The process of information systems (IS) design has been dominated by the demands inherent in providing a technical solution to a perceived problem or need. Engineering IS design methods applied in order to satisfy the problem situation tend to have a preoccupation with verifying specifications as being mathematically correct. Difficulties arise when the ideas underpinning verification are extended in an attempt to ‘prove’ the validity of a proposed design for an IS. A pure engineering approach does not facilitate a response to the subjective elements within social situations, which experience has shown to be essential in demonstrating the pertinence of new designs to those concerned. We suggest that, by applying interpretivist systems ideas, it is possible to support concerned individuals in reflecting upon crucial aspects of the inquiry, enabling those individuals to judge the relevance or ‘authenticity’ of the learning, according to their own values and beliefs. The elements of participants, engagement, authority, relationships and learning are suggested as being crucial. These make up the mnemonic PEArL, which is offered as an aide-mémoire for those concerned with IS design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AvisonD.E., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1990). Multiview: An Exploration in Information System Development (Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford).
2.
BaskervilleR.L., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11, 235–46.
3.
BeyerH., and HoltzblattK. (1997). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-centred Systems (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco).
4.
BoudreauM. (1997). Report on Panel Discussion ‘Assessing Critical Social Theory Research in Information Systems’ (Information Federation for Information Processing, Philadelphia).
5.
BurrellG., and MorganG. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis (Heinemann Educational, London).
6.
ChampionD., and StowellF.A. (1999a). Investigating interpretivist approaches to modelling client's requirements for information systems. In Proceedings of Systems Modelling for Business Process Improvement, University of Ulster, Coleraine, 29–31 March, pp. 83–93.
7.
ChampionD., and StowellF.A. (1999b). An investigation into a prototype interpretivist approach to modelling requirements for information systems. In BIT 99, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester.
8.
ChampionD., and StowellF.A. (1999c). Interpretive methods of inquiry for information systems analysis. In Seventh Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks (IDIMT99), Zadov, Czech Republic, 2–3 September, pp. 259–69.
9.
ChecklandP.B. (1981). Systems Thinking Systems Practice (John Wiley, Chichester).
10.
ChecklandP.B. (1983). O.R. and the systems movement: mappings and conflicts. Journal of Operational Research, 34(8), 661–75.
11.
ChecklandP.B., and HolwellS. (1998a). Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester).
12.
ChecklandP.B., and HolwellS. (1998b). Action research: its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9–21.
13.
ChecklandP.B., and ScholesJ. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action (John Wiley, Chichester).
14.
ChecklandP.B., and ScholesJ. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology in Action with a Thirty Years Retrospective on SSM (John Wiley, Chichester).
15.
ClarkeS., and LehaneyB. (1999). Organisational intervention and the problems of coercion. Systemist, 21, 40–52.
16.
DashD.P. (1999). Current debates in action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(5), 457–92.
17.
DoyleK., and WoodR.J. (1991). Systems thinking, systems practice, dangerous liaisons. Systemist, 13(1), 28–30.
18.
D'SouzaD.F., and WillsA.C. (1998). Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach (Addison Wesley, Harlow).
19.
FarbeyB., LandF., and TargettD. (1993). How to Assess Your IT Investment: A Study of Methods and Practice (Butterworth Heinnemann, Oxford).
20.
FinlayP.N., and WilsonJ.N. (1997). Validity of decision support systems: towards a validation methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(3), 169–82.
21.
FloodR.L., and JacksonM.C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention (John Wiley, London).
22.
FoucaultM. (1980). InPower/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, GordonC. (ed.) (Harvester Press, Brighton).
23.
GrahamI. (1998). Requirements Engineering and Rapid Development (Addison Wesley, London).
24.
GuoM., WuZ., and StowellF.A. (1999). Information systems specification within the framework of client-led design. In Proceedings of Systems Modelling for Business Process Improvement, University of Ulster, Coleraine, 29–31 March, pp. 94–106.
25.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (translated by C. Lenhardt and S. Weber Nicholson) (Polity Press, Cambridge).
26.
HeideggerM. (1962). Being and Time (translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson) (Harper & Row, New York).
27.
JacksonM.A. (1983). System Development (Prentice-Hall, Chichester).
28.
KensingF., and BlombergJ. (1998). Participatory design: issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167–85.
29.
KensingF., and Munk-MadesenA. (1993). Participatory design: structure in the tool box. Communications of ACM, 36(4), 78–85.
30.
KornJ. (1999). Qualitative modelling of information systems. In Synergy Matters: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the UKSS, CastellA.M., GregoryA.J., HindleG.A., JamesM.E., and RagsdellG. (eds) (Plenum, New York), pp. 571–6.
