IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/syspar/v30y2017i4d10.1007_s11213-016-9401-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Critical Systems Heuristics to Surface and Reconcile Users' Conflicting Visions for a Business Intelligence System

Author

Listed:
  • Carin Venter

    (North-West University)

  • Roelien Goede

    (North-West University)

Abstract

This paper describes an action research study where the business requirements analysis approach of a business intelligence development project was enriched. Critical systems heuristics, a critical systems methodology that is positioned in the critical systems thinking paradigm, was applied to surface the inherently conflicting views and visions (however unknown to them) that the various stakeholders had regarding a new business intelligence system and its underlying business process. It therefore enabled surfacing of human/cultural and organisational issues that would have negatively affected the adoption of the new system; these were successfully resolved. Accordingly, the various stakeholders reflected on their real requirements that constituted improvement, rather than mere automation, of a business process; it ultimately resulted in a successful new business intelligence system that realised business benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Carin Venter & Roelien Goede, 2017. "The Use of Critical Systems Heuristics to Surface and Reconcile Users' Conflicting Visions for a Business Intelligence System," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 407-432, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:30:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11213-016-9401-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11213-016-9401-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11213-016-9401-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11213-016-9401-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jackson, Mike C., 2001. "Critical systems thinking and practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 233-244, January.
    2. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    3. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mahmoud Dehghan Nayeri & Moein Khazaei & Fatemeh Alinasab-Imani, 2020. "The Critical Heuristics of Iranian Banking Credit System: Analysis of the Antithetical Opinions of the Beneficiaries," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 363-392, June.
    2. Carin Venter, 2019. "A Critical Systems Approach to Elicit User-Centric Business Intelligence Business Requirements," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 481-500, October.
    3. Juan E. Núñez-Ríos & Jacqueline Y. Sánchez-García & Ricardo Tejeida-Padilla, 2020. "Human Capital Management in Tourism SMEs from a Cyber-Systemic Approach," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 527-559, October.
    4. Roelien Goede, 2021. "Sustainable business intelligence systems: Modelling for the future," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 685-695, October.
    5. Moein Khazaei & Mohammad Ramezani & Amin Padash & Dorien DeTombe, 2021. "Creating shared value to redesigning IT-service products using SYRCS; Diagnosing and tackling complex problems," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 957-992, September.
    6. Matthew Hutcheson & Alec Morton & Shona Blair, 2024. "Critical Systems Heuristics: a Systematic Review," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 499-514, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mahmoud Dehghan Nayeri & Moein Khazaei & Fatemeh Alinasab-Imani, 2020. "The Critical Heuristics of Iranian Banking Credit System: Analysis of the Antithetical Opinions of the Beneficiaries," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 363-392, June.
    2. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    3. Kwamina Ewur Banson & Daniel Kwasi Asare & Fidelis Doodaa Dery & Kwadwo Boakye & Akudugu Boniface & Moses Asamoah & Lourees Esi Awotwe, 2020. "Impact of Fall Armyworm on Farmer’s Maize: Systemic Approach," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 237-264, April.
    4. M C Jackson, 2003. "Deeper complementarism: a brief response to Ulrich," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(11), pages 1225-1226, November.
    5. Espinosa, Angela & Reficco, Ezequiel & Martínez, Andrea & Guzmán, David, 2015. "A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 202-212.
    6. Luke Houghton, 2013. "Why Can't We All Just Accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology Application on Disagreeing Stakeholders," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 430-443, July.
    7. Luke Houghton & David Tuffley, 2015. "Towards a Methodology of Wicked Problem Exploration through Concept Shifting and Tension Point Analysis," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 283-297, May.
    8. Mingers, John, 2015. "Helping business schools engage with real problems: The contribution of critical realism and systems thinking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 316-331.
    9. Luke Houghton & Larry Crump, 2016. "Temporal Events and Problem Structuring," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 324-340, May.
    10. White, Leroy, 2009. "Understanding problem structuring methods interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 823-833, December.
    11. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    12. Barbara Scozzi & Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, 2017. "Managing Open Innovation in Urban Labs," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 857-874, September.
    13. Graeme Nicholas, 2022. "Getting to practical: Complementarity between critical systems thinking and phronetic social science," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 913-922, September.
    14. Matthew Hutcheson & Alec Morton & Shona Blair, 2024. "Critical Systems Heuristics: a Systematic Review," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 499-514, August.
    15. Slavica P. Petrovic, 2015. "Systemic intervention in creative managing problems in enterprises," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 949-961, October.
    16. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    17. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    18. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    19. Richard J. Ormerod, 2016. "Critical Rationalism for Practice and its Relationship to Critical Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 4-23, January.
    20. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-101, January.

    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:spr:syspar:v:30:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11213-016-9401-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.