Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Beath, Cynthia Mathis, Orlikowski, Wanda J.·1994·Information Systems Research

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.5.4.350

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J.
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
1994-12
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
350-377
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2066334795
Cited by
255
References
3
FWCI
24.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.