Antony Bryant

Process-Based Software Engineering: Building the Infrastructures

A recent trend in software engineering is the shift from a focus on laboratory-oriented software engineering to a more industry-oriented view of software engineering processes. This complements preceding ideas about software engineering in terms of organization and process-orientation. From the domain coverage point of view, many of the existing software engineering approaches have mainly concentrated on the technical aspects of software development. Important areas of software engineering, such as the technical and organizational infrastructures, have been left untouched. As software systems increase in scales, issues of complexity and professional practices become involved. Software development as an academic or laboratory activity, has to engage with software development as a key industrialized process.This expanded domain of software engineering exposes the limitations of existing methodologies that often address only individual subdomains. There is, therefore, a demand for an overarching approach that provide a basis for theoretical and practical infrastructures capable of accommodating the whole range of modern software engineering practices and requirements. One approach is provided by Process-Based Software Engineering (PBSE); part of the more general trend towards a focus on process.This paper provides a review of process techniques for software engineering and a high-level perspective on PBSE. Typical approaches and techniques for the establishment, assessment, improvement and benchmarking of software engineering process systems are introduced in this paper, and many are developed further in other contributions to this volume.

Grounding systems research: re-establishing grounded theory

In the field of information systems (IS) there has been a growing trend away from a technical view of systems (with the system literally seen primarily in terms of the physical devices), to one that seeks to account for nontangible aspects such as cognition, culture, motivation and so on. This is not to say that these latter orientations are dominant or predominant. But there is now an established, resilient and articulate counterposition exemplified by various IS journals. Research methods are developing in a similar fashion with an increasing use of qualitative methods. One method that is gaining increasing popularity in the systems area is the grounded theory method originated by B.G. Glaser and A.L. Strauss (1967). There are some profound problems with this approach, in particular the unproblematic conceptualization of data, and a level of methodological flexibility that can degenerate into methodological indifference and result in superficial and ambiguous conclusions. The paper argues that the method is not indelibly stamped with these failings and inconsistencies; it seeks to draw general lessons from the grounded theory method and other aspects of the discussion with regard to the study of systems and organizations in particular.

The future of information systems – Thinking Informatically

Many of those who are active within the academic field of information systems (IS) are constantly seeking a firm disciplinary basis for their endeavours. In many respects, such efforts are based upon a mistaken view of how disciplines are actually constituted, and the purposes that they serve. In many respects, it would be far more fruitful if those working within the field of IS were to accept a more fluid and contingent notion of a discipline; simultaneously recognizing the contested nature of many of the core concepts – particularly information, communication and technology. In so doing, we will be Thinking Informatically.

Information Systems history: What is history? What is IS history? What IS history? … and why even bother with history?

Prologue and preamble The views of Collingwood can be summarized as follows. The philosophy of history is concerned neither with ‘the past by itself’ nor with ‘the historians thought about it by itself’, but with ‘the two things in their mutual relations’. (This dictum reflects the two current meanings of the word ‘history’ – the inquiry conducted by the historian and the series of past events into which he inquires.) Carr (1961: 1l)

Knowledge Management — The Ethics of the Agora or the Mechanisms of the Market?

Knowledge management [KM] first appeared as a distinct phrase in the context of IS in the mid-1990s, since when it has grown to become the latest item in the IS pantheon. The term itself ought to promote more uneasiness than it appears to do so within the IS academy, and this paper outlines the reasons why the term should be viewed with less enthusiasm and more suspicion.

Creating a knowledge management architecture for business process change

In this paper we seek to elaborate on a recent understanding that successfully inducing business process change is highly dependent upon the knowledge management capabilities of an organization. From this perspective, we believe that the current methodological basis for business process management lacks transparency and, very often, fundamental justification. Most methodological support advanced in the literature is taken too often for granted, and does not seize business process change as a knowledge creation effort. As a consequence, many business process professionals fail to mobilize, exploit and capitalize on the organizational knowledge base, which is needed for inducing business process change. In this paper, we will explain some of these methodological shortcomings, and offer the SPARTA framework for developing a far more inclusive, integrative and adaptive approach to the field of business process knowledge management. The framework reflects our belief that successful business process change highly depends on a degree to which some key dimensions fit together harmoniously. Moreover, the paper will elaborate on how this concept of methodological fit can be applied at various conceptual levels. Illustrations from the Financial Services Industry will accompany our understandings. 1. BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGE Despite a decade of experience with the business process phenomenon, certain fundamental problems still beset its successful application, and cause concern to practitioners. Considering the enormous financial and intellectual investments made in the ‘business process issue’, it is no surprise that the prime conceptual quest for BPR advocates and critics has been focused around this aspect. The result is an ever-growing bibliography of research findings from authors, each with their Permission to make digital or hard copies ofall or part ofthis work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee probided that copies are noL made or distributed for prolit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise. to republish, to post on se~-wrs or to redistribute to lists. requires prior specific permission and:or a fee. SIGCPR ‘99 New Orleans LA USA Copyn’ght ACM 1999 l-581 13-063-5/99/04...

Discursive formations and trans-disciplinary agendas: a response to Walsham

5.00 own list of pitfalls, success factors and avoidance strategies for successfully implementing redesigns [ 1 l][ 16][19][20][26][36] [38][39]. Amongst many others can be cited the difficulties in ensuring top management commitment or the technical problems involved in developing a responsive workflow management system. Although we understand the importance of this stream of research, we are convinced that there is another critical aspect that has been largely ignored in the business process debate so far. Our reasoning is based on the belief that most implementation problems are the result of defective knowledge management or a lack of a supportive methodological architecture that enables organizational learning. Many fail to develop, exploit and capitalize on the organizational knowledge for inducing business process change. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of a vast number of ‘classical’ BPR methodologies has mostly been taken for granted. Overall, we feel that current characterizations of the business process phenomenon and its methodologies are too narrow in focus. They reflect a highly normative, mechanical perspective on business reality whereby IT has been elevated to the role of primary, or even sole change vector. The current rhetoric largely assumes that business processes can be ‘@Iled apart and redesigned like Lego” [32]; an influence partly inherited from Software Engineering approaches [15][17][22][27][32][34]. Despite caveats to the contrary in the early writings of BPR advocates, that warned against ‘throwing computers at problems’, classical BPR can still be found deficient in its own terms. Furthermore, there is the paradox that many guiding concepts of the business process movement retain large ‘Tayloristic’ influences, and many enthusiastic ‘reengineering czars’ mistakenly assume that business processes have been engineered in the first place. All this leads to a contradiction between the practice and recent research [4][8][ 11][32][44]. We believe there is a need to broaden both the context and concept of business process change and to reconsider some of its basic underlying principles. Simply stated, managing business processes involves questioning the validity of existing working practices (cf. the ‘AS-IS’ picture) and justifying potential changes (cf. the ‘TO-BE’ picture). Moreover, the process changes that are conceived and ultimately implemented should add value to the customer. In knowledge management circles, it is commonly

Beyond BPR ‐ confronting the organizational legacy

W e would like to congratulate the Editors of JIT for suggesting to Geoff Walsham that he initiate a discussion in the pages of their journal on ‘Whither the IS field?’, also to Geoff for responding with a thoughtful and challenging paper (Walsham, 2012). The impact of his paper is reflected in the number of responses received and published in JIT. Some of these have argued that asking the question is itself an indication of the discipline’s malaise, part of an endless cycle of navel gazing, an activity not appropriate for a mature discipline. We disagree. All disciplines must be seen as ‘discursive formations,’ with those involved engaging in discussions regarding the directions in which things are being taken; encompassing practical, professional, and academic manifestations: Hence, this contribution to the discussion and ensuing responses. Walsham poses the question and challenge – ‘Are we making a better world with ICTs?’ The responses from Adam (2012), March and Neiderman (2012), Davidson (2012), Baskerville (2012), and to some extent Schultze (2012), assume that this refers specifically to the information systems (IS) discipline in some sense; which