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.

Reconsidering deconstruction in information systems research

“…Deconstruction has been applied European Journal of Information Systems (2012) 21,[192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206] in literary criticism and had a small following in the organizational and IS literatures in the 1980s and 1990s (Cooper, 1989;Weitzner, 2007). This early work resulted in some notable publications in those fields (cf., Calás & Smircich, 1991;Martin, 1990a;Kilduff, 1993;Beath & Orlikowski, 1994;Chia, 1994). Deconstruction has some similarities to other language-based approaches found in IS research, such as hermeneutics (cf.…”

“…We also refer the reader to Martin (1990a) and Beath & Orlikowski (1994) for illustrations. Such techniques and methods suggest tangible guidance on how deconstruction might be applied in studying the language of IS.…”

“…Others suggest that diffe´rance and supplement are evident in logical fallacies, tautologies, ideologies, and law-like assumptions (Martin 1990a;Beath & Orlikowski, 1994).…”

“…We consider the philosophical assumptions of deconstruction and draw contrasts with structuralism, post-structuralism, and critical theory. We review how deconstruction has been employed in IS research publications and examine in detail a publication by Beath & Orlikowski (1994), in which the authors deconstruct the portrayal of user-developer dichotomies in a systems development methodology. Drawing on this retrospective appraisal of deconstruction in the IS field, we suggest possible applications of deconstruction that could contribute new insights on topics of long-standing concern to the IS field, such as technology innovation, the social implications of technologies, and research relevance.…”

The Sensemaking-Coevolution-Implementation Theory of software design

“…For example, the trend toward COTS (instead of custom development) transfers power and participation away from users (Bansler and Havn 1994). Moreover, users may be expected to take responsibility for projects even when their involvement is shallow (Beath and Orlikowski 1994).…”