COM332 – SA3

Methods and Methodologies

• Themes – Methods and methodologies– Tools and techniques for IS development– Responsible systems development– Why things go wrong?

• Questions to be asked:– What is a methodology?– What is a method?– What is a tool?– What is a technique?– What is responsible systems development?

• Information system – Processes and information– Effective operation of the organisation

• Computer-based information system– Use computer – To process data.

• Speedily & accurately

– Provide information• When and where required• Which is complete and correct level of detail

• Technology is a part of the system

• Methodology = Study of methods

• In information systems– Methodology = method

• Methodology– Collection of procedure, techniques, tools and

documentation aids which will help the system developers in their efforts to implement a new information system

• Methodology (SSADM) is a collection of Methods/Procedures (data analysis – orderly arrangement of ideas about a particular topic) PLUS Techniques (normalisation - way of doing a particular activity) WITHIN the framework of an Approach or paradigm (reductionalist, functionalist)

• Not merely a collection of procedures, techniques and tools – Based on some ‘philosophical’ view

• Methodologies differs in– Recording accurately the user requirements– Providing a systematic method of development so that

the progress can be effectively monitored– Providing an information system within an appropriate

time limit and acceptable cost– Producing a system which is well documented and easy

to maintain– Providing an indication of changes that need to be

made as early as possible in the development process– Providing a system that is liked by those people

affected by that system• Applying a particular development method has

important social consequence

Classifying the methodologies

• Classification by focus – Leavitt’s diamond technology

| ETHICS | SSADM | people -----------------------------------------------------------tasks | SSM | planning

(CSFs) | organisation

Leavitt’s Diamond

• Leavitt’s diamond model describes organisations as consisting of four interrelated components– Tasks– Technology– People– Structure

• They have strong interdependence– Changes in technology affect the way individuals relate

to the tasks they are responsible for performing as well as the organisational structure

• Leavitt’s theory can be applied in the study of software development– Tasks

• Expected outcomes in terms of Goals and Deliverables

– Technology• Development tools and Technical platform

– People• Users, Managers and Designers

– Structure• Organisation

• Technology – Tasks– How technologies fit with tasks

– Selection of an appropriate software development technology

• Technology – People– Matching people with technology

– Job satisfaction

– Professional esteem

– Motivation

• People – Organisation– Interaction between people and organisation

– Values and beliefs

– Behaviour and expectations

• Technology – Organisation– How organisations can carry out development tasks

– Planning

– CSF

• Classification by paradigm (world–view)– Allows to distinguish the alternative approaches

in a simplified manner

objective subjective

order

conflict

Radical structuralismThe analyst as labour partisan

Neo-humanism The analyst as emancipator or social therapist

FunctionalismThe analyst as systems expert

Social relativism The analyst as facilitator

• Paradigm– Specific way of thinking about a problem– Consists of Assumptions about knowledge and How to acquire it

and about the physical and social world• System developers

– Conduct enquiry as a part of system design– Intervene social world as a part of system implementation

• Epistemological assumptions – Those associated with the way in which system developers acquire

knowledge needed to design the system• Ontological assumptions

– Those which relate to the social and technical world

• Two types of assumptions about knowledge and the world are given by Burrel and Morgan [1979]– Subjectivist–objectivist dimension– Order–conflict dimension

– Objectivist• Apply models and methods derived from the natural science to

the study of human affairs

• Treats social world as natural world

– Subjectivist • Denies the appropriateness of natural science methods for

studying social world

• Subjective experience of individuals– The way in which the individual creates modifies and interprets

the world

– Order• Emphasize the social world characterised by order, stability,

integration, consensus and functional co-ordination

– Conflict• Emphasize change, conflict, disintegration etc.

• Functionalist– Concerned with providing explanations of the social order, social

integration, need of satisfaction and rational choice– Individual elements of a social system interact to form an

integrated system

• Social relativist– Individual consensus and subjectivity

• Radical structuralist– Emphasize the need to overthrow the limitations placed on

existing social and organisational arrangements– Focuses on the structure and analysis of economic power

relationships

• Neohumanist – Seeks radical change, emancipation and potentiality– Stresses the the role that different social and organisational forces

play in understanding the change– Focuses on all kind of barriers and seeks ways to overcome them

• The analyst as System Expert– All information system are designed to contribute to

specific ends– Management provide leadership

• Knows the ends

– Ends are translated and specified in terms of systems objectives

– Ends can be viewed and articulated– Tools and methods are choice of means to a pre-

specified end– Analyst an expert in technology, tools and methods of

systems design and project management– Makes the development more formal and rational

• Analyst as Facilitator– Recognises the ends is not easily obtained

• Complex and elusive

– There is no single reality, only different perceptions about it

– The role of people in shaping reality is unclear– Management tries to make sense of the confusion– IS are part of continually changing social environment

• Should help in finding which ends are suitable and feasible

– System developer • Interact with managers to find out what type of system

required– No objective criteria

• Should work from within the users perspective to help them to find the preferred view

• Should ease the transition from one view point to other

– Systems emerge through social interaction

• Analyst as a Labour Partisan– There is a fundamental social conflict

• Exists between those who own the sources of production and labor

– Systems development intervene the conflict• Owners become the beneficiaries and labor become the victims

– Developer• Side with management and become their agent

– Systems would rationalise the interests of management and the owners

– Developer will direct the system rationalisation against workers interests

» Replacing the typewriter with a word processor

• Join the interest of labor– Designing systems to help their interests– Use of technology enhance the labor’s traditional skill– Make the work more rewarding and deliver better product

• Analyst as Emancipator – Social Therapist– Constructed from theory– Through IS development organisational life changed,

rationality of the change is constrained by social influence

– Human being seeks knowledge to exercise better control over nature and people and there by rationalise the work – technical knowledge interest

– IS is an important resource for achieving technical knowledge also mutual understanding (improving the understanding of one’s culture) and emancipation (establishment of truth and justice to regulate all human affairs)

– In persuing the knowledge interest in emancipation the developer elicit a shared understanding of many obstacles to human communication

– Developer needs to acquire appreciation of different view points

• Analyst as Emancipator – Social Therapist– Systems would have features to support technical

knowledge interest (functionalist influence)– Systems should support the creation of shared

meanings and reflect the knowledge in mutual understanding (similar to social relativism)

– There would be a comprehensive set of features to support emancipatory discourse

– IS development goal• Information systems are developed to remove distorting

influences and other barriers to rational discourse.• Institutionalise the ideal speech situation which in turn

validates a consensus about system objectives and modes of design implementation

– Ideal speech situation would legitimate a moving balance between the three objectives of system development

» Improved technical control» Better mutual understanding» Continued emancipation from unwarranted social

constraints and psychological compulsions