attah, D., Clipsham, P. (2006). Integrating rich pictures with UML, British Computer Society. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Quality Management April 2006. UK; Southampton.Google Scholar
  8. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. California,USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Myers, M. D. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(23), 2–19.Google Scholar
  10. RESET Final report (2007), Resettlement Checklist EQUAL Project, ESF, http://www.equal-works.com/dpdetail.aspx?ety=7462dc64-f347-45cf-989c-a7343fd7e8c2 (viewed 02/02/2009).
  11. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd edn.). New Jersey, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Sheu, M., & Kim, H. (2009). User readiness for is development: An examination of 50 cases. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. The Guardian (2008), Timeline: The short life of Baby P, The Guardian Website, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/11/baby-p-death (viewed 02/02/2009).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phil Clipsham
    • 1
  • Elaine Major
    • 1
  • Liz Bacon
    • 1
  • Pradeep Manickam
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Social and Community Technologies, School of Computing and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations