Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 253–268

Consilience for universal design: the emergence of a third culture

LONG PAPER

Abstract

Consilience offers a powerful mechanism for borrowing from other disciplines, thereby extending the scope of what can be known. This paper looks at the foundations of the activity of design as a means of providing IT systems that cater for diverse needs. Developing systems that are expected to satisfy needs continuously (i.e., systems that are expected to evolve) calls for a dynamic activity of design that is responsive to changes in the environment. The contrast with the scientific assumption of ordered development invokes a new classification, supported by insights from other disciplines that place the range of approaches in context. Design is neither orderly nor linear; it implies a continuous and active search to resolve trade-offs and satisfy changing constraints. The paper concludes by making a case for design as an alternative culture that borrows from, and supports, both the scientific and the literary cultures. Acceptance of the role of practice as an interface alongside the more traditional cultures enables researchers and practitioners to access and adopt a larger variety of methods and general approaches underpinning an even larger corpus of insights. Consilience can occur at different levels and offer a variety of benefits. Balancing scientific enquiry with artistic flair and creativity through careful sensemaking that supports sharing across cultures provides the greatest benefit from learning to look across rather than blindly focusing inwards.

Keywords

Consilience Design Design characteristics Design culture 

References

  1. 1.
    Ackoff, R.L.: A Concept of Corporate Planning. Wiley, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ackoff, R.L.: The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11, 20–26 (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams, J.L.: Flying Buttresses, Entropy, and O-rings: The World of the Engineer. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams, R.: Natural Computing and Interactive System Design. Pearson, Harlow (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams, R., Langdon, P.: Assessment, insight and awareness in user centred that includes users with special needs. In: Keates, S., Clarkson. P.J., Langdon, P., Robinson, P. (eds) Springer, London (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander, C.: Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1964)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexander, C.: The Timeless Way of Buildings. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alexander, C.: A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andriole, S.J.: Flexible life cycle for multidisciplinary C2 information systems engineering. In: Andriole, S.J., Halpin, S.M. (eds) Information Technology for Command and Control: Methods and Tools for Systems Development and Evaluation. IEEE, New York, pp 107–136 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Archer, B.L.: Systematic method for designers. Design 172, 61–69 (1963)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Archer, B.L.: The structure of the design process. In: Broadbent, G., Ward, A. (eds) Design Methods in Architecture. Lund Humphries, London, pp 76–102 (1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Archer, B.L.: Design as a discipline: whatever became of design methodology? Des. Stud. 1(1), 17–18 (1979a)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Archer, B.L.: The three Rs. Des. Stud. 1(1), 18–20 (1979b)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arthur, L.J.: Rapid Evolutionary Development: Requirements, Prototyping and Software Creation. Wiley, New York (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arthur, W.B.: On Learning and Adaptation in the Economy (No. 92-07-038). Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asimow, W.: Introduction to Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1962)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bacon, J.: Scientific judgement: contribution to or substitute for policy. Paper presented at the Speech of the Director General of the HSE, Foundation for Science & Technology, 11 February 1997Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baron, J.: Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bazjanac, V.: Architectural design theory: models of the design process. In: Spillers, W.R. (eds) Basic Questions of Design Theory. North-Holland, New York, pp 3–20 (1974)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bessant, J.R., McMahon, B.J.: Participant observation of a major design decision in industry. Des. Stud. 1(1), 21–28 (1979)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bijl, A.: An approach to design theory. In: Yoshikawa, H., Warman, E.A. (eds) Design Theory in CAD. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 3–25 (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birrell, N.D., Ould, M.A.: A Practical Handbook for Software Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blum, B.I.: Beyond Programming: To a new era of Design. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software process management: lessons learned from history. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th ICSE, March 1987Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brand, S.: How Buildings Learn: What Happens When They Fail, revised edn. Phoenix, London (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brightman, H.J.: Differences in ill-structured problem solving along the organisational hierarchy. Decis. Sci. 9, 1–18 (1978)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brooks, F.P.J.: The Mythical Man-month. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brooks, F.P.J.: No silver bullet: essence and accident in software engineering. In: Kugler, H.J. (ed.) Information Processing, vol. 86. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 1069–1076 (1986)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brooks, F.P.J.: The Mythical Man-month Revisited. Talk given at the IEE, 2 December 1997 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buchanan, R.: Wicked problems: managing the entrapment trap. Innovation 10, 31–33 (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buchanan, R.: Wicked problems in design thinking. Des. Issues 8(2), 5–21 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carroll, J.M., Thomas, J.C., Malhotra, A.: Presentation and representation in design problem solving. Am. J. Psychol. 93, 269–284 (1980)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Charette, R.N.: Applications Strategies for Risk Analysis. Intertext/McGraw-Hill, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Checkland, P.: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester (1981)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Checkland, P., Holwell, S.: Information, Systems, and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field. Wiley, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Churchman, C.W.: Wicked problems. Manage. Sci. 14(4), B141–B142 (1967)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clarke, L.: Acceptable Risk? Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment. University of California Press, Berkeley (1989)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Collins, H.C., Pinch, T.: What Everyone should Know about Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Colquhoun, A.: Typology and the design method. Perspecta: Yale Architect. J. 12, 71–74 (1969)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Corbato, F.J., Clingen, C.T.: A managerial view of the multics system development. In: Wegner, P. (eds) Research Directions in Software Technology. MIT, Cambridge, pp 139–160 (1979)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cosgrove, J.: Needed: a new planning framework. Datamation 17(23), 37–39 (1971)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Coyne, R.D. et al.: Knowledge based Design Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cross, N., Naughton, J., Walker, D.: Design method and scientific method. Des. Stud. 2(4), 195–201 (1981)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cuff, D.: Architecture: The Story of Practice. MIT, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Daellenbach, H.G.: Systems and Decision Making: A Management Science Approach. Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dalcher, D.: Falling down is part of growing up: the study of failure and the software engineering community. In: Diaz-Herrera, J.L. (eds) Software Engineering Education. LNCS. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 489–496 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dalcher, D.: Disaster in London: the LAS case study. Paper presented at the IEEE Engineering of Computer based Systems Symposium (ECBS99), Nashville (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dalcher, D.: Towards continuous development. In: Kirikova, M. et al. (eds) Information Systems Development, Advances in Methodologies, Components and Management. Kluwer, New York, pp. 53–68 (2002a)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dalcher, D.: Safety, risk and danger: a new dynamic perspective. Cutter IT J. 15(2), 23–27 (2002b)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dalcher, D.: Beyond normal failures: dynamic management of software projects. Technol. Analy. Strategic Manage. 15(4), 421–439 (2003a)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dalcher, D.: Learning from failure. Software Process Improvem. Practice 7(2), 71–89 (2003b)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Davis, G.B., Olson, M.H.: Management Information Systems, Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Deutsch, D.: The Fabric of Reality. Allen Lane, London (1997)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A.: Risk and Culture: An Essay of the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. California University Press, Berkeley (1982)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dym, C.L.: Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views. Cambridge University Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dym, C.L., Little, P.: Engineering Design: A Project based Introduction. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dyson, F.: Introduction. The scientist as a rebel. In: Cornwell, J. (eds) Nature’s Imagination. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–11 (1995)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Elster, J.: Nuts and Bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Esherick, J.: Problems of the design of a design system. In: Jones, J.C., Thornley, D.G. (eds) Conference on Design Methods. Macmillan, London pp. 59–74 (1963)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ferguson, E.S.: The mind’s eye: non-verbal thought in technology. Science 197, 827–836 (1977)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ferguson, E.S.: Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. MIT, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fortune, J., Peters, G.: Learning from Failure—The Systems Approach. Wiley, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Freeman, P.: Fundamentals of Design. In: Freeman, P., Wasserman, A.I. (eds) Software Design Techniques, 4th edn. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp. 2–22 (1983)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Freudenburg, W.R.: Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science 242, 44–49 (1988)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Funtowitz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: A new problem solving strategy for global environmental issues. Natl. Forum 38–41 (1990)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Funtowitz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: Risk management as a postnormal science. Risk Anal. 12(1), 95–97 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Funtowitz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport, pp. 251–274 (1992)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Funtowitz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R.: Risk management, post-normal science, and extended peer communities. In: Hood, C., Jones, D.K.C. (eds) Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk Management. UCL, London, pp. 172–181 (1996)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gal, S.: Footholds for design. In: Winograd, T. (eds) Bringing Design to Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp. 215–227 (1996)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Giddings, R.V.: Accommodating uncertainty in software design. Commun. ACM 27(5), 428–434 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Glass, R.L.: On design. IEEE Softw. 16(2), 103–104 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gorman, M.E., Carlson, W.B.: Interpreting invention as a cognitive process: the case of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and the telephone. Sci. Technol. Human Values 15, 131–164 (1990)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gosling, W.: The Design of Engineering Systems. Heywood, London (1962)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gragg, C.I.: Whose fault was it? Harv. Bus. Rev. 42, 107–110 (1964)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gregory, S.A.: The Design Method. Butterworth, London (1967)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hogarth, R.M., Kunreuther, H.: Decision making under ignorance: arguing with yourself. J. Risk Uncertain. 10, 15–36 (1995)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Holyoak, K.J.: Problem solving. In: Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E. (eds) Thinking. MIT, Cambridge, pp. 117–146 (1990)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hopper, P.: Emergent grammar. Berkley Lingusit. Soc. 13, 53–79 (1987)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hunt, E.: Some comments on the study of complexity. In: Sternberg, R.J., Frensch, P.A. (eds) Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 383–396 (1991)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Huxley, A.: Science, Liberty, and Peace. Harper, London (1946)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Janis, I.L.: Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1982)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jemison, D.: Scientific uncertainty and the political process. In: Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. (eds) Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Thousand Oaks, pp. 35–43 (1996)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Jones, J.C.: Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures. Wiley, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kasperson, R.E.: The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework. In: Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport, pp. 153–178 (1992)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X.: The social amplification and attenuation of risk, the annals of the American academy of political and social science. In: Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. (eds) Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Thousand Oaks, no. 545, pp. 95–105 (1996)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kelley, D., Hartfield, B.: The designer’s stance. In: Winograd, T. (eds) Bringing Design to Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp. 151–164 (1996)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Klein, G.A.: Analytical versus recognitional approaches to design decision making. In: Rouse, W.B., Boff, K.R. (eds) System Design. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 175–188 (1987)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Koen, B.V.: Toward a definition of the engineering method. Eng. Educat. 75, 47–52 (1984)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Koestler, A.: The act of creation. Hutchinson, London (1964)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. (eds.): Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 545. Sage Periodicals Press, Thousand Oaks (1996)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lehman, M.M.: Some characteristics of S-, E- and P-type programs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Feast Workshop II. Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, pp. 24–25 (1994)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Lehman, M.M.: Rules and tools for software evolution planning and management. Paper presented at the FEAST 2000. Imperial College, London (2000)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lehman, M.M., Belady, L.A.: Program Evolution: Processes of Software Change. Academic, London (1985)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lowrance, W.W.: Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. William Kaufmann, Los Altos (1976)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lynn, F.M.: The interplay of science and values in assessing and regulating environmental risks. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 11(2), 40–50 (1986)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mainzer, K.: Thinking in Complexity: The Complex Dynamics of Matter, Mind, and Mankind. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1994)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mann, R.W.: Engineering design. In: McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, vol. 6, pp. 359–372 (1989)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    March, L.J.: The logic of design and the question of value. In: March, L.J. (eds) The Architecture of Form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17–23 (1976)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Medawar, P.B.: Advice to a Young Scientist. Pan, London (1981)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Mitchell, T.: The product as illusion. In: Thackara, J. (eds) Design after Modernism. Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 44–51 (1988)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Mitroff, I.I., Linstone, H.A.: Unbounded Mind: Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Thinking. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Morgan, G.: Images of Organisation. Sage Publications, London (1986)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Mostow, J.: Towards better models of the design process. AI. Mag. 6(1), 21–27 (1985)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Nadler, G.: An investigation of design methodology. Manage. Sci. 13(10), B642–B655 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nadler, G.: Systems methodology and design. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 15(6), 685–697 (1985)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Page, J.K.: A review of the papers presented at the conference. In: Jones, J.C., Thornley, D.G. (eds) Conference on Design Methods. Macmillan, London pp. 107–112 (1963)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Parnas, D.L., Clements, P.C.: A rational design process: how and why to fake it. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(2), 251–257 (1986)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Paul, R.J.: Why users cannot ‘get what they want’. ACM SIGIOS Bull. 14(2), 8–12 (1993)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Perrow, C.: Normal Accidents, Living with High-Risk Technologies. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Peters, L.J.: Software Design: Methods and Techniques. Yourdon, New York (1981)MATHGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Petroski, H.: To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. St Martin’s Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Petroski, H.: Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgement in Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Petroski, H.: Invention by Design; How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Pool, R.: Beyond Engineering; How Society Shapes Technology. Oxford University Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Purcell, P.A., Mallen, G.L., Goumain, P.G.R.: A strategy for design research. In: Spillers, W.R. (ed.) Basic Questions of Design Theory. North-Holland, New York, pp. 75–93 (1974)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Rappaport, R.A.: Risk and the human environment. In: Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P. (eds) Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 545. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Thousand Oaks, pp. 64–74 (1996)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ravetz, J.R.: Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1971)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Renn, O.: Three Decades of Risk Research: Accomplishments and New Challenges. J. Risk Res. 1(1), 49–71 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Rittel, H.W.: On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsokonomen 8, 390–396 (1972a)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Rittel, H.W.: Some principles for the design of an educational system for design. J. Archit. Educ. 26(1–2), 16–26 (1972b)Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–169 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Rosa, E.A.: Metaphorical foundations for post-normal risk. J. Risk Res. 1(1), 15–44 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Rosenhead, J.: Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley, Chichester (1989)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Rubinstein, R., Hersh, H.: The Human Factor: Designing Computer Systems for People. Digital, Burlington (1984)Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Rzevski, G.: Prototypes versus pilot systems: strategies for evolutionary information systems development. In: Budde, R. et al. (eds) Approaches to Prototyping. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 356–367 (1984)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Schon, D.A.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey Bass, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Silvers, R.B.: The Hidden Histories of Science. New York Review of Books, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Simon, H.A.: Administrative decision making. Public. Admin. Rev. 25, 31–37 (1965)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Simon, H.A.: The structure of ill structured problems. Artif. Intell. 4, 181–201 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Simon, H.A.: Rational decision making in business organisations. Am. Econ. Rev. 69, 493–513 (1979)Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Simon, H.A.: Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Snow, C.P.: The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1959)Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Snow, C.P.: The Two Cultures: A Second Look. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1963)Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Stacey, R.D.: The Chaos Frontier: Creative Strategic Control for Business. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford (1991)Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Stacey, R.D.: Managing Chaos: Dynamic Business Strategies in an Unpredictable World. Kogan Page, London (1992)Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Stevens, R. et al.: Systems Engineering, Coping with Complexity. Prentice-Hall, London (1998)Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Thomas, H., Samson, D.: Subjective aspects of the art of decision analysis; exploring the role of decision analysis in decision structuring, decision support and policy dialogue. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 37, 249–265 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Thome, B.: Systems Engineering, Principles and Practice of Computer-based Systems Engineering. Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Truex, D., Baskerville, R., Klein, H.: Growing systems in emergent organisations. Commun. ACM 42(8), 117–123 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Truex, D., Baskerville, R., Travis, J.: Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Account Manag. Inf. Technol. 10, 53–79 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Tully, C.: System development activity. In: Thome, B. (eds) Systems Engineering, Principles and Practice of Computer-based Systems Engineering. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 45–80 (1993)Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Voland, G.: Engineering by Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Weinberg, A.M.: Science and trans-science. Minerva 10, 209–222 (1972)Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Weinberg, A.M.: Science and its limits: the regulator’s dilemma. Issues Sci. Technol. 2, 59–72 (1985)Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Weisberg, R.W.: Memory, Thought and Behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1980)Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Whewell, W.: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. J. W. Parker, London (1840)MATHGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Wynne, B.: Science and social responsibility. In: Ansell J, Wharton F (eds) Risk Analysis, Assessment and Management. Wiley, New York, pp. 137–152 (1992a)Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Wynne, B.: Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 2, 111–127 (1992b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Yolles, M.: Management Systems: A Viable Approach. Pitman Publishing, London (1999)Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Wolpert, L.: The Unnatural Nature of Science. Faber and Faber, London (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Project Management, School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations