Systems practice

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 577–589 | Cite as

Systems thinking for information systems development

  • Li D. Xu
Article

Abstract

Although many information systems development methods (ISDMs) are available, past experience indicates that none of them completely supports the design process. One of the major problems is that the traditional ISDMs represents a poor match for some subsystems or dimensions involved in the information systems design (ISD). This paper presents an integration and interpretation of recent research on the mismatch of the ISDMs with the ISD process and suggests that systems ideas can be used to learn about and clarify our perceptions of the ISD processes. First, some important systems concepts such as systems, subsystem, dimensionality, system types, and characteristics are introduced. Second, some lessons of mismatch learned in the past that are related to those systems concepts are discussed. The discussion includes experiences learned through the ISD process such as communication problems, inadequate analysis of systems maintenance, lack of understanding of the relationship between the nature of the subsystem/dimension to be represented and the selection of tools, difficulties in integrating subsystems and dimensions, as well as Brooks' Law along with others. Third, some recommendations are given concerning how to avoid mismatch with a systems concept phase. Fourth, some guidelines are provided for implementing the tasks of the systems concept phase. Finally, a number of areas where research appears needed are mentioned.

Key words

systems thinking information systems analysis information systems design information systems development methods software engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Basili, V. R., and Musa, J. D. (1991). The future engineering of software: A management perspective.IEEE Computer,24(9), 90–96.Google Scholar
  2. Benyon, D. (1992). The role of task analysis in systems design.Interacting with Computers,4(1), 102–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Checkland, P. B. (1978). The origins and nature of “hard” systems thinking,Journal of Applied Systems Analysis,5(2), 99–110.Google Scholar
  4. Cindio, F. D., Michelis, G. D., and Simone, C. (1985). Giving back some freedom to the system designer.Systems Research,2(4), 273–280.Google Scholar
  5. Colter, M. (1984). A comparative examination of systems analysis techniques.MIS Quarterly,8(2), 51–66.Google Scholar
  6. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large systems.Communications of the ACM,31(11), 1268–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, A. M. (1992). Operational prototyping: A new development approach.IEEE Software,9(5), 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devanbu, P., Brachman, R. J., Selfridge, P. G., and Ballard, B. W. (1991). LaSSIE: A knowledge-based software information system.Communications of the ACM,34(5), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Floyd, C. (1986). A comparative evaluation of system development methods. In Olle, T. W. (Ed.),Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 19–54.Google Scholar
  10. Hess, M. (1990). Information systems design in industrial practice. In Sage, A. P. (Ed.),Concise Encyclopedia of Information Processing in Systems & Organizations, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 295–301.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, M. C. (1993). Beyond the Fads: Systems Thinking for Managers. Centre for Systems Studies Working Paper Series, no. 3, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  12. Kokol, P., Stiglic, B., and Zumer, V. (1991). A New Approach for IS Design Paradigm Evaluation. Proceedings of the 6th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, pp. 1117–1120.Google Scholar
  13. Kolodner, J. (1993).Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Mellor, P. (1992). Failures, faults and changes in dependability measurement.Information and Software Technology,34(10), 640–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poo, D. C. C., and Lyzell, P. J. (1992). An evolutionary structure model for software maintenance.Journal of Systems and Software,18(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rowley, J. E. (1993). Information systems methodologies: A review and assessment of their applicability to the selection, design and implementation of library and information systems.Journal of Information Science,19(4), 291–302.Google Scholar
  17. Sage, A. P. (1990). Systems knowledge: Philosophical perspectives. In Sage, A. P. (Eds.),Concise Encyclopedia of Information Processing in Systems & Organizations, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 484–490.Google Scholar
  18. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., and Nilan, M. S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situtional definition.Information Processing & Management,26(6), 755–776.Google Scholar
  19. Shaw, M. (1986). Beyond programming-in-the-large: The next challenges for software engineering. InAdvanced Programming Environments—Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 519–535.Google Scholar
  20. Tilford, E. (1992). Successful projects are built on people, planning, and flow.IEEE Software,9(2), 94–95.Google Scholar
  21. Warfield, J. N. (1986). Micromathematics and Macromathematics. Proceedings of the 1986 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Atlanta, GA, pp. 1127–1131.Google Scholar
  22. Warfield, J. N., and Christakis, A. N. (1987). Dimensionality.Systems Research,4(2), 127–138.Google Scholar
  23. Warfield, J. N. (1990).A Science of Generic Design, Intersystems Publications, Salinas, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Warren, J. R., Stott, J. W., and Norcio, A. F. (1992). Stochastic simulation of information systems designs from data flow diagrams.Journal of Systems and Software,18(2), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. White, S., Alford, M., Holtzman, J., Kuehl, S., McCay, B., Oliver, D., Owens, D., Tully, C., and Willey, A. (1993). Systems engineering of computer-based systems.IEEE Computer,26(11), 54–65.Google Scholar
  26. Wolstenholme, E. F., Gavine, A., Watts, K. M., and Henderson, S. (1992). The design, application and evaluation of a system dynamics based methodology for the assessment of computerised information systems.European Journal of Information Systems,1(5), 341–350.Google Scholar
  27. Wymore, A. (1984). Theory of systems. In Vick, C., and Ramamoorthy, C. (Eds.),Handbook of Software Engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp. 119–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li D. Xu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Science and Information SystemsWright State UniversityDayton

Personalised recommendations