ethicsvsssadm

8/3/2019 ETHICSVSSSADM

1/17

COM331 SAAM ETHICS vs. SSADM - 1-

A COMPARISON BETWEEN ETHICS AND SSADM

1.Introduction2.ETHICS3.SSADM4.The Comparison5.ConclusionsJordi Sala Serra, Dec 2001

Introduction:

The main objective of this paper is to do a comparison between two very differentinformation systems development methodologies such as SSADM (Structured Systems

Analysis and Development Methodology) and ETHICS (Effective Technical and Human

Implementation of Computer-based Work Systems).

Avison and Fitzgerald (1995) give us a definition of an information systems development

methodology as a collection of procedures, techniques, tools, and documentation aids

which will help the systems developers in their efforts to implement a new informationsystem. In addition they remark that a methodology is more than a merely a collection of

these things. It is usually based on some philosophical view. Thus, sometimes the

differences between methodologies are more important in this aspect than in the

techniques, tools and contents that are used or recommended by them. Because the

philosophy followed by the methodology is in most cases the basis of his others parts.

Normally there are two principal reasons for comparing methodologies: An academic

reason (to better understand the nature of methodology) and a practical reason (to choose

a methodology, part of one, or a number of methodologies for a particular application, a

group of applications, or for an organisation as a whole) (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995).

Many different development methodologies exist; there are hundreds and there are a lot of

factors that can influence in a comparison between different methodologies or

methodology choice. So there are many different approaches to the comparison of

methodologies, and they pay attention to different factors of information system

development (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995). However, the conventional way to classifying


2/17


information systems development approaches is according to theme or by way of a feature

analysis. Thus, other authors describe six main themes: traditional, general systems,

human activity systems, participative, structural and data, Avison and Fitzgerald (1988)

suggest that it is unrealistic to include general systems theory as an approach, but add

planning and prototyping to the list of themes. Other authors classify information systems

development approaches according to their features, including the stages of the life cycle

that they encompass (seeAvison and Fitzgerald, 1995), deliverables and the techniques

used (Avison and Taylor, 1997).

As we said before, the aim of this paper is to study the most significant differences

between ETHICS and SSADM. This is an academic paper, we have not a specific

problem, and so we will do the comparison following a framework, suggested by Avison

and Fitzgerald (1995), which will help us to find these differences. Anyway, before to do

any comparison or study about differences between the two methodologies, we must know

the basis and principles of these methodologies, so the next two sections are two

overviews about ETHICS and SSADM respectively.

Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Systems

(ETHICS):

ETHICS methodology arose out of work begun by Enid Mumford at Manchester Business

School in 1969. Since then, much experience gained through its use both in industry and

the health service (Mumford, 1997). ETHICS is an acronym, but the name of this approach

is meant to imply that is a methodology that embodies an ethical position. It is a

methodology based on the participative approach to information systems development

(Avison and Fitzgerald 1995).

This methodology is well known for its emphasis on and interest in the human side of

systems design (Jayaratna, 1994). In addition, it encompasses the socio-technical view

that for a system to be effective the technology must fit closely with the social and

organisational factors. In particular, this means that an improved quality of working life and

enhanced job satisfaction of the users must be a major objective of the systems design

process. Mumford defines the socio-technical approach as one which recognizes the

interaction of technology and people and produces work systems which are both

technically efficient and have social characteristics which lead to high job satisfaction; and

job satisfaction as the attainment of a good fit between what the employee is seeking


3/17


from his work his job needs, expectations and aspirations- and what he is required to do

in his job the organisational job requirements which mould his experience(Avison and

Fitzgerald 1995).

To measure the concept of fit used to define job satisfaction, five areas are identified as

follows: firstly the knowledge fitas a good fit exists when employees believe that their skills

are being adequately used and that their knowledge is being developed to make them

increasingly competent; secondly the psychological fitwhich means that a job must fit the

employees status, advancement and work interest; thirdly the efficiency fit, this comprises

the effort-reward bargain, work controls and supervisory controls; fourthly the task-

structured fit that measures the degree to which the employees tasks are regarded as

being demanding and fulfilling; and finally the ethical fitwhich is also described as the

social value fit and measures whether the values of employee match those of employer

organisation (Avison and Fitzgerald 1995).

ETHICS is a methodology to help a design group (made up of management, users and

technical experts) diagnose and formulate the problem, set objectives and develop

alternatives, and take other appropriate actions right through to implementing and

evaluating the new system. It aims to build computer-based information systems that

provide job satisfaction and meet the efficiency needs of the organisation (Jayaratna,

1994).

Throughout development, emphasis is placed on both the human or social and the

technical aspects of the system. Users develop social alternatives to improve job

satisfaction, and experts develop technical alternatives to increase business efficiency.

These are matched with a view to finding the best socio-technical fit under the usual cost,

resource and other environmental constraints (Wong, 2001).

Thus, the work in the ETHICS steps that follow are performed by the design group:

1. Why change?

The design group looks at current problems and opportunities and produces

a statement of the benefits of change, if no convincing statement for change

is arrived at, the process stops there.


4/17


2. System boundaries.

The design group identifies the boundaries of the system it is designing and

where it interfaces with other systems.

3. Description of existing system.

This is to educate the design group as to how the existing system works.

4, 5 and 6. Definition of key objectives and tasks.

Identify the key objectives for the Design Groups, the tasks required to

achieve these objectives and the information needed to carry out the tasks.

7. Diagnosis of efficiency needs.

Weak links in the existing system are identified and documented. A

statement of performance objectives is done.

8. Diagnosis of job satisfaction needs.

This is achieved by use of a standard questionnaire provided in the ETHICS

methodology. This questionnaire addresses knowledge fit, psychological fit,

efficiency fit, task structure fit and ethics fi t.

9. Future analysis.

The new system design needs to be both a better version of the existing

system and able to cope with future changes that may occur in the

environment, technology, organisation or fashion.

10. Specifying and weighting efficiency and job satisfaction needs and objectives.

Mumford identifies this as the key step in the whole methodology. Objectivesare set according to the diagnosis activities of the three previous steps. It can

be a very difficult task and must involve everyone.

11. Organisational design of the new system.

This should be performed in parallel with the technical design of step 12,

because they inevitably intertwine. The organisational changes, which are

needed to meet the efficiency and job satisfaction objectives, are specified.


5/17


12. Technical options.

The various technical options that might be appropriate, including hardware,

software and the design of the human-computer interface, are specified.

Each option is evaluated in the same way as the organisational options, that

is, against efficiency, job satisfaction and future change objectives.

The organisational and technical options are now merged to ensure compatibility,

and are evaluated against the primary objectives and the one that best meets the

objectives is selected.

13. The preparation of detailed design work.

The selected system is now designed in detail. The data flows, tasks, groups,

individuals, responsibilities and relationships are defined.

14. Implementation.

The design group now applies itself to ensuring the successful

implementation of the design. This involves planning the implementation

process in detail.

15. Evaluation.

The implemented system is checked to ensure that it is meeting its

objectives, particularly in relation to efficiency and job satisfaction.

(Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995)

Mumford recognizes that to implement this methodology will not be easy, besides she

explains that participative approaches may not work in situations where people do not wishto participate or in coercive situations where the objectives of the system include the

reduction of costs and redundancies. Aylors and Myers indicate that the ease with which

participation may be accomplished will be dependent on the culture and politics of the

organization as well as the individuals themselves. It means that it will be more difficult to

obtain true participation between different users at different levels of bureaucratic

hierarchical organisation where people are very conscious of their position or grade and

power than more organic organisations where these are much less explicit (Avison andTaylor, 1995)..


6/17


However, many organizations are attempting to move away from bureaucratic structures

so as to make them more flexible and, therefore, participative approaches may become

more widespread.

Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM):

SSADM is a methodology developed by UK consultants Learmonth and Burchett

Management Systems (LBMS) and the Central Computing and Telecommunications

Agency (CCTA), which is responsible for computer training and some procurement for the

UK Civil Service, and version 4 was released in June 1990 (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995).

This methodology is the UK governments standard method for carrying out the systems

analysis and design stages of an information technology development project. It divides

the work into discrete units. The method is flexible and may be applied to a wide variety of

problem situations.

SSADM is a way of organising the systems analysis and design parts of projects, which

aim to deliver a computer-based information system. Such methods must provide

guidance for people who are doing the following: firstly establishing what support potential

users of the information system will require from the future system, and secondly

designing the required information system (Downs et al, 1992).

SSADM consists of activities and products. The activities are described by SSADM in two

ways. Firstly, when something should be done, and secondly how something should be

done. The third sets of components which defines SSADM are the products, so what is

delivered by SSADM (Downs et al, 1992).

The skeleton of SSADM version 4 is organised around five core modules which describe

the substantive work of systems analysis and design: Feasibility Study (FS), Requirements

Analysis (RA), Requirements Specification (RS), Logical System Specification (LS) and

Physical Design (PD).

The methodology has seven stages within the five-module framework commented above,

with its own set of plans, timescales, controls and monitoring procedures (Figure 3.1). The


7/17


activities of each stages are precisely defined as are their associated deliverables, and this

facilitates the use of project management techniques (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995; Downs

et al, 1992).

The first module is Feasibility Study (FS), which is an intermediate stage between the

identification of a project as part of the overall IS strategy, and the systems analysis and

design proper. This phase has four steps: prepare for the study, which assesses the scope

of the project; define the problem, which compares the requirements with the current

position; select feasibility option, which considers alternatives and selects one; andassemble feasibility report. System investigations techniques are used in this stage, as are

SSADM

Feasibility

Study (FS)

Requirements

Analysis (RA)

Requirements

Specification(RS)

Physical Design

(PD)

Logical System

Specification

(LS)

MODULE

Stage 3 Specification

of Definition ofRequirements

Stage 4

Technical System

Options

Stage 5

Logical Design

Stage 6

Physical Design

Stage 2

Business Systems

O tions

Stage1

Investigation ofCurrent Environment

Stage 0

Feasibility

STAGE

Figure 3.1 SSADMs skeleton.


8/17


the newer techniques of data flow diagramming, drawn from an analysis of the flow

documents (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995).

Requirements analysis (RA) is concerned with describing the information system

requirements, preferably quantified, in terms of the underlying business. A major aim is to

get the user to own these requirements, and thereby become committed to the project. It

has two stages: firstly Investigation of Current Environment that involves the description of

the existing situation, using data models and data flow models; secondly Business System

Options establishes a range of possible solutions to the problem situation.

The next module, Requirements Specification (RS), is a single stage and reworks the

descriptions of the current environment and Business System Option, produced in RA.

Such techniques as relational data analysis and entity-event modelling are used in this

stage.

This work re-defines and details the Data Flow Models (DFM) and Logical Data Model

(LDM). It consolidates around the Function Definitions, which are token forward to drive

process design. The effect is to create a detailed and testable specification of what is

required.

The Logical System Specification (LS) module has two stages in it. Stage 4 determines

and helps management to select the Technical System Option, which is thought most

likely to meet the requirements and be cost effective. Stage 5, Logical Design, defines

dialogues, updates and enquiries in a non-procedural manner, which is independent of any

implementation strategy.

The final module is concerned with Physical Design (PD), which takes the Logical SystemSpecification from preceding modules and combines it with information about the target

hardware, software and organisation setting. This is stage 6 and results in physical

designs for the data and processes (Downs et al, 1992).

As we can see above, SSADM has a well-defined structure, it makes the methodology

teachable, and many UK university curses in information systems have used this

methodology for in-depth treatment and discuss other methodologies in overview only forcomparative purposes (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995).