31.
LewisP. (1993). Linking soft systems methodology with data-focused information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 3(3), 169–86.
32.
LiangY., WestD., and StowellF.A. (1998). An interpretivist approach to IS definition using object modelling. Information Systems Journal, 8, 163–80.
33.
LycettM., and PaulR.J. (1999). Information systems development: a perspective on the challenge of evolutionary complexity. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 127–35.
34.
MidgleyG. (1997). Dealing with coercion: critical systems heuristics and beyond. Systems Practice, 10(1), 37–57.
35.
MingersJ. (1995). Using soft systems methodology in the design of information systems. In Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, StowellF.A. (ed.) (McGraw-Hill, London), pp. 18–50.
36.
MumfordE. (1996). Systems Design: Ethical Tools for Ethical Change (Macmillan, London).
37.
MumfordE. (1997). The reality of participative systems design: contributing to stability in a rocking boat. Information Systems Journal, 7, 309–22.
38.
MumfordE., and WeirM. (1979). Computer Systems in Work Design – The ETHICS Method (Associated Business Press, London).
39.
MyersM.D. (1994). Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5, 51–70.
40.
NierstraszO., and MeijlerT.D. (1995). Research directions in software composition. ACM Computing Surveys, 27(2), 159–80.
41.
PooleyR., and StevensP. (1999). Using UML: Software Engineering with Objects and Components (Addison-Wesley, Harlow).
42.
PowellP. (1992). Information technology evaluation: is it different?Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(1), 29–42.
43.
PressmanR.S. (1997). Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach (McGraw-Hill, London).
44.
SartreJ.P. (1966). Being and Nothingness (Washington Square Press, New York).
45.
SavageA., and MingersJ. (1996). A framework for linking soft systems methodology (SSM) and Jackson system development (JSD). Information Systems Journal, 6, 109–29.
46.
SawyerK. (1992). A contribution towards the debate on linking SSM to IS. Systemist, 14(3), 199–201.
47.
SEBPC (1996). Systems Engineering for Business Process Change.
48.
SmithS.A. (1997). Modelling the discharge decision-making process in the domain of mental health care. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the UKSS Systems for Sustainability, People, Organisations and Environments, StowellF.A., IsonR.L., ArmsonR., HollowayJ., JacksonS., and McRobbS. (eds), pp. 625–30.
49.
SmithsonS., and HirschheimR. (1998). Analysing information systems evaluation: another look at an old problem. European Journal of Information Systems, 7, 158–74.
50.
SmythD.S., and ChecklandP.B. (1976). Using a systems approach: the structure of root definitions. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 5(1), 75–83.
51.
SomekhB. (1995). The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 339–55.
52.
SommervilleI., and SawyerP. (1997). Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester).
53.
StowellF.A. (1985). Experiences with SSM and data analysis. Information Technology Training, 48–50.
54.
StowellF.A. (1989). Change, organisation, power and the metaphor: commodity. PhD dissertation, University of Lancaster.
55.
StowellF.A. (1991). Towards client-led development of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 1, 173–89.
56.
StowellF.A. (2000). Modelling IS requirements for complex systems. In Systems Modelling for Business Process Improvement, BustardD.W., KawalekP., and NorrisM.T. (eds) (Artech House), pp. 171–86.
57.
StowellF.A., and ChampionD. (2000). Interpretivist modelling for information system definition. In Systems Engineering for Business Process Change, HendersonP. (ed.) (Springer), pp. 106–16.
58.
StowellF.A., and WestD. (1994). Client-led Design: A Systemic Approach to Information System Definition (McGraw-Hill, London).
59.
StowellF.A., WestD., and StansfieldM. (1997). Action research as a framework for IS research. In Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline?, MingersJ., and StowellF.A. (eds) (McGraw Hill, London).
60.
SusmanG.I., and EveredR.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–602.
TsoukasH. (1993). Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14(3), 323–46.
63.
UlrichW. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy (Haupt, Berne).
64.
UlrichW. (1991). Critical heuristics of social systems design. In Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, FloodR.L., and JacksonM.C. (eds) (Wiley, Chichester), pp. 103–15.
65.
UMISD (1998). Unified Mechanism for Information Systems Definition.
66.
VickersG. (1965). The Art of Judgement. A Study in Policy Making (Chapman & Hall, London).
67.
VickersG. (1970). Freedom in a Rocking Boat (Allen Lane, London).
68.
WalshamG. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74–81.
69.
WestD. (1995). The appreciative inquiry method: a systemic approach to information systems requirements analysis. In Information System Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, StowellF.A. (ed.) (London, McGraw-Hill), pp. 140–58.
70.
WilsonB. (1984). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications (Wiley, Chichester).
