Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 75–90 | Cite as

Choosing Between Competing Design Ideals in Information Systems Development

Article

Abstract

Whenever information systems are developed, they serve some interests at the expense of others. Just what those interests are and who possesses them need to be understood and debated as they involve value judgments. This paper contends that advice concerning the design of information systems must not be limited to technical design, but should also address what is good or bad, or right or wrong in any particular situation—a notion termed a design ideal. The paper offers an approach on how such value judgments involving competing design ideals may be approached in a rational way. This necessitates the adoption of a wider concept of rationality, one, which allows the insights of critical philosophical analysis to be brought to bear on the question of how information systems can best serve all project stakeholders. In order to address likely objections to our proposal, the conclusions discuss several research issues.

design ideals information systems development value choices value conflicts barriers to rationality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albert H. Traktat Uber Kritische Vernunft. J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1968.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alter S. Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and Continuing Challenges. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apel Karl-Otto. The a priori of the Communication Community and the Foundations of Ethics. Apel, 1980, 1973, in English.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apel Karl-Otto. The Transformation of Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bass B. Organizational Decision Making.Homewood, Ill: Irwin, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck U, Ritter M, Ritter P. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order. London: Polity Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjorn-Andersen N, Turner J. The Metamorphosis of Oticon. In: Galliers R and Baets, W, eds., Information Technology and Organizational Transformation. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 1998: 65–83.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bostrom R., Heinen JS. MIS Problems and Failures. A Socio-Technical Perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly. 1977: (3).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burns, A. The Microchip: Appropriate or Inappropriate Technology. Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Churchman CW. Challenge to Reason. New York: Delta Books, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Churchman CW. The Design of Inquiry Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Janson M. Communicative Action Theory: An Approach to Understanding the Application of Information Systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), 1999:183–195.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooley M. Architect or Bee? The Human/Technology Relationship. Slough: Hand and Brain Publication, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cosier R, Ruble Aplin. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dialectic Enquiry Systems. Management Science. 1978;241(14): 1483–1490.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cyert R, March J. The Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cyert R, Simon H, Trow D. Observation of a Business Decision. Journal of Business, 1956;29:237–248.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis G. Strategies for Information Requirements Determination. IBM Systems Journal, 1982;21(1):4–30.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeMarco T. Structured Analysis and System Specification. New York: Yourdon Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dennis AR, George JF, Jessup LM, Nunamaker JF, Vogel D. Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings. Management Information Systems Quarterly 1988;12(4):591–624.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dewey R, Hurlbutt R. eds. An Introduction to Ethics. New York: Macmillan, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foucault M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan (translator) New York: Vintage, 1977.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gasson S. Co-operative Information System Design, How Multi-Domain Information System Design Takes Place in UK Organisations. Doctoral dissertation, University ofWarwick, Coventry, Sept. 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gasson S. The Reality of User-Centered Design. J. of End User Computing. 1999;11(4):3–13.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline for a Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Habermas J. Theory and Practice. Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action-Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Vol 1. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hare RM. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harrington HJ. Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hirschheim, R. The Effect of a priori Views on the Social Implications of Computing: The Case of Office Automation. Computing Surveys. 1986;18(2):165–195.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hirschheim R, Klein H. Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. Communications of the ACM. 1989;32(10):1199–1216.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hirschheim R, Klein H. Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The Case for ETHICS. MIS Quarterly, 1994;18(1):83–109.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hirschheim R, Klein HK, Lyytinen, K. Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iivari J, Hirschheim R, Klein H. A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies. Information Systems Research. 1998;9(2):164–193.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Janson M, Brown A, Taillieu T. Colruyt: An Organization Committed to Communication. Information Systems Journal. 1997; 7(3):175–199.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and analyzed by Patton HJ, New York: Harper Torch, Books, 1964.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kant I. The Critique of Practical Reason. New York: Harper Torch Books, 1929.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keen P, Scott-Morton M. Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1978.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klein H. The Reconstruction of Design Ideals. Paper presented at the TIMS Conference, Toronto, May 1981.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kling R. Value-Conflicts and Social Choice in Electronic Funds Transfer Developments. Communications of the ACM. 1978; 21(8):642–657.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kling R. Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research. Computing Surveys 1980;12(1):61–110.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kling R. Value Conflicts in the Deployment of Computing Applications: Cases in Developed and Developing Countries. Telecommunications Policy March, 1983;7(1):12–34.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kumar K, van Dissel H, Bielli P. The Merchant of Prato-Revisited: Toward a Third Rationality of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly June, 1998;22(2):199–226.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kutchera F von. Philosophy of Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Land F, Hirschheim R. Participative Systems Design: Rationale, Tools and Techniques. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 1983;10:91–107.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lawler E. High-Involvement Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lawler E, Ledford G, Mohrman S. Employee Involvement in America: A Study of Contemporary Practice. Houston: American Productivity & Quality Center, 1989.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan, 1974.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    March J, Simon H. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mason R. A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning. Management Science. 1969;15:B403-B414.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mattessich R. Instrumental Reasoning and Systems Methodology: An Epistemology of the Applied and Social Sciences. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1978.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    McFarlan FW. Information Technology Changes the Way You Compete. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1984;98–103.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mintzberg H. Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mowshowitz A. Computers and the Myth of Neutrality. In: Proceedings of the 1984 Computer Science Conference, Philadelphia, February 14–16, 1984: 85–92.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mumford E. Participation-From Aristotle to Today. In: Bemelmans T. ed. Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1984: 95–104.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Orlikowski W. Integrated Information Environment or Matrix of Control? The Contradictory Implications of Information Technology. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 1991; 1(1): 9–42.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Popper K. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Provenzo E. The Electronic Panopticon: Censorship, Control, and Indoctrination in a Post-Typographic Culture. In: Tuman M. ed. Literacy Online: The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rule J. Value Choices in an Electronic Funds Transfer Policy. Office of Telecommunications Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., October, 1975.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Searle JR. How to Derive "Ought" from "Is". Philosophical Review. 1964; 73, January. Reprinted in Dewey R and Hurlbutt R, eds. (1977), An Introduction to Ethics, NewYork: Macmillan, 452–463.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Searle JR. Expression and Meaning. London: Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Simon H. Models of Man. New York: McGraw Hill, 1957.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Simon H. Theories of Decision Making in Economics and Behavioral Science. In: Greenwood W. T. Management and Organizational Behavior Theories: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1965, 300.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Slovic P. Fischoff B, Lichtenstein S. Behavioral Decision Theory. Annual Review of Psychology. 1977;28:1–39.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Stamper R. Information: in Business and Administrative Systems. New York: Halsted Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Thompson JD. Organizations in Action. New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tjosvold D, Wedley W, Field R. Constructive Controversy, the Vroom-Yetton Model, and Managerial Decision Making. Journal of Occupational Behavior. 1986;7:125–138.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Toulmin S. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vogel D, Nunamaker JF, Martz B, Grohowski R, McGoff C. Electronic Meeting System Experience at IBM. Journal of Management Information Systems. 1990;6(3):25–43.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wallach M, Kogan N. The Roles of Information, Discussion and Consensus in Group Risk Taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1965;1:1–19.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wilensky H. Organizational Intelligence, Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry. New York: Basic Books, 1967.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zemke R, Schaaf D. The Service Edge: 101 Companies That Profit from Customer Care. New York: New American Library, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Fox School of Management Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of Houston, Houston, TX. 77204-6282USA

Personalised recommendations