9/17


The Comparasion:

Now, the reader should be aware that there are many important differences between

SSADM and ETHICS. However in this section, as we said before (section 1), we will do acomparison between these two methodologies, following the framework suggested by

Avison and Fitzgerald (1995), to show more clearly these differences.

The framework has seven basic elements and some elements are broken down into a

number of sub-elements:

1. Philosophy

Paradigm

Objectives

Domain

Target

2. Model

3. Techniques and tools

4. Scope

5. Outputs

6. Practice

Background

User base

Players

7. Product

Its important to highlight that the headings are not mutually exclusive and there are

obviously inter-relationships between them.

1-Pilosophy:

The question of philosophy is an important aspect of a methodology because it

underscores all other aspects. The authors of this framework regard philosophy as a

principle, or set of principles, those underlie the methodology. To do the analysis of this

frameworks element, they suggest that there are four factors as a guide: Two paradigms

of relevance are identified. The first is the science paradigm, which has characterised most


10/17


of the hard scientific developments that we see in the latter part of the twentieth century,

and the second is the systems paradigm, which is characterised by a holistic approach

(Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995). In this aspect, ETHICS belong to the systems paradigm

and SSADM belong to the science paradigm.

As we have seen in section 2, the three principal objectives of ETHICS are: firstly to

enable future users to play a major role in system design; secondly to ensure that new

systems are acceptable to users because they both increase user efficiency and job

satisfaction; and finally to assist users to become increasingly competent in the

management of their own organisational change (Mumford, 1993), also, it shows us that

ETHICS has the participative design philosophy, it believes in the interaction of the social

and technical subsystems (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995). So, ETHICS is based on the

socio-technical view that, to be effective, information systems must fit closely with both the

social and technical factors (Avison and Taylor, 1997). Whereas SSADM has as a clear

objective to develop computerised information systems, as we have seen in section 3.

Now, we can see some of the boundaries of each methodologys domain. We can see,

through these aspects of the philosophy, that while ETHICS would be centred on to

answer to the next two questions: How can it be fitted into the working lives of people in

the organization that are going to use it? and How can the individuals concerned best

relate to the machine in terms of operating it and using the output from it?; SSADM would

be centred on the next two question: What information system processing function is the

system to perform? and What is the technical specification of a system that will come

close enough to doing the things that have been written in the other questions?(Avison,

and Taylor, 1997).

The last sub-element of philosophy in the framework is concerned with the target systemto be developed. One important aspect of the target is the size of organisations that the

methodology addresses. The experience of both methodologies shows us that they have

been implemented successfully in large companies (Mumford, 1997; Sauer and Lau,

1997). There is, however, a version of SSADM, that is intended to develop information

systems in smaller environments, it is called MicroSSADM (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995).


11/17


2-Model:

The methodologys model is the basis of the methodologys view of the world; it is an

abstraction, and a representation of the important factors of the information system or the

organisation.

As we can check on section 3, the primary process model used in SSADM is the data flow

diagram, but also other important techniques like decision tables and decision trees are

used. Whereas ETHICS uses a socio-technical model which involves the interaction of

technology and people and processes performed, and it is done through a verbal or

narrative model (Avison and Taylor, 1997). But often other processes, for example data

flow diagrams, are used in ETHICS to facilitate its implementation (Wong, 2001).

This aspect of a methodology is important, because it helps to improve the understanding

of the requirements by providing better communications with users and to verify the

analysts understanding of the needs of the users (Avison and Taylor, 1997).

3-Techniques and tools:

ETHICS does not use some kind of formal method or diagram to describe an organisation

or system. The whole idea of ETHICS is to get information from the employees. So it is not

explicit on methods of investigation for gaining knowledge of the operations, it is explicit as

to the use of questionnaires as the main form of investigation for collecting job satisfaction

data (Jayaratna, 1994).

On the other hand, SSADM includes the techniques as a part of the methodology, and

also has specific techniques, which are regarded as fundamental to the methodology, as

we have seen in section 3. These techniques give details of how to perform the tasks laid

down in the structural framework for SSADM (seeFigure 3.1). There is a technique/stepmatrix that details where each technique is used (Downs et al, 1992).

4-Scope:

Scope is an indication of the stages of life cycle of systems development that the

methodology covers. The authors of this framework identify nine stages in life cycle:

strategy (planning), feasibility, analysis, logical design, physical design, programming,

testing, implementation and maintenance (seeAvison and Fitzgerald, 1995, section 2.2).


12/17


There are some differences in this aspect between both methodologies. As we can see in

section 2 and 3 (figure 3.1), both methodologies cover in detail analysis and logical design

stages, whereas feasibility and physical design are covered in more detail by SSADM than

ETHICS, and SSADM also includes aspects of a strategic nature. The both cover

implementation stage, evaluation stage is covered in more detail by ETHICS, and finally,

maintenance stage is only mentioned by SSADM (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995).

These differences exist because ETHICS is centred on user environment, so it is

reasonable that ETHICS is focused on analysis and logical design, which are when this

environment is studied and designed. Also we can see that the two methodologies

address evaluation stage, where the measurement and evaluation of the implemented

system and a comparison with the original objectives are concerned, ETHICS particularly

is focused on the evaluation of fit between the users and the technology.

5-Outputs:

This is an investigation of what is actually produced in terms of deliverables at the end of

each stage of the methodology.

As we can see in Figure 3.1, SSADM has seven stages, and each stages has different

objectives, that we have seen in this paper, so they has their outputs:

0-Feasibility: feasibility report.

1-Investigation of current environment: map of present physical data flow model,

relationships matrices, the user catalogue, the requirements catalogue, and a

complete description of the results of this stage.

2-Business systems options: option chosen is documented in detail (it is the basis of

the system specification), data flow diagrams, and entity models.

3-Definition of requirements: data flow model is extended; each function isdocumented in detail and a form is used which includes space for function name,

description, error handling, data flow diagram processes, events and input and

output descriptions; documentation shows other detail, such as the relationship

between user roles and functions (via a role/function matrix); optional prototyping;

entity life histories; and full requirements specification is documented.

4-Technical system options:technical system options are documented in detail.

5-Logical design: all requirements to start designing the physical solution aredocumented in detail.


13/17


6-Physical design:logical design is mapped onto a particular physical environment

and a functional implementation map documents this map.

(Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995)

We have already seen in this comparisonthat the whole idea of ETHICS is get information

about the employees, so the outputs are the reports that are done following different

techniques to get this information. So we can see that in this aspect SSADM is more

defined and structured to help the methodologys users. But it does not mean that SSADM

outputs are better or clearer than ETHICS outputs, it will depend on different factors.

6-Practice:

This is the use of the methodology. It contains the sub-elements of background, user-

base, applications and players. The background of the methodology broadly identifies its

origins in terms of academic or commercial, so, as we can see in sections 2and 3,

ETHICS was begun by Enid Mumford from Manchester business School, so, at least in

part, it has background, and SSADM has his origins from commercial companies, so it has

a clear commercial background. It does mean that ETHICS is not now commercial

methodologies.

Many different development methodologies exist; some authors suggested that there are

hundreds. So is often difficult to discover the user base. Nevertheless SSADM has been

selected as the mandatory methodology for UK Government projects since 1981. As we

said before, it has been particularly appropriate for the public sector systems development,

so it has a good reputation on these kinds of projects. Another aspect which causes the

choice of SSADM more often than other methodologies is that it's seen as more complete

than others. Nevertheless, others developers think that is better on theory than practice,

and that sometimes it gives the impression of slow development (Sauer and Lau, 1997).

