IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v5y1994i4p350-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia Mathis Beath

    (Management Information Sciences Department, Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275-0333)

  • Wanda J. Orlikowski

    (Information Technologies Group, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142-1347)

Abstract

In this paper we show that systems development methodologies may contain incompatible assumptions about the role of users and information systems (IS) personnel during systems development. Using deconstruction, we analyze and interpret a systems development methodology currently receiving considerable attention—Information Engineering. We find that this methodology's characterization of IS-user relations and, in particular, its recommended partitioning of responsibility between IS and users is inconsistent and contradictory. Despite a heavy emphasis on user involvement, users are given a relatively passive role to play during development. At the same time, users are expected to sign off on projects and take responsibility for project outcomes. We suggest that such prescriptions, when put into action during systems development, make the relationship between users and IS personnel problematic. Further, we argue that the contradictions we surface in the methodology reflect contradictions and ideologies in the context within which systems development occurs. Our analysis raises important questions about the relationship between the production and consumption of information technology in organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia Mathis Beath & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1994. "The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 350-377, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:5:y:1994:i:4:p:350-377
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.5.4.350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.4.350
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.5.4.350?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Avgerou, Chrisanthi & McGrath, Kathy, 2007. "Power, rationality, and the art of living through socio-technical change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 2353, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    3. Klein, Jonathan H., 2009. "Ackoff's Fables revisited: stories to inform operational research practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 615-623, June.
    4. Russell L. Purvis & V. Sambamurthy & Robert W. Zmud, 2001. "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 117-135, April.
    5. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    6. Shahla Ghobadi & John Campbell & Stewart Clegg, 2017. "Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 397-409, April.
    7. Mähring, Magnus, 2002. "IT Project Governance: A Process-Oriented Study of Organizational Control and Executive Involvement," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:15, Stockholm School of Economics.
    8. D.M. Eriksson, 1998. "Managing Problems of Postmodernity: Some Heuristics for Evaluation of Systems Approaches," Working Papers ir98060, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    9. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    10. Likoebe M. Maruping & Viswanath Venkatesh & Ritu Agarwal, 2009. "A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 377-399, September.
    11. Amit V. Deokar & Surendra Sarnikar, 2016. "Understanding process change management in electronic health record implementations," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 733-766, November.
    12. Müller, Sune Dueholm & Mathiassen, Lars & Balshøj, Hans Henrik, 2008. "Organizational Change Perspectives on Software Process Improvement," Informatics Research Group Working Papers I-2008-02, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Business Studies.
    13. Shahla Ghobadi & John Campbell & Stewart Clegg, 0. "Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-13.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:5:y:1994:i:4:p:350-377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.