A Case for Holistic, Multicriteria Benefit Analysis

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the ways in which a critical systemic approach to systems analysis can provide support for a holistic, multicriteria benefits analysis. It highlights the importance of inquiry into the nature and boundaries of a perceived organizational problem space, taking into account unique perspectives of the living, engaged actors who desire beneficial change in their working systems. The role of the IS professional within a collaborative inquiry is explored, taking into account creation of relevant methodological frameworks (in contrast to uncritical, rigorous application of standardized methods). The chapter discusses the ways in which collaborative teams can approach identification of desirable benefits.

Keywords

Benefits analysis Critical systemic thinking Systems analysis Methodologies 

References

  1. 1.
    The Standish Group. (1996). Unfinished Voyages: Follow-up to the CHAOS report. http://www.umflint.edu/~weli/courses/bus381/assignment/vo.pdf, acc. May 20 2012.
  2. 2.
    Checkland, P. B. (1993). Systems thinking, systems practice. UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nissen, H.-E. (2002). Challenging traditions of inquiry in software practice. In Y. Dittrich, C. Floyd, & R. Klischewski (Eds.), Social thinking, software practice. MIT: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciborra, C. U. (2004). Encountering information systems as a phenomenon. In C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, & F. Land (Eds.), The social study of information and communication technology: Innovation, actors, and contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bednar, P. M. (2007). Individual emergence in contextual analysis, problems of individual emergence: Special issue of systemica. Journal of the Dutch Systems Group, 14(1–6), 23–28.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Argyris, M., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bednar, P.M. & Welch, C. (2006). ‘Incentive and desire: covering a missing category.’ MCIS 2006. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Università degli Studi di Trento, San Servolo, Venice, Italy. 5–9 Oct, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Checkland, P. B., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for Action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Checkland, P.B. (1993) ibid.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jayaratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies: NIMSAD–a systematic framework. UK: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sommerville, I. (2010). Software engineering (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Adison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2008). Hypermodernist travellers in a postmodern world. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mumford, E. (2003). Redesigning human systems. Hershey, PA: IRM Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ciborra, C. U., & Willcocks, L. (2006). The mind or the heart? It depends on the (definition of) situation. Journal of Information Technology, 21(3), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bednar, P.M. & Welch, C. (2006) ibid p. 53.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ciborra, C. U. (2002). The labyrinths of information (p. 162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bednar, P.M., Anderson, D., Welch, C. (2005). ‘Knowledge creation and sharing––complex methods of inquiry and inconsistent theory’. Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Knowledge Management, University of Limerick, 8–9 Sept 2005.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bednar, P. M. (2000). A contextual integration of individual and organizational learning perspectives as part of IS analysis. Informing Science, 3(3), 145–156.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. (2002). Managing the unexpected. USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klein, H. K. (2007). 4th Leverhulme lecture. UK: Salford Business School. Jan 12 2007.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nissen, H.-E. (2007). ‘Using Double Helix Relationships to Understand and Change Informing Systems’. In H.-E. Nissen, P. Bednar, & C. Welch (Eds.), Informing science journal, 10, monograph, use and redesign in IS: Double helix relationships? (pp. 21–62).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fuller, R. B. (1992). Cosmography: A blueprint for the science and culture of the future. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Resca, A., D’Atri, A., De Marco, M., & Casolino, N. (2008). Re-configuring the fashion business: The “Yooox” virtual boutique case study. In A. D’. Atri, P. Bednar, & C. Welch (Eds.), Interdisciplinary aspects of information systems studies (pp. 155–161).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitaker, R. (2007). Informing science journal, 10, monograph, use and redesign in IS: Double helix relationships? In H.-E. Nissen, P. Bednar, & C. Welch (Eds.), ‘Applying phenomenology and hermeneutics in IS Design: A report on field experiences’ (pp. 63–96).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Portsmouth, School of ComputingPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.Portsmouth Business School, University of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations