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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women
Kanter, R. M. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226425 · Cited by 3,154
MIS problems and failures: A socio- technical perspective
Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248710 · Cited by 1,329
User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 · Cited by 1,318
Cited by
Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111 · Cited by 3,238
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700 · Cited by 2,751
Self-citationStar, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1994) · Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '94 · doi:10.1145/192844.193021 · Cited by 412
Power, Rationality, and the Art of Living Through Socio-Technical Change1
Avgerou, C., & McGrath, K. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148792 · Cited by 219
The sensemaking-coevolution-implementation theory of software design
Ralph, P. (2015) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.007 · Cited by 60
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.