information systems: opening the black box

8/2/2019 Information Systems: Opening The Black Box

1/7

Sy st emi s t, Vo l. 17(1), F e b. 1 99 5

Information Systems:Opening The Black BoxSusan GassonWarwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventry CV4 7AL

INTRODUCTIONThe impact upon organisational effect iveness of different approaches to themanagement and provision of informat ion systems is a subject widely seenwithin the academic community as of critical importance to the success oforganisa tions, yet managers and developers of organisational informationsystems appear largely unaware of these concerns. The development ofinformat ion systems is seen, within organisations, as relat ing to primarilytechnical tasks, rather than to the wider issues of organisational work systems(Hornby et. al. , 1992). Klein and Hirschheim (1987) argue that chal lenges tothe nar row, purely technical, view of the information system as computersystem, based on positivist, scientific traditions, can be seen as a reflection ofwider social changes, but the growth and internalisation of these criticisms hasbeen slow and focused mainly on an apprecia tion of user rela tions problems(Friedman and Cornford, 1989).No clear conclusions have emerged from extensive research by both socia lscienti sts and computer scienti st s on reasons for the fai lure of informat ionsystems to benefit organisations. Brynjolfsson (1993) suggests four reasonswhy the organisational use of IT has not measurably improved productivity: (i)that traditional measures of value may not properly account for the inputs andoutputs of information-using industries; (ii) that there may be significant timelags between investment in IT and benefit s from its use, due to the learning -curve of both users and managers, (iii) that any benefits from using IT in anindustry may be gained at the expense of those not using IT, so there are zeroaggregate benefits, and (iv) that managers are investing in IT inappropriately,as they lack speci fic measures of returns from the use of ITThe lack of clear conclusions may also be because researchers haveapproached the research problem via a bifurcation of interests: SocialScientists have studied the cognitive, behavioural and interpretative aspects ofInformation Systems, treating technology as an independent variable, whereasComputer Scientists have researched technical and knowledge-related aspectsof the problem, treating the organisational context of work as an independentvariable . What is requi red is to establi sh a middle ground, where the socio-technical approach is extended to examine the inter-relatedness of

- 44 -

Su san Gas sontechnological and social issues, rather than treating the two areas as twoseparated systems in equilibrium (Corbett et. al., 1991).TIlE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DISCIPLINELand & Hirschheim (1983) define an information system as a social system,which mayor may not use information technology (IT) to support itsoperation, while Galliers (1987) brings in an element of purpose: informationas the basis for decision-making or action. These definitions of an informationsystem move the basis of research away from the purely technical or thepurely organisational, to the context of information system management, useand design. Ives et. al. (1980) propose a model for Information Systemsresearch, which is given in figure 1. This model concentrates upon threeaspects of information systems: use, development and operation, each ofwhich is grounded in the organisational context.

The external environment-----~--,.,-, ... -,--~--.,--------------.--..--------.--~--.,.--~The organisational environment

User The useprocessnvironment____________ ..J

ISdevelopment The developmentenvironment processThe informationsystem

IS operationsenvironment

The operationprocess

Figure I: The l v es E t . AI. Model Fo r In fo rmat io n S y st ems Re se a rc h

However, recent thinking in Information Systems has come to be dominatedby the management aspects of the organisational use of information systems,which consti tute such a large body of li terature, particularly wi th respect tostrategic issues, such as business process re-engineering, but are only implicitin the Ives et. aJ. model. It i s in teresting that much of the business processredesign l iterature omits consideration of the technical system altogether,concentrating upon the analysis of those activit ies necessary for businessoperation, rather than the integration of technology necessary to support them,perhaps reflecting its authors' root in the field of social science.The centrality of management processes in much Information Systems thinkingis reflected by the MIT90s framework, given in figure 2, which placesmanagement at the cent re of the model. This model is based upon the Leavi ttorganisa tional "diamond" (Leavit t, 1972), however, the integrat ion of the

- 45 -


2/7

Information Systems: Opening Th e Black Box

'i j

separate "people" and " task" elements into a s ingle entity, the subst itut ion of aseparate "st rategy" element and the cent ral posit ion given to managementprocesses shows the shift in emphasis in Information Systems during the1980s , f rom the content of information sys tems to the processes by which theyare managed, in particular the management of change. This may be thedef ining factor, in the current direction of Information Systems research: theconcentration upon those processes by which an information system isacquired and managed, rather than upon any des irable content , or form, of thesystem.

XTER.'\'ALTECHNOLOGICAl.

Figure 2 : T he MIT90s Framework (Scott Morton, 1991)I!Il However, the socially-constructed nature of technical artefacts and thecentrality of design to the use of such artefacts is well-documented (Wilkinson1983, Mackenzie & Wajcman, 1985, Scarbrough & Corbett, 1991). Byconcentra ting upon management to the exclusion of design, Informat ionSystems research omits consideration of the social construction of informationsys tems. Wilkinson (1983) provides a good example of how the managementof computer-based sys tems may be limited by the social ly-constructed natureof technology des ign. Managers in one of his four case-study f irms found thatthey were unable to ob tain computer integrated manufactu ring technologywhich gave shopfloor workers access to programming functions, as nocommercial provider of such equipment had envisaged its being used in suchan emancipatory manner.I~" 'FORMATION SYSTEMS: THE SEARCH FOR A PARADIGM?The s trength of the discipline of Information Systems lies in i ts wide SCQ1?~: itsroots lie in many academic disciplines and it therefore lacks the J"i~edparadigms of other , more established discipl ines. In pract ice, as ref lected inthe placing of Information Systems teaching and research in academic

- 46- - 47 -

Susan Gasson

ins ti tu tions, Information Systems s traddles the boundary between computerscience and social science: whilst Information Systems is seen as lying withinthe ambit of Social Science in some UK academic ins ti tu tions, i t is within thatof Computer Science in others. This dichotomy permits a wide range ofph ilosophical and methodological app roaches to research in InformationSystems. The literature base from which Information Systems research drawsis therefore much larger than most other disciplines (this brings its ownproblems, as it is difficult to be familiar with current research in so manydifferent areas).The development of Information Systems as a separate discipline has providedan ins ight into the 'middle ground' of the bifurcation of interes t between socialand compute r scienti st s, pull ing toge ther many different, and in some casesconflicting, research philosophies. The discipline of Information Systems maybe seen as "filling a gap" in the provision of academic understanding withregard to the organisat iona l use of Informat ion Technology, by providing aholistic approach to research.Existing research into the use of technology in organisations can, untilrecently, be viewed as pertaining to one of two perspectives:

o the social scientists' perspective, which considers the organisationalimpact of information systems, with the technology seen as a 'blackbox'o the computer scientists' perspective, which considers the designissues of information systems in terms of choices made on the basisof technological criteria.

The language used in computer science research is revealing: the mechanist icapproach to the human beings who constitute, and act within, an informationsystem is revealed in the name given to the sub-discipline of the "human-computer interface". The human beings are relegated, by the use of suchlanguage to a component , of the info rmat ion system machine. Much of theliterature in this field applies itself to the reduction of errors by matchinginterface design to the cognit ive style of the user, there i s an implic it lack ofrecogni tion of the role of the human as a source of e rror-correction, ra therthan a source of error. This emphasi s upon human be ings as part of a machinetends to scientific reductionism in the design of organisational systems which,according to Corbe tt e t. al . (1991), leads to fragmented jobs for user s, withlittle use of the richness of human capacity. The rule-based functionalspecification approaches which are employed in designing IT systems do notadequately reflect the flexibility of organisational structures and practices.The richness of Information Systems as a discipline is that it permitsalt erna tive research paradigms, as indica ted by the many metaphors in use,which represent the function of the information system: the "brain" metaphor,embodied in the MIT90s mode l, the "tool" metaphor, embodied in the mode lproduced by Winter & Brown and shown in figure 3, the "machine"


3/7

I nf or m at io n S ys te ms : O p en in g Th e B la ck B ox

metaphor , useful for the analysis of technical /functional support aspects of aninformation system, the "organism" metaphor, useful for the analysis offlexibility in the "learning organisation" and many others.

Served System Serving SystemFigure 3: T he C on ce pt s o f S er ve d A nd S er vi ng S ys te m ( So ur ce : W in te r & B r ow n , 1 99 4)

A useful concept embodied in the model presented by Winter and Brown(1994) is that an Information System consists of separate sub-systems, withdifferent organisational objectives and therefore different methods areappropriate for interpreting the requirements and outcomes of the twoperspectives on the same information system. This approach of methodological(and philosophica l) plural ism is one of the main strengths of Informat ionSystems.Kuhn (1970) explains the term paradigm as "an exemplar, a particularscientific problem solution that is accepted as successful and which become thebasi s for further work". Because the discipline of In formation Systems hasdrawn its members from such a wide base of other disciplines, the range ofavailable exemplars is much greater than in more established discipl ines andleads to a much richer perception of the value and problems of InformationSystems. Kuhn also gives a second meaning ofparadigm, which has come intosome disrepute, as there is an implici t lack of f lexibi li ty within i t: "the entireconstel lation of beliefs , values, techniques, and so on shared by the membersof a scientif ic community" (Kuhn, 1970) . However, interpreted ini ts wides tsense, the "constel lation" of beliefs is inspirational rather than confining in i tspotential for intellectual freedom.Walsham (1993) identi fies three main paradigms of Informat ion Systemsresearch: pos it iv ist , interpretat ive and cri tical, which he equates with three ofthe four paradigms identif ied by Hirschheim and Klein (1989) in informationsystems deve lopment lit era ture. In the context of the Burre ll and Morgan(1979) model , which analyses ranges of assumptions about knowledge and theworld, the paradigms are presented in f igure 4.In figure 4, terms in italics refer to paradigms identif ied in IS developmentl iterature by Hirschheim & Klein (1989); under lined terms refer to paradigmsidentified from research literature by Walsham (1993).Whilst Walsham does not identify an extant body of research in the fourthquartile of this model, there is a large body of research which performs a

- 48 -

S u sa n Ga ss o n

functionalismpositivism

Obiectivismneohumanism

critical theory

social relativisminterpretivism

Subjectivismradical structuralism

Figure 4: I n fo rmat io n S y st ems Pa ra d igm s( so ur ce : H ir sc hh ei m a nd K le in ,1 98 9. a da pt ed fr om B ur re ll a nd M or ga n, 1 97 9)

poli ti cal analysis of the impac t of IT on work (fo r example : Markus & Bjorn-Andersen 1987' Corbett et. al, 1991) . Hirschheim &Klein (1989) argued thatmost research was focused only on the functionalist paradigm, but it isa rguable that al l of the paradigms identi fied can be found within the ambit ofInformation Systems research.It is in the appreciation of all of the above paradigms that the strength ofInformation Systems lies, together with the constant dialogues between .them,which means that the discipl ine does not s tagnate or take a fragmented view ofthe use of IT in organisat ions . MacKenzie and Wajcman (1985) identify threefactors in the social construction of technology:1. the influence of social factors on the des ign and configuration of the

physical objects;2. the term 'technology' refers to human activities as wel l as objects: acomputer without programs and programmers is useless;3. technology is formed by knowledge: objects are useless without theknowledge of how to use, repair, design and make them.This conceptual framework for a socially-constructed information system ~aybe considered appropriate as the basis of a holistic model of InformationSystems research. This model , given in f igure 5, integrates the im~o:~ance ofmanagement with the role of technical objects supporting human a~tlVltIeS, andaccords with a systemic understanding of the nature of Information Systems(Checkland, 1981). The role of management is moved fron: the ce~tr~lposi tion depicted in the MIT90s model , to become one element m the hol~s tlcappreciat ion of the processes of Information Systems management, creat ion,support and use, in an organisational context.

- 49 -

;-1-


4/7

Information Systems: Opening The Black Box

Organisational and environmental contextKnowledge

mal/age. use,design, implement

Information SystemComputer System t

j Data processing I .2 ~pata's tore - su p- p- or -t . .. . ~ 4

' ---'t=ec':"hn""'ic=al:=--' humanobjects acnvlnes

Figure 5: Potential Model Of Information Systems Research, Based Upon Principles Of TheSocial Construction Of Technology (derived fromMacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985)

THE FUTURE OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS AS A DISCIPLINEWhile the school of "strategic management" in Information Systems iscurrently ascendant, this may largely be due to a concern for the lack ofevidence that IT makes any real contr ibution to organisat ional profi tabili ty oreffectiveness. However, there are other areasJayaratna (1988) argues that the shift in information sys tems environments tomore automated development tool s l eading to deskil ling of deve lopers, thepower-balance shi ft away from the system deve loper as 'expert' towards amore knowledgeable user and the inc reasing user ownership and control ofinformation, have exposed some of the weaknesses of information systemsmethodological knowledge bases, particularly in organisational systems areassuch as the integration of informat ion systems with othe r organisat ionaldimensions (e.g. choices in work design).The limitations of sys temic research are highlighted by the many disputes overthe value of l inking Soft Sys tems Methodology (Checkland, 1981, Checkland& Scholes, 1990) with "hard" systems ana lysis methods (for aspec ts of thi sdebate, see Systemist Aug. 1992). The problems of a single analystencompass ing two (never mind four) paradigms in the var ious s tages of theirwork are not seen as insuperable but are seen as highly problematic.Additionally, a researcher's background will affect their willingness to adopt aparti cula r pa radigm: the re i s evidence in, for example , the l ite rature on thedesign of information systems, that an individual's approach to design isinf luenced to a very large extent by their educational background and by their

50 -

Susan Gasson

previous experience of solutions to a particular type of problem (for adiscussion of des ign schemas , see, for example, Jeff ries et. al. , 1981) .The soc io-technical pe rspective has proven immense ly use ful in a llowingresearchers to conceptuali se the re lat ionship between organisa tions andinformation system technology, but its use fulness i s limited because of thel imitat ions of joint-optimisation: that either both factors are sub-optimised toachieve a "satisf icing" strategy or that both factors are subsumed to economicoptimisation. However, this attempt to combine technical and orga~isationalissues has been criticised for largely treating the technology as given andconcentrating upon the des ign of work systems to the exclusion of the des ignof the technical system which supports that work system (Rose e t. al., 1986,Corbett et. al. , 1991) .Although the lack of a central paradigm for research may lead to a s tate wherecomplementary methodologies are used to give a holist ic approach, i t may alsolead to a state where the selection of a resea rch method is more influenced bya research designer's previous resea rch experience than by the selection of amethod which accords with the appropriate paradigm for the type ofinvestiga tion or intervent ion. Therefore , i t is important that InformationSystems resea rchers a re aware of the holi st ic na ture of thei r di sc ipl ine andaware of the issues which surround their choice of research method andphilosophy.Whilst admitt ing the problems of researchers adopting mult iple paradigms intheir research approach, it is felt to be important that the discipline ofInformation Systems differenti ates i tself by taking a holi st ic approach toresearch problems. The specific value of Information Systems as a discipl ineli es in the "constell at ion of be lie fs" predicated by Kuhn, rather than in theadherence to paradigm as exemplar. In order to meaningfully add to the sumof knowledge about the use of Information Technology in organisat ions , i t isimportant that Information Systems researchers, toge ther, open the "blackbox", in all of its aspects.REFERENCESAvison, D.E., Wood-Harper, A.T., (1990), Multiview: An Exploration inInformation Systems Development, Blackwell Scientific PublicationsBrynjolfsson, R. (1993), "The Productivity Paradox of InformationTechnology", Communications of the ACM, Vol 36, No. 12Burrell, G.and Morgan, G.,(1979), Sociological Paradigms andOrganisational Analysis, Heinemann, London.Checkland, P., (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, ChichesterCorbett, J.M., Rasmussen, L.B. & Rauner, F. (1991), Crossing The Border:The Social And Engineering Design Of Computer Integrated ManufacturingSystems, Springer-Verlag, London

- 5 1 -


5/7

I nf or ma ti on S ys te ms : O pe ni ng T he B la ck B ox

Friedman, A.L. , Cornford, D. S., (1989), Computer Systems Development:History, Organisation and Implementation, John Wiley & SonsGalliers, R.D. (1987), "An Approach to Information Needs Analysis", inGalliers, R.D. (Ed) Information Analysis, Addison-WesleyHirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K., (1989) "Four Paradigms Of InformationSystems Development", Communications Of The ACM, Vol. 32, No. 10.Hornby, P., Clegg, C.W., Robson, J.I., Maclaren, C.I., Richardson, S.C.,O'Brien, P. (1992) "Human and Organizational Issues In Information SystemsDevelopment", Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 11, No.3Ives, B. , Hamilton, S. &Davis, G.B. (1980), "A Framework For Research InComputer-Based Management Information Systems", Management Science,VoL 26, No 9Jayaratna, N. (1988), "Guide To Method Understanding In InformationSystems Practice", International Journal of Information Management, Aug.1988Jeffries, R. , (1981), ED, Turner, A.A., Polson, P.G., Atwood, M.E., TheProcesses Involved In Designing Software, Cognitive Skills And TheirAcquisition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, Anderson, J.R.Klein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R. (1987) "Socia l Change and the Future ofInformation Systems Development", in Boland, R.J. & Hirschheim, R. (eds),Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, Wiley, ChichesterKuhn, T, (1970), The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition, TheUniversity Of Chicago PressLand, F. and Hirschheim, R. (1983) "Participative Systems Design Rationale,Tools and Techniques", Journal Of Applied Systems Analysis, VoL 10.Leavitt, L.,(1972), Managerial Psychology, University of Chicago Press.Mackenzie, D.A., Wajcman, J., (Eds.), (1985), The Social Shaping OfTechnology, Open University Press, Milton KeynesMarkus, M.L., Bjorn-Andersen, N., (1987), "Power Over Users: Its ExerciseBy System Professionals", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 30, No.6, June(1987)Rose, H., McLoughlin , I ., King, R. & Clark, J. (1986), "Opening The BlackBox: The Relation Between Technology And Work", New Technology, Workand Employment, Vol . 1, No.1Scarbrough,H. and Corbett , J.M. (1991), Technology and Organisation:Power, Meaning and Design, Routledge.Scott Morton, M. S. (Ed.) (1991), The Corporation of The 1990s, OxfordUniversity Press, New YorkSystemist, The Publication of the UK Systems Society, Information SystemsSpecial Edit ion . Vol 14, No.3, Aug 1992

- 5 2 -

S us an G a ss on

Walsham, G. (1993), Interpreting Information Systems, Wiley, ChichesterWilkinson, B. (1983), The Shopfloor Politics Of New Technology, GowerPressWinter, M.C. &Brown, D.H. (1994), "Thinking Systemically: InformationSystems Development, Redressing The Balance", in Lissoni, C. et. al. (eds.),Proceedings of Information Systems Methodologies Conference, BCSInformation Systems Methodologies Specialist Group, Heriot-Watt University,Aug-Sept 1994.

53 -


6/7

{.,~ Volume 17, Number 1, Feb. 1995UNlTEDKINGDOM SYSTEMISTSYSTEMS SOCIETY

ContentsEditorial 3Information Systems: What's The Big Idea?Peter Checkland and Sue HolwellInformation Systems: A Discipline for the New RenaissanceYasmin MeraliWhat is the distinctive nature and value of IS as a discipline?J. C. MingersLooking at the Information Systems Domain from aSocio-technical PerspectiveD. C. SuttonWhat is the Distinctive Nature and Value ofInformation Systemsas a Discipline?Matthew JonesThe Discipline of ISin relat ion to IS Practice and ITA. MartinInformation Systems: Opening The Black BoxSusan GassonWhat is the Distinctive Nature and Value of Information Systemsas a Discipline?Ray MilesInformation Systems as a DisciplineStephen K. Probert

714182 3

31

374454

56. .. c on ti nu ed o n p ag e 2

SYSTEMIST(ISSN 0961-8309)

Cop yri ght o f t h ep ap e r s p r in t ed i n t h is j ou rna l r ema in w i th t hei r r e sp ec ti v e au thor s.P e rm i ss io n t o p h o to c op y o r o th erw is e r ep r od u ce a n y o f t he c o nt ri bu ti on s i n t hi s e d it io n i s

h e re b y g r a n te d o n t he c o nd it io n t ha t t he c o ve r p a g e o f t hi s j ou rn a l i s a l s o c o pi ed a n da f fi x ed t o t hep ap e r /a r ti c le i n q ue st ion .The United Kingdom Systems Society, 1994

- 1


7/7

ByWord Publications29 West Downs Close, Fareham, Hants P016 7HWUnited Kingdom0329 - 289876

ISSN 0961-8309

Volume 17, Number 1, Feb. 1995

SPECIAL EDITION:"Information SystemsAs A Discipline"

SYSTEMISTThe Publication ofThe United KingdomSystems Society

information systems: opening the black box

Documents