ETHICS also is used, but not in the same number of companies or organisations than

SSADM. But it doesnt mean that SSADM works better than ETHICS, to answer the next

question: why isnt participative systems design more popular? Enid Mumford (1997)

suggests that participative design will be accepted by industry if it can be shown to

contribute both to greater efficiency and more satisfied and productive employees, in

addition she argues that it gives a practical to the philosophy of humanism by providingemployees with an opportunity to influence the work systems that surround them and that


14/17


it also provides them with an improved work environment in which they are encouraged to

increase their skills, make judgements and take decisions. And she compares the

introduction of socio-technical systems into US, Japanese, Scandinavian and British

industry, and shows us that the main problem to implement these systems is the culture.

So, we can see that whereas Scandinavian companies have always been attracted by

shared problem solving an equality of contribution, this has not been the case in the UK

and US, where strong hierarchical structures and fixed roles are common.

The players involved in ETHICS and SSADM are very different. SSADM provides project

development staff with very detailed rules and guidelines to work to. A specialist team of

professional systems analysts and designers perform the analysis and design aspects and

professional programmers design the programs and write the code, the analysts then

implement the system.

Whereas ETHICS takes a different view, and users have a more proactive role. ETHICS

is pragmatically oriented and relies for its success on the practical abilities and the

commitment of the participant to arrive at consensus decisions (Jayaratna, 1994). So

participation usually involves the setting up of a steering committee and a design group or

groups. It is recommended that the steering committee and the design group meet once a

month during the course of the project. The design group designs the new system. In

addition, a participative design requires the appointment of a facilitator to help the design

group manage the project and educate the group in the use of ETHICS (Avison and

Fitzgerald, 1995),

So, as we can see above, the levels of skill required by the players has to vary between

ETHICS and SSADM. Both methodologies need a considerable training and experience,

but ETHICS, as we can guess, needs more training and more demands on the users, so itwill increase the time and costs of the project.

7-Product:

This describes what is supplied when purchasing a methodology and at what cost. Both

methodologies have a range of products and services available.

SSADM, as UK standard, has many tools designed specifically for his users, for examplea number of CASE tools supported by data dictionaries and systems repositories which


15/17


help analysis and design, some generating code from the SSADM design, and draw tools,

to help draw entity relationship diagrams, entity life histories and data flow diagrams; a

large sets of manuals, including academic papers, books, and training courses. What is

more, one important reason for its success has been in the standards provided.

Documentation pervades all aspects of the information systems project. SSADM also

includes a certificate of proficiency scheme. An implementation of ETHICS would need to

train the facilitator and the questionnaires and questions that have to be answered in

each stage which we defined before.

Conclusions:

As we have seen and commented in the last section, there are a lot of important

differences between ETHICS and SSADM, but probably the most significant is in their

philosophy, so they have two points of view about developing information systems very

different.

Now, probably some people think that ETHICS is impractical because unskilled users

cannot do the design properly and that management would never accept it or that it

removes the right to manage from manager. But Mumford argues that users can, and do,

design properly. To answer the second point, managers have often welcomed

participation. It is not always the management who needs to be convinced; sometimes it is

the users who are sceptical about participation, seeing it as some sort of management

trick (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995). But also, participative approaches may not work in

situations where people do not wish to participate or in coercive situations where the

ojectives of the system include the reduction of costs and redundancies.

Although ETHICS is not as used as SSADM, probably, its different point of view and some

demonstrated successfully implementations (see Mumford, 1997) of it, have caused that

these philosophy now is present in other traditional methodologies. For example,

SSADM version 4 pays more attention in user environment than older versions. So in this

case, we could say that parts of socio-technical approaches are indirectly implemented

through other methodologies.

Despite the many methodologies existing, on the one hand and the SSADM UK standard,

on the other, many information systems are developed without the use of standard


16/17


17/17


SAUER, C. and Lau, C. 1997. Trying to adopt systems development methodologies a

case-based exploration of business users interests. Information Systems Journal 7 (3),

255-275

WONG, E. 2001. A Study of User Participation in Information Systems Development.

http://www.is.cityu.edu.hk/Research/Publication/paper/9405.pdf accussed on 2 Dec. 2001.

ethicsvsssadm

Documents