Advertisement

What If Design Is Something Else: The Challenges of Dealing with Interdependencies

  • Margunn Aanestad
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 124)

Abstract

The interactive society is also the interdependent society, and this poses challenges to the IS field’s conceptualization of what design entails. ICTs are intimately intertwined with work practices, institutions and with other technological systems, and the resulting assemblage exhibits a complexity that challenges design interventions. Relevant conceptualizations from the IS field should be further developed to help us come to grips with the challenges. The nature of design is explored through two empirical vignettes. Both vignettes illustrate design “in the large”, involving more participants, different objectives and multiple types of tasks relative to classical instances of software or systems design. The interdependencies’ implications for design are examined, and a conceptual decomposition of interdependencies is proposed. The three-dimensional decomposition into spatial extent, functional coverage and temporal duration can potentially be used for a more proactive approach to intended and unintended interdependencies during design “in the large”.

Keywords

Project Leader Electronic Patient Record Enterprise Architecture Information Infrastructure Information System Research 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S. (eds.): Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice. Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M.K.: On Integrating Action Research and Design Research. In: Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S. (eds.) Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice, pp. 179–194. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M.: Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35, 37–56 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curtis, B., Krasner, H., Iscoe, N.: A Field Study of The Software Design Process for Large Systems. Communications of the ACM 31, 1268–1287 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dittrich, Y., Eriksén, S., et al.: PD in the Wild: Evolving Practices of Design in Use. In: PDC 2002, Malmö, Sweden (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aanestad, M., Henriksen, D., Pors, J.K.: Systems Development in the Wild: User-Led Exploration and Transformation of Organizing Visions. In: Proceedings from IFIP WG. 8.2, Manchester, UK, vol. 143, pp. 615–630 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciborra, C., Braa, K., Cordella, A., Dahlbom, B., Failla, A., Hanseth, O., Hespø, V., Ljungberg, J., Monteiro, E., Simon, K.A. (eds.): From Control to Drift - The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahlbom, B., Jahnlert, L.E.: Computer Future, mimeo. Department of Informatics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanseth, O., Ciborra, C.U. (eds.): Risk, Complexity and ICT. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Contini, F., Lanzara, G.F. (eds.): ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. European Studies in the Making of E-Government. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., Bush, A.A.: Research Commentary: Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics. Information Systems Research 21, 675–687 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K.: Research Commentary: The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research 21, 724–735 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., Sørensen, C.: Research Commentary: Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 21, 748–759 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    El Sawy, O.A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y., Pavlou, P.: Research Commentary: Seeking the Configuration of Digital Ecodynamics: It Takes Three to Tango. Information Systems Research 21, 835–848 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ellingsen, G., Monteiro, E.: Big is Beautiful: Electronic Patient Records in Large Norwegian Hospitals 1980s – 2001. Methods of Information in Medicine 42, 366–370 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ribes, D., Finholt, T.A.: The Long Now of Technology Infrastructures: Articulating Tensions in Development. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 10, 375–398 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jensen, T.B., Aanestad, M.: National initiatives to build healthcare information infrastructures. In: Proceedings of MCIS 2010 Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems. Paper 43 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boland, R.J.: Design in the Punctuation of Management Action. In: Boland, R. (ed.) Managing as Designing: Creating a Vocabulary for Management Education and Research. Frontiers of Management Workshop, Weatherhead School of Management (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon, H.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margunn Aanestad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations