- Email: [email protected]
A federated framework for information systems development—sense making, argumentation or control of information systems development and its research
Pergamon
Accting., Mgmt. & Info. Tech., Vol. 6, No. 1/2, pp. 115-125, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0959-8022/96 $15.00 + 0.00 S0959-8022(96)00017-3
A FEDERATED FRAMEWORK FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENTBSENSE MAKING, ARGUMENTATION OR CONTROL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND ITS RESEARCH Pentti Kerola University of Oulu
Abstract--The main contribution of Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen's well-structured and significant paper is the idea of a federated framework for information systems development and its research, based on the social action theories of Habermas and Etzioni. This comment presents the most essential reasons for reformulating the Etzioni dimension (primary domains of changes in ISD) for its adoption into the framework: the matrix of object systems classes. The most essential changes concern the human actor as the ontological subject/object in ISD and its research, and the inclusion of actors in all the categories of differential malleability in the domains of change. Comment is also directed at the metatheoretic nature of their paper and its potential embedded misunderstandings. Awareness of other researchers' frames and their incongruences is especially emphasized in order to increase common sense making in the research community. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: Metaresearch, IS development, Malleability, Actors, Frames.
"Modeling implies that the modeler 'abstracts' properties from things (objects) in order to obtain a representation. Any discussion of modeling must, of necessity, involve the metamodeler and metamodeling from which the former evolved. One cannot be considered without the other." (van Gigch, 1991.)
1. INTRODUCTION H i r s c h h e i m , K l e i n a n d L y y t i n e n ( h e n c e f o r t h H K L ) h a v e f o r m e d o n e o f the m o s t p r o d u c t i v e a n d i n f l u e n t i a l t e a m s o f scientists in the i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s (IS) r e s e a r c h arena. T h e y h a v e c o v e r e d a large variety o f r e s e a r c h p r o b l e m s a n d a p p r o a c h e s , e s p e c i a l l y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e n o n t e c h n i c a l a s p e c t s o f IS d e v e l o p m e n t , u s e a n d research. N o w t h e i r v o l u m i n o u s , wells t r u c t u r e d a n d s i g n i f i c a n t p a p e r " E x p l o r i n g the i n t e l l e c t u a l structures, o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t : a social a c t i o n t h e o r e t i c a n a l y s i s " p r o p o s e s a f e d e r a t e d f r a m e w o r k for i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t (ISD), b y m e a n s o f w h i c h the o u t c o m e s o f the a c c u m u l a t i n g I S D r e s e a r c h c o u l d b e a n a l y z e d a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e d . In particular, t h e y a r g u e w h y " f r a g m e n t e d a d h o c r a c y " is a f e a s i b l e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n for IS r e s e a r c h t o d a y a n d u p till now. 115
116
R KEROLA
The paper discusses the topic of ISD and its research on many levels, where its actor-oriented and metatheoretic nature is sometimes fairly explicit and sometimes obscure and fuzzy. Therefore the main focus and research problem considered in this comment paper is the analysis of how different actor types (roles, actors and actor groups) and metalevels are considered and made explicit in the framework and in its development and use. In total, the following levels of discourse can be identified (Figure 1). Each level in Figure 1 includes, more or less specifically, different actor types (roles), actor groups and individuals. The metastructure is recursive, with each metalevel discourse considering in principle all the lower levels as its object of interest. This assessment and comment proceeds "bottom-up", partially covering all the levels of Figure 1. First we concentrate in Section 2 on the domains of change in ISD and the modeling of these, applying Etzioni (1968). Then in Section 3 the proposed design and content of the object system class (OSC) matrix is assessed and partially challenged. As a conclusion, a modified, replenished interpretation and modification of the HKL federated framework is presented. Section 4
COMMENTATOR'S FRAMES
Meta 5 level
ASSESSMENT OF FEDERATED F R A M E W O R K RESEARCH - research actors - commentator
Meta 4 level
THE H-K-L FRAMES author actors - shared frames
Meta 3 level
MODELING OF ISD RESEARCH competing background theories Habermas/Etzioni - critical social theory applied structuration theory - systems theory etc. - research actors
Metameta (meta 2) level
ISD RESEARCH (includes modeling of ISD) - schools of research - research actors
Meta level
IS D E V E L O P M E N T (ISD) - actor types and actors orientation - domains of change proposed by H-K-L - information technology (T) organization (O) language (L) IS use
Basic universe of discourse (includes sublevels)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fig. 1. Metalevels of ISD and its research.
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
117
includes an analysis of the experimental and evidential backing of the framework, especially discussing the problems of orientation, data collection and characterization when the same actors exist on many metalevels. Because of limitations of space, the different development strategies are excluded from this assessment.
2. ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL MALLEABILITY IN THE DOMAINS OF CHANGE OF ISD Basic definitions The core of the HKL framework is formed by the OSC matrix (Figure 2). The main purpose of the matrix is to model the aims, beliefs, and assumptions of IS developer actor(s) and researchers into ISD, utilizing the more general theoretical conceptual constructions of Habermas (1984, 1987) and Etzioni (1968). The horizontal dimension Orientation: "represents a consistent set of attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and intentions which a developer primarily brings to the process of IS change, capturing the process of change as governed by human intentions and goals" (HKL)
Language
I I I
_.~
Z
.~
~
~Z
~
~
o S
Organization
~.
.
element I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
°
.
.
I ,. S C I D ,~ Instrumental Strategic "Communic~- Discursivdv
x
tional
ORIENTATION (primary) ,d f
\ ~
~1~
.
I ~
\ ISD RESEARCH SCIENTIST " ~
.
,,
assumes \ to be
I I
~
/
aintsby means of
DEVELOPER
Fig. 2. Basic constructs of the OSC matrix.
118
P. KEROLA
The four generic categories (instrumental, strategic, communicational and discursive) are defined on the basis of Habermas' social action theory.1
The vertical dimension
Domain of change is defined: "underlying set of beliefs and assumptions in order to distinguish the principal domains of change" (HKL). When applied to ISD, the triad: information technology, language and organization, is proposed by HKL and derived from Etzioni's differential malleability hypothesis and the widely accepted definition of an information system. When the purpose is to use this triad as an analytic means to classify objects that are changed (directly or indirectly) in IS development, it is essential to understand that all these categories change in all cases, and the major relative differences grow up around the foci and sources of such change. These categories are therefore closely interrelated. More specifically, this comment paper concerns the following problems in these basic constructs: • the application of Etzioni, especially the malleability hypothesis; • interdependencies between the vertical and horizontal dimensions; and • elementary formulation and size of the OSC matrix. These are analyzed in the following sections.
Critique of the proposed Etzioni dimension
The most fundamental idea of Etzioni is to elaborate concepts to distinguish and understand classes of qualitatively different changes in human societies. As Etzioni assumes and describes: " . . . Our primary assumption is that there is an agent who can act in the world . . . . this philosophy of action assumes an ability to move between the symbolic and the non-symbolic worlds . . . . As long as we make action and actors our primary concepts, our approach is unmarred by the egocentric view of the world . . . . The world, the sum total of all that is subject to action, is differentiated according to the degree to which it is responsive to action . . . . arranging existences in a hierarchy.., where each higher existence includes the lower one (emphasis added) and is not exhausted by its distinguishing "emergent" property. Man is, thus, the most encompassing being and has an existence on all levels. We are dealing with these existences in terms of matter (dead or living), action and symbols . . . . Man seems most free to set and reset the combinations of ideas and ideals, the relatively pure symbolic world, which is the least bound by sense data. (S)he seems most limited in setting and resetting the laws of matter.... Finally, the realm of action itself seems to have an intermediary status between the realm of symbols and the realm of m a t t e r . . . . This order of relative malleability--symbols, action, objects-is a working assumption of our study. tAs HKL point out, there exist other orientations (of Habermas, 1984), but these are the primaryones.
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
119
A passive man or society may be said to be objectivized in the sense of being treated like an object. But even the most passive man retains at least some potential activation. (S)he may, therefore, be object-like. Whereas the capacity to act is itself an inherent part of human potential, the extent of the capacity is historically bound. It changes with the actor's awareness of her/his capacity, with the scape and validity of her (his) knowledge of the world, and with her (his) power to modify both . . . . the scope of action seems to have grown at the expense of the two other realms; that is, more natural objects and more symbols have become subjects of action.., the pattern of action itself has become more changeable." (Etzioni, 1968, pp. 22-25) •
.
.
In this extensive quotation of Etzioni's assumptions and hypotheses we would especially emphasize that • man has an existence on all levels of malleability; • the most malleable is the sublevel of symbols concerning setting/resetting of the combination of ideas and ideals. HKL argue in their analysis that in terms of malleability, information technology, T, is the lowest principal domain of change, organization, O, the second and language, L, the most malleable, but their underlying definitions and arguments are problematic for many reasons. At the lowest level they characterize "technology, in the context of information systems, covering the physical means and technical know-how" (p. 15), but not including the actors who possess that know-how (not consumers of T and especially not producers of information technology). If information technology is understood merely as a material category, it cannot include software components, for instance, which is unreasonable from the viewpoint of reality. Actually, information technology in total would be included the language domain--or at least software! From the malleability viewpoint, we can argue, based on development experiences in real life during the last 40 years, that information technology as a domain of change (including its responsive actors) has been highly malleable relative to the organizational and language domains defined by HKL. On the second level of malleability, the organization includes people (especially consumers of T) and their collectives, but this domain of change is captured only by "collective, socially organized behaviour". There exists no explicit discussion by HKL of the individual actors and their inclusion at any level, or producer organizations either! Actually, the levels have different human actor roles, which are captured by different individuals having different malleability capabilities. The third category, language (including formal codes and all kinds of symbols and meanings) is modeled convincingly by HKL as being more malleable than the organization or information technology. They do not discuss the interrelationships between these, however. In conclusion, this assessment partially challenges the approach adopted by HKL of utilizing Etzioni's research to differentiate the principal domains of change. A modified proposal for the Etzioni dimension is presented and reasoned in the following.
A modified proposal If Etzioni's general model of the differential malleability levels (Figure 3) is applied to the development and use of information technology in societies, it may be seen in terms of the subcategorization described in Figure 4.
120
P. KEROLA
SYMBOL (ideals/ideas, language, actions)
ACTION (actors, matter)
MA'Iq'ER (nature, actors)
Fig. 3. Etzioni's general model of differential malleability levels.
ACTOR/FRAME (ideals/ideas, L')
A/F
LANGUAGE (symbols, O')
L -> L'
ORGANIZATION (social action, T') - producer consumer
O->O'
-
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (matter, actors)
I I
Fig. 4. A modified Etzioni dimension.
The condensed deduction for the modified Etzioni dimension is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Strictly speaking, only hardware technology belongs to the matter level. Actually, the whole modification is a subcategorization of the symbol level. The inclusive hierarchic structure is also implemented in the subcategorization. The INFORMATION and COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY level includes hardware, software and their producer actors in focus, but the consumer actors are considered to be "object-like". 5. The ORGANIZATION level concerns social actions in technology consumer and producer organizations, but from the malleability viewpoint the latter are in general more malleable. Technology is included. 6. The LANGUAGE and ACTOR/FRAME levels are subcategories of Etzioni's symbol level, where the former is essentially as HKL propose concerning the emerging characteristics. 7. On the most malleable ACTOR/FRAME level the main emerging focus of change is in the values and frames of the actors (consumers, producers and researchers). It is on this level that human actors are considered most holistically.
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
121
8. The frames 2 of actors include assumptions, expectations and knowledge, expressed symbolically through language, visual images, metaphors and stories [cf. the insightful paper of Orlikowski and Gash (1994) concerning technological frames]. 9. People having individual frames tend to have shared frames with others with whom they have close working relationships. 10. Frames are dialectic: on the one hand, they are very flexible in structure and content, but on the other hand they are constraining when they reinforce unreflective reliance on established values and assumptions. 11. Actors vary greatly in their capability for malleability in frames and values. Discussion
When HKL raise the ontological need to extend Habermas' dimension of orientation, they regard it as "necessary, if we want to conduct a sufficiently detailed analysis of ISD as a specific type of social action" (p. 13). But what is the orientation and contribution required to apply Etzioni's approach, and the triad T, O, L as its application, to ISD? HKL note that their triad "is useful in distinguishing different streams of ISD research" (p. 15), but for what purposes, and whose ISD research? In this case they are modeling ISD on higher metalevels. Actually, we can ask what were the fundamental relationships between the triad T, O, L and Etzioni's approach, employing the "chicken and egg" metaphor (cf. Lyytinen, 1986). The approach in this comment paper has been deductive. It appreciates the basic idea of applying Etzioni's malleability hypothesis and offers constructive criticism in order to make sense of the original proposal and claims. But what is its most essential contribution? It concerns the human actor as the ontological subject/object in ISD and its research, and the inclusion of the actors in all the categories. This approach can only be seen as one interpretation, very compactly represented as a reflective idea regarding the HKL approach. The reflective process continues in the next section, in which the modified Etzioni dimension is adapted to the OSC matrix.
REPLENISHMENT OF THE OSC MATRIX Ne w structure
The new vertical dimension essentially modifies and replenishes the original OSC matrix. It is not possible here to give any careful analysis and reasoning, but Figure 5 contains the modified structure and some new examples of OSC elements complementing Figure 1 of HKL. The modified proposal is a 4 x 4 0 S C matrix, in which three supplementary elements exist on the technology level T' and four new categories on the actor/frame level A/F as compared with Figure 1 of HKL. On the T' level we also find new OSC subelements, e.g. embedded software, CASE and metaCASE tools and environments, viruses and their prevention software, artificial intelligence and operations research models and software. Some of these, it can be argued, at least implicitly, are included the original framework. 2Observe that the term "frame" is used here in the individual-centred sense, as comparedwith the HKL paper, where
it is connected with the nine elements of the OSC matrix.
122
P. KEROLA
A/F
L'
O'
Formalized Symbol Manipulation Systems
Mechanistic Social Systems
Manipulative Communication Systems
Political Systems Interorg. Systems Consumer -> Producer Relationships
Symbolic Interaction Systems for Systems Rational Argumentation
Work Processes Cultural Social Systems
Institutional Checks & Balances
"r
I
S
C
v
Fig. 5. The modified and replenished OSC matrix.
The degree of malleability is expressed explicitly in the modification and inherently in the OSC matrix. On the highest level A/F we find, with different orientations, end-user computing, self-assessment tools, values, frames, activity systems, human information processing and team computing as the primarily emerging objects of change in ISD. Nearly all of these are lacking in the original HKL matrix.
On the interrelationships of dimensions When we apply the OSC matrix to ISD in reality, the most essential question is: who are the actors whose beliefs, assumptions and aims, i.e. frames of information and communication technology, organization, language and actors we are looking for and what incongruences exist? In all the cases we can make interesting historical empirical findings concerning the evolution of object system classes and their interrelationships. By definition, operating diagonally through the OSC matrix, • the instrumental orientation and the technology domain of change fit well together, and in the same way; • strategic orientation and the organizational domain of change; and • communicational orientation and the language domain of change; but • what about with discursive orientation and the actor/frame domain of change? Because of the different frames, all the class elements in the OSC matrix are feasible in reality, but this historical development and existence would be an interesting subject for a
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
123
separate full paper. Reflecting reality, it is evident that the macro flow of new development (progress and/or regression) has been • I---)S---)C---)Din orientation; • 'T'---)O'---)L'--)A/F in the domains of change; • driven by the IT producer organizations in combined orientation/domain of change situations.
USE OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF IS RESEARCH
Problems of orientation: sense-making, argumentation or control When the aim is to utilize the federated framework for the analysis, characterization and partial categorization of IS research, we are looking at the situation on the meta 2 and meta levels in the manner of Figure 1, in which case the domain of (meta)modeling also includes IS developers, ISD scientists and ISD research scientists (Figure 2). Concerning the last actor group, we can apply Habermas' theory of social action to the orientation of researchers studying ISD research: is it sense-making, argumentation or control (implicit or explicit)? The purpose of HKL has obviously been a mixture of these. As they say "The framework organizes the field into interrelated sets of intellectual communities, and in so doing, acts as a vehicle for conceptualizing core research issues and identifying future research directions." However, they are hiding (or at least expressing only implicitly) something extremely essential--their frames (individual and shared) of information technology, organization, language and actors. These frames strategically influence the most essential decisions involved in developing the framework and collecting and using the data. Why were the background theories of Habermas and Etzioni selected, and how were they interpreted and applied to the domain of ISD and its research? This situation is an especially sensitive one when the framework developers themselves are also ISD researchers, and are actually modeling their own research activities and results at the same time. The shared frame of the framework developers can also constrain and inhibit the existence of certain types of research, not appreciated in the frame.
Supplemementary IS research--emerging and holistic The modification of the Etzioni dimension emphasizes the inclusive nature of the malleability levels. Therefore we have two different types of research on the A/F-level, that concerned especially with the emerging new domains of change, and that aiming at holistic conceptualizations, models and theories. Some introductory examples with different research interests and orientations are given in Figure 6.
CLOSING NOTE From the viewpoint of research methodology, Etzioni (p. 25) maintains that "The three major disciplines of knowledge--the humanities, the social sciences and the natural sciences--have arranged themselves roughly along the malleability
124
R KEROLA ORIENTATION
TYPE
A/F IS RESEARCH
instrumental
holistic emerging
user interaction (Card et al. 1983, Agre 1995) cognitive styles (Robey & Taggart 1981)
strategic
holistic emerging
organizational computing (Zuboff 1988) executive IS (Rockart & Treacy 1982)
communicational
holistic emerging
activity theory (Kuutti 1994) learning theory (Kerola 1985, 1988, Kolb 1984) team style assessment (Kerola & Taggart 1994)
discursive
holistic
inquiry systems (Churchman 1971) philosophy and practice of ISD (Dahlbom and Mathiassen 1993) hypersystems (lvanov 1991 )
emerging
Fig. 6. Examples of A/F-level IS research.
differential... It is commonly accepted that disciplines dealing with what we refer to here as the more malleable elements are less "scientific" than those dealing with the less malleable elements... A confusion arises when the social sciences and the study of human behavior are conceived of as coextensive." What does this mean for the use of the modified framework? It can be conceived of as follows: The higher the malleability level, the more varied a mixture of research methods we potentially have and the more severe frame incongruences we can find in the scientific IS community. The above conclusion not only justifies the characterization of IS research as a "fragmented adhocracy", but also indicates how significant and beneficial it is for each member of the IS research community to be as aware and conscious as possible of the frames of the participating actors--in order to increase common sense-making and shared frames. The fundamental assumption of this comment paper has been the existence of human actors as the most important research subject/objects in the context of IS research, but also the most sensitive and difficult ones. Different and sometimes controversial research approaches and schools have understandably arisen because of the frames and the incongruences between researching actors. The metaresearch implemented by HKL is one constructive way of developing a common topic of interest for scientific communication, sense-making and argumentation--but hopefully with the minimum amount of control!
Acknowledgement--I would to thank my colleague Kari Kuutti for many insightful discussions concerning the assessment of existing IS research from the activitytheory and work-orientedviewpoints. These have made a positive contribution to the content of the paper.
A FEDERATED FRAMEWORK FOR ISD
125
REFERENCES Agre, E E. (1995). Conceptions of the user in computer systems design. In Thomas, E J. (Ed.), The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces (pp. 67-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Card, S. K., Moran, T. E & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books. Dahlbom, B. & Mathiassen, L. (1993). Computers in context. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: theory of societal and political processes. New York: The Free Press. van Gigch, J. E (1991). The importance of metaethics. Human Systems Management, 10, 281-286. Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K. & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6, 1-64. Ivanov, K. (1991). Hypersystems--a base for specification of computer-supported self-learning social systems. Research Reports in Information Processing and Computer Science, No. 13. University of Ume~, Sweden. Kerola, E (1985). On the fundamentals of a human-centred theory for information systems use and development. Report of the Eighth Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering (pp. 192-210). Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark, August 1985. Kerola, E (1988). Integration of perspectives and views in the conception of office and its systems development. Proceedings of lFlP TC8 Open Conference. Singapore (pp. 3.17-3.34). Kerola, E & Taggart, W. (1994). A new teleological strategy for using self-assessment tools in information systems use and development. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 4(1), 42-60. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Kuutti, K. (1994). Information systems, cooperative work and active subjects: the activity-theoretical perspective. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu. Research Papers Series A23. Lyytinen, K. (1986). Information systems development and social action framework and implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Jyvdskylii Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics 8, University of Jyviiskylii, Finland. Orlikowski, W. J. & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. A CM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174-207. Robey, D. & Taggart, W. (1981). Measuring manager's minds: the assessment of style in human information processing. Academy of Management Review, 6, 375-383. Rockart, J. & Treacy, M. (1982). The CEO goes on-line. Harvard Business Review. Jan.-Feb. 1982. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of smart machine. Basic Books: New York.
Accting., Mgmt. & Info. Tech., Vol. 6, No. 1/2, pp. 115-125, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0959-8022/96 $15.00 + 0.00 S0959-8022(96)00017-3
A FEDERATED FRAMEWORK FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENTBSENSE MAKING, ARGUMENTATION OR CONTROL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND ITS RESEARCH Pentti Kerola University of Oulu
Abstract--The main contribution of Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen's well-structured and significant paper is the idea of a federated framework for information systems development and its research, based on the social action theories of Habermas and Etzioni. This comment presents the most essential reasons for reformulating the Etzioni dimension (primary domains of changes in ISD) for its adoption into the framework: the matrix of object systems classes. The most essential changes concern the human actor as the ontological subject/object in ISD and its research, and the inclusion of actors in all the categories of differential malleability in the domains of change. Comment is also directed at the metatheoretic nature of their paper and its potential embedded misunderstandings. Awareness of other researchers' frames and their incongruences is especially emphasized in order to increase common sense making in the research community. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: Metaresearch, IS development, Malleability, Actors, Frames.
"Modeling implies that the modeler 'abstracts' properties from things (objects) in order to obtain a representation. Any discussion of modeling must, of necessity, involve the metamodeler and metamodeling from which the former evolved. One cannot be considered without the other." (van Gigch, 1991.)
1. INTRODUCTION H i r s c h h e i m , K l e i n a n d L y y t i n e n ( h e n c e f o r t h H K L ) h a v e f o r m e d o n e o f the m o s t p r o d u c t i v e a n d i n f l u e n t i a l t e a m s o f scientists in the i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s (IS) r e s e a r c h arena. T h e y h a v e c o v e r e d a large variety o f r e s e a r c h p r o b l e m s a n d a p p r o a c h e s , e s p e c i a l l y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e n o n t e c h n i c a l a s p e c t s o f IS d e v e l o p m e n t , u s e a n d research. N o w t h e i r v o l u m i n o u s , wells t r u c t u r e d a n d s i g n i f i c a n t p a p e r " E x p l o r i n g the i n t e l l e c t u a l structures, o f i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t : a social a c t i o n t h e o r e t i c a n a l y s i s " p r o p o s e s a f e d e r a t e d f r a m e w o r k for i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s d e v e l o p m e n t (ISD), b y m e a n s o f w h i c h the o u t c o m e s o f the a c c u m u l a t i n g I S D r e s e a r c h c o u l d b e a n a l y z e d a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e d . In particular, t h e y a r g u e w h y " f r a g m e n t e d a d h o c r a c y " is a f e a s i b l e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n for IS r e s e a r c h t o d a y a n d u p till now. 115
116
R KEROLA
The paper discusses the topic of ISD and its research on many levels, where its actor-oriented and metatheoretic nature is sometimes fairly explicit and sometimes obscure and fuzzy. Therefore the main focus and research problem considered in this comment paper is the analysis of how different actor types (roles, actors and actor groups) and metalevels are considered and made explicit in the framework and in its development and use. In total, the following levels of discourse can be identified (Figure 1). Each level in Figure 1 includes, more or less specifically, different actor types (roles), actor groups and individuals. The metastructure is recursive, with each metalevel discourse considering in principle all the lower levels as its object of interest. This assessment and comment proceeds "bottom-up", partially covering all the levels of Figure 1. First we concentrate in Section 2 on the domains of change in ISD and the modeling of these, applying Etzioni (1968). Then in Section 3 the proposed design and content of the object system class (OSC) matrix is assessed and partially challenged. As a conclusion, a modified, replenished interpretation and modification of the HKL federated framework is presented. Section 4
COMMENTATOR'S FRAMES
Meta 5 level
ASSESSMENT OF FEDERATED F R A M E W O R K RESEARCH - research actors - commentator
Meta 4 level
THE H-K-L FRAMES author actors - shared frames
Meta 3 level
MODELING OF ISD RESEARCH competing background theories Habermas/Etzioni - critical social theory applied structuration theory - systems theory etc. - research actors
Metameta (meta 2) level
ISD RESEARCH (includes modeling of ISD) - schools of research - research actors
Meta level
IS D E V E L O P M E N T (ISD) - actor types and actors orientation - domains of change proposed by H-K-L - information technology (T) organization (O) language (L) IS use
Basic universe of discourse (includes sublevels)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fig. 1. Metalevels of ISD and its research.
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
117
includes an analysis of the experimental and evidential backing of the framework, especially discussing the problems of orientation, data collection and characterization when the same actors exist on many metalevels. Because of limitations of space, the different development strategies are excluded from this assessment.
2. ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL MALLEABILITY IN THE DOMAINS OF CHANGE OF ISD Basic definitions The core of the HKL framework is formed by the OSC matrix (Figure 2). The main purpose of the matrix is to model the aims, beliefs, and assumptions of IS developer actor(s) and researchers into ISD, utilizing the more general theoretical conceptual constructions of Habermas (1984, 1987) and Etzioni (1968). The horizontal dimension Orientation: "represents a consistent set of attitudes, beliefs, assumptions and intentions which a developer primarily brings to the process of IS change, capturing the process of change as governed by human intentions and goals" (HKL)
Language
I I I
_.~
Z
.~
~
~Z
~
~
o S
Organization
~.
.
element I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
°
.
.
I ,. S C I D ,~ Instrumental Strategic "Communic~- Discursivdv
x
tional
ORIENTATION (primary) ,d f
\ ~
~1~
.
I ~
\ ISD RESEARCH SCIENTIST " ~
.
,,
assumes \ to be
I I
~
/
aintsby means of
DEVELOPER
Fig. 2. Basic constructs of the OSC matrix.
118
P. KEROLA
The four generic categories (instrumental, strategic, communicational and discursive) are defined on the basis of Habermas' social action theory.1
The vertical dimension
Domain of change is defined: "underlying set of beliefs and assumptions in order to distinguish the principal domains of change" (HKL). When applied to ISD, the triad: information technology, language and organization, is proposed by HKL and derived from Etzioni's differential malleability hypothesis and the widely accepted definition of an information system. When the purpose is to use this triad as an analytic means to classify objects that are changed (directly or indirectly) in IS development, it is essential to understand that all these categories change in all cases, and the major relative differences grow up around the foci and sources of such change. These categories are therefore closely interrelated. More specifically, this comment paper concerns the following problems in these basic constructs: • the application of Etzioni, especially the malleability hypothesis; • interdependencies between the vertical and horizontal dimensions; and • elementary formulation and size of the OSC matrix. These are analyzed in the following sections.
Critique of the proposed Etzioni dimension
The most fundamental idea of Etzioni is to elaborate concepts to distinguish and understand classes of qualitatively different changes in human societies. As Etzioni assumes and describes: " . . . Our primary assumption is that there is an agent who can act in the world . . . . this philosophy of action assumes an ability to move between the symbolic and the non-symbolic worlds . . . . As long as we make action and actors our primary concepts, our approach is unmarred by the egocentric view of the world . . . . The world, the sum total of all that is subject to action, is differentiated according to the degree to which it is responsive to action . . . . arranging existences in a hierarchy.., where each higher existence includes the lower one (emphasis added) and is not exhausted by its distinguishing "emergent" property. Man is, thus, the most encompassing being and has an existence on all levels. We are dealing with these existences in terms of matter (dead or living), action and symbols . . . . Man seems most free to set and reset the combinations of ideas and ideals, the relatively pure symbolic world, which is the least bound by sense data. (S)he seems most limited in setting and resetting the laws of matter.... Finally, the realm of action itself seems to have an intermediary status between the realm of symbols and the realm of m a t t e r . . . . This order of relative malleability--symbols, action, objects-is a working assumption of our study. tAs HKL point out, there exist other orientations (of Habermas, 1984), but these are the primaryones.
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
119
A passive man or society may be said to be objectivized in the sense of being treated like an object. But even the most passive man retains at least some potential activation. (S)he may, therefore, be object-like. Whereas the capacity to act is itself an inherent part of human potential, the extent of the capacity is historically bound. It changes with the actor's awareness of her/his capacity, with the scape and validity of her (his) knowledge of the world, and with her (his) power to modify both . . . . the scope of action seems to have grown at the expense of the two other realms; that is, more natural objects and more symbols have become subjects of action.., the pattern of action itself has become more changeable." (Etzioni, 1968, pp. 22-25) •
.
.
In this extensive quotation of Etzioni's assumptions and hypotheses we would especially emphasize that • man has an existence on all levels of malleability; • the most malleable is the sublevel of symbols concerning setting/resetting of the combination of ideas and ideals. HKL argue in their analysis that in terms of malleability, information technology, T, is the lowest principal domain of change, organization, O, the second and language, L, the most malleable, but their underlying definitions and arguments are problematic for many reasons. At the lowest level they characterize "technology, in the context of information systems, covering the physical means and technical know-how" (p. 15), but not including the actors who possess that know-how (not consumers of T and especially not producers of information technology). If information technology is understood merely as a material category, it cannot include software components, for instance, which is unreasonable from the viewpoint of reality. Actually, information technology in total would be included the language domain--or at least software! From the malleability viewpoint, we can argue, based on development experiences in real life during the last 40 years, that information technology as a domain of change (including its responsive actors) has been highly malleable relative to the organizational and language domains defined by HKL. On the second level of malleability, the organization includes people (especially consumers of T) and their collectives, but this domain of change is captured only by "collective, socially organized behaviour". There exists no explicit discussion by HKL of the individual actors and their inclusion at any level, or producer organizations either! Actually, the levels have different human actor roles, which are captured by different individuals having different malleability capabilities. The third category, language (including formal codes and all kinds of symbols and meanings) is modeled convincingly by HKL as being more malleable than the organization or information technology. They do not discuss the interrelationships between these, however. In conclusion, this assessment partially challenges the approach adopted by HKL of utilizing Etzioni's research to differentiate the principal domains of change. A modified proposal for the Etzioni dimension is presented and reasoned in the following.
A modified proposal If Etzioni's general model of the differential malleability levels (Figure 3) is applied to the development and use of information technology in societies, it may be seen in terms of the subcategorization described in Figure 4.
120
P. KEROLA
SYMBOL (ideals/ideas, language, actions)
ACTION (actors, matter)
MA'Iq'ER (nature, actors)
Fig. 3. Etzioni's general model of differential malleability levels.
ACTOR/FRAME (ideals/ideas, L')
A/F
LANGUAGE (symbols, O')
L -> L'
ORGANIZATION (social action, T') - producer consumer
O->O'
-
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (matter, actors)
I I
Fig. 4. A modified Etzioni dimension.
The condensed deduction for the modified Etzioni dimension is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Strictly speaking, only hardware technology belongs to the matter level. Actually, the whole modification is a subcategorization of the symbol level. The inclusive hierarchic structure is also implemented in the subcategorization. The INFORMATION and COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY level includes hardware, software and their producer actors in focus, but the consumer actors are considered to be "object-like". 5. The ORGANIZATION level concerns social actions in technology consumer and producer organizations, but from the malleability viewpoint the latter are in general more malleable. Technology is included. 6. The LANGUAGE and ACTOR/FRAME levels are subcategories of Etzioni's symbol level, where the former is essentially as HKL propose concerning the emerging characteristics. 7. On the most malleable ACTOR/FRAME level the main emerging focus of change is in the values and frames of the actors (consumers, producers and researchers). It is on this level that human actors are considered most holistically.
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
121
8. The frames 2 of actors include assumptions, expectations and knowledge, expressed symbolically through language, visual images, metaphors and stories [cf. the insightful paper of Orlikowski and Gash (1994) concerning technological frames]. 9. People having individual frames tend to have shared frames with others with whom they have close working relationships. 10. Frames are dialectic: on the one hand, they are very flexible in structure and content, but on the other hand they are constraining when they reinforce unreflective reliance on established values and assumptions. 11. Actors vary greatly in their capability for malleability in frames and values. Discussion
When HKL raise the ontological need to extend Habermas' dimension of orientation, they regard it as "necessary, if we want to conduct a sufficiently detailed analysis of ISD as a specific type of social action" (p. 13). But what is the orientation and contribution required to apply Etzioni's approach, and the triad T, O, L as its application, to ISD? HKL note that their triad "is useful in distinguishing different streams of ISD research" (p. 15), but for what purposes, and whose ISD research? In this case they are modeling ISD on higher metalevels. Actually, we can ask what were the fundamental relationships between the triad T, O, L and Etzioni's approach, employing the "chicken and egg" metaphor (cf. Lyytinen, 1986). The approach in this comment paper has been deductive. It appreciates the basic idea of applying Etzioni's malleability hypothesis and offers constructive criticism in order to make sense of the original proposal and claims. But what is its most essential contribution? It concerns the human actor as the ontological subject/object in ISD and its research, and the inclusion of the actors in all the categories. This approach can only be seen as one interpretation, very compactly represented as a reflective idea regarding the HKL approach. The reflective process continues in the next section, in which the modified Etzioni dimension is adapted to the OSC matrix.
REPLENISHMENT OF THE OSC MATRIX Ne w structure
The new vertical dimension essentially modifies and replenishes the original OSC matrix. It is not possible here to give any careful analysis and reasoning, but Figure 5 contains the modified structure and some new examples of OSC elements complementing Figure 1 of HKL. The modified proposal is a 4 x 4 0 S C matrix, in which three supplementary elements exist on the technology level T' and four new categories on the actor/frame level A/F as compared with Figure 1 of HKL. On the T' level we also find new OSC subelements, e.g. embedded software, CASE and metaCASE tools and environments, viruses and their prevention software, artificial intelligence and operations research models and software. Some of these, it can be argued, at least implicitly, are included the original framework. 2Observe that the term "frame" is used here in the individual-centred sense, as comparedwith the HKL paper, where
it is connected with the nine elements of the OSC matrix.
122
P. KEROLA
A/F
L'
O'
Formalized Symbol Manipulation Systems
Mechanistic Social Systems
Manipulative Communication Systems
Political Systems Interorg. Systems Consumer -> Producer Relationships
Symbolic Interaction Systems for Systems Rational Argumentation
Work Processes Cultural Social Systems
Institutional Checks & Balances
"r
I
S
C
v
Fig. 5. The modified and replenished OSC matrix.
The degree of malleability is expressed explicitly in the modification and inherently in the OSC matrix. On the highest level A/F we find, with different orientations, end-user computing, self-assessment tools, values, frames, activity systems, human information processing and team computing as the primarily emerging objects of change in ISD. Nearly all of these are lacking in the original HKL matrix.
On the interrelationships of dimensions When we apply the OSC matrix to ISD in reality, the most essential question is: who are the actors whose beliefs, assumptions and aims, i.e. frames of information and communication technology, organization, language and actors we are looking for and what incongruences exist? In all the cases we can make interesting historical empirical findings concerning the evolution of object system classes and their interrelationships. By definition, operating diagonally through the OSC matrix, • the instrumental orientation and the technology domain of change fit well together, and in the same way; • strategic orientation and the organizational domain of change; and • communicational orientation and the language domain of change; but • what about with discursive orientation and the actor/frame domain of change? Because of the different frames, all the class elements in the OSC matrix are feasible in reality, but this historical development and existence would be an interesting subject for a
A FEDERATEDFRAMEWORKFOR ISD
123
separate full paper. Reflecting reality, it is evident that the macro flow of new development (progress and/or regression) has been • I---)S---)C---)Din orientation; • 'T'---)O'---)L'--)A/F in the domains of change; • driven by the IT producer organizations in combined orientation/domain of change situations.
