Exc.4: Warren (2000) Critical Thinking and Human Centred Methods in Information Systems

Lorraine Warren (2000) Critical Thinking and Human Centred Methods in Information Systems. In Steve Clarke and Brian Lehaney (ed.). 2000. Human Centered Methods in Information Systems: Current Research and Practice. Idea Group Publishing. Hershey USA, London UK.

• "a wide-ranging (14,000 organisations) survey in the UK carried out by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Department of Trade and Industry (OASIG, 1996) concerning the outcomes of IT investments makes worrying reading, reporting that:

  • "80-90% do not meet their performance goals;
  • about 80% of systems are delivered late and over budget;
  • about 40% of developments fail or are abandoned;
  • less than 40% fully address training and skills requirements;
  • less than 25% properly integrate business and technology objectives;
  • only 10-20% meet all their success criteria."

• "In the study, it is concluded that the problems are rarely caused by the technology itself, but instead to the lack of attention paid to the people who have to use the technology and also to broader organizational factors. The following far reaching concerns were identified, inter alia:

  • the complexity of interaction between humans and technological artifacts;
  • the heterogeneity of interests and agendas which exist in organizations;
  • the lack of (consistent) user involvement with the design and implementation process;
  • the (perceived) association of IT developments with redundancies;
  • the turbulent economic environment which organizations face.

• many schools of thought in Information System design, but original developments were rooted in engineering and computer science, with a focus on the technical details of "hard science". Increasingly shifting the focus on the people using the technology, putting humans in the center of the design process, not the technology.

• One school of thought is Critical Systems Theory, which very generally, tries to look at both the "hard" (science, engineering, technical) and "soft" (individuals, organizations, communities) of a system. However, there seems to be wide range of alternative definitions and diverse practical interpretations of CST -> p 176 to 180 in this paper

• "CST has been subject to critique at both the practical and the theoretical levels. Practically, CST presents a complex set of commitments for researchers or practitioners to operationalise. One of the best-known attempts to put CST into practice is Total Systems Intervention (TSI)." However, there also seems to be a lot of debate over definitions and practical interpretations -> p 180 to 183 in this paper

Case Study of CST/TSI implementation: improving delivery of computing services at medium-sized university

• "Looking back to the problem situation and examining the new system, it would be easy to say, “well surely that’s obvious! I could have got there without any elaborate CST/TSI process to help me!”. Whilst no-one can determine whether that is true or not, such a response rather misses the point. It was clear to most people concerned right from the outset that as part of becoming more customer centred, information flows within the ACSU and between the ACSU and its customers would have to be improved, and that the reception area was rather chaotic in appearance and function. What was important was that the new design was analysed, designed and implemented by all the ACSU staff for themselves, to give a sense of ownership, and a stake in the success of the new system. There were early calls from some staff to just install some proprietary logging software and train staff in the use of that — but that seemed like a very reductionist, ‘firefighting’ response, which would not yield the benefits of a more systemic intervention."

• "Having decided to carry out the project in a systemic manner, the question arose of how we would reflect on our own practice. It is clear from the literature that TSI is flawed, we accepted that much, but felt that, to echo Jackson, it still had some value in enabling the spirit of CST to come through in our efforts."

• Phase 1: Creativity: "TSI begins with a creativity phase, which goes on from general information gathering, through standard techniques such as observation, interviews, focus groups, documentary search and so on. This was carried out, in large part by the researchers, and is reflected in the description of the problem situation given above. Project planning meetings were used however, to give the ACSU staff an early opportunity to become involved by discussing their perceptions of the problem situation. It was fairly clear from these discussions that there was overall general agreement that the project needed to be undertaken, and that there was a need to make improvements. There were different views over how the project should proceed, particularly between different groupings within the ACSU staff, but no serious disagreements were evident — just the everyday fairly jocular ‘rough and tumble’ of organisational life!"

• Phase 2: Choice: mapping of specific methodologies onto different aspects of the problem situations ("which method/tool is the most appropriate for improving individual components of the whole system, and how do all the methods/tools/system components fit together"?). This step requires finding a careful balance between technical details and participatory process. With a heavy emphasis on process, there's always "the risk of “let’s get on with it!” frustration breaking out.". However, without enough consideration of people and process, all the previously identified risks of technocentric problem solving in a social setting arise.

• Ideal outcome for a CST/TSI project: The new information system design was derived, accepted and implemented with the unanimous agreement of all involved in the project.

References

OASIG Study (1996) Why do IT Projects so often Fail, OR Newsletter 309, 12-16