USE OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF IS RESEARCH
Problems of orientation: sense-making, argumentation or control When the aim is to utilize the federated framework for the analysis, characterization and partial categorization of IS research, we are looking at the situation on the meta 2 and meta levels in the manner of Figure 1, in which case the domain of (meta)modeling also includes IS developers, ISD scientists and ISD research scientists (Figure 2). Concerning the last actor group, we can apply Habermas' theory of social action to the orientation of researchers studying ISD research: is it sense-making, argumentation or control (implicit or explicit)? The purpose of HKL has obviously been a mixture of these. As they say "The framework organizes the field into interrelated sets of intellectual communities, and in so doing, acts as a vehicle for conceptualizing core research issues and identifying future research directions." However, they are hiding (or at least expressing only implicitly) something extremely essential--their frames (individual and shared) of information technology, organization, language and actors. These frames strategically influence the most essential decisions involved in developing the framework and collecting and using the data. Why were the background theories of Habermas and Etzioni selected, and how were they interpreted and applied to the domain of ISD and its research? This situation is an especially sensitive one when the framework developers themselves are also ISD researchers, and are actually modeling their own research activities and results at the same time. The shared frame of the framework developers can also constrain and inhibit the existence of certain types of research, not appreciated in the frame.
Supplemementary IS research--emerging and holistic The modification of the Etzioni dimension emphasizes the inclusive nature of the malleability levels. Therefore we have two different types of research on the A/F-level, that concerned especially with the emerging new domains of change, and that aiming at holistic conceptualizations, models and theories. Some introductory examples with different research interests and orientations are given in Figure 6.
CLOSING NOTE From the viewpoint of research methodology, Etzioni (p. 25) maintains that "The three major disciplines of knowledge--the humanities, the social sciences and the natural sciences--have arranged themselves roughly along the malleability
124
R KEROLA ORIENTATION
TYPE
A/F IS RESEARCH
instrumental
holistic emerging
user interaction (Card et al. 1983, Agre 1995) cognitive styles (Robey & Taggart 1981)
strategic
holistic emerging
organizational computing (Zuboff 1988) executive IS (Rockart & Treacy 1982)
communicational
holistic emerging
activity theory (Kuutti 1994) learning theory (Kerola 1985, 1988, Kolb 1984) team style assessment (Kerola & Taggart 1994)
discursive
holistic
inquiry systems (Churchman 1971) philosophy and practice of ISD (Dahlbom and Mathiassen 1993) hypersystems (lvanov 1991 )
emerging
Fig. 6. Examples of A/F-level IS research.
differential... It is commonly accepted that disciplines dealing with what we refer to here as the more malleable elements are less "scientific" than those dealing with the less malleable elements... A confusion arises when the social sciences and the study of human behavior are conceived of as coextensive." What does this mean for the use of the modified framework? It can be conceived of as follows: The higher the malleability level, the more varied a mixture of research methods we potentially have and the more severe frame incongruences we can find in the scientific IS community. The above conclusion not only justifies the characterization of IS research as a "fragmented adhocracy", but also indicates how significant and beneficial it is for each member of the IS research community to be as aware and conscious as possible of the frames of the participating actors--in order to increase common sense-making and shared frames. The fundamental assumption of this comment paper has been the existence of human actors as the most important research subject/objects in the context of IS research, but also the most sensitive and difficult ones. Different and sometimes controversial research approaches and schools have understandably arisen because of the frames and the incongruences between researching actors. The metaresearch implemented by HKL is one constructive way of developing a common topic of interest for scientific communication, sense-making and argumentation--but hopefully with the minimum amount of control!
Acknowledgement--I would to thank my colleague Kari Kuutti for many insightful discussions concerning the assessment of existing IS research from the activitytheory and work-orientedviewpoints. These have made a positive contribution to the content of the paper.
A FEDERATED FRAMEWORK FOR ISD
125
REFERENCES Agre, E E. (1995). Conceptions of the user in computer systems design. In Thomas, E J. (Ed.), The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces (pp. 67-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Card, S. K., Moran, T. E & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books. Dahlbom, B. & Mathiassen, L. (1993). Computers in context. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: theory of societal and political processes. New York: The Free Press. van Gigch, J. E (1991). The importance of metaethics. Human Systems Management, 10, 281-286. Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K. & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6, 1-64. Ivanov, K. (1991). Hypersystems--a base for specification of computer-supported self-learning social systems. Research Reports in Information Processing and Computer Science, No. 13. University of Ume~, Sweden. Kerola, E (1985). On the fundamentals of a human-centred theory for information systems use and development. Report of the Eighth Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering (pp. 192-210). Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark, August 1985. Kerola, E (1988). Integration of perspectives and views in the conception of office and its systems development. Proceedings of lFlP TC8 Open Conference. Singapore (pp. 3.17-3.34). Kerola, E & Taggart, W. (1994). A new teleological strategy for using self-assessment tools in information systems use and development. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 4(1), 42-60. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Kuutti, K. (1994). Information systems, cooperative work and active subjects: the activity-theoretical perspective. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu. Research Papers Series A23. Lyytinen, K. (1986). Information systems development and social action framework and implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Jyvdskylii Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics 8, University of Jyviiskylii, Finland. Orlikowski, W. J. & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. A CM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174-207. Robey, D. & Taggart, W. (1981). Measuring manager's minds: the assessment of style in human information processing. Academy of Management Review, 6, 375-383. Rockart, J. & Treacy, M. (1982). The CEO goes on-line. Harvard Business Review. Jan.-Feb. 1982. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of smart machine. Basic Books: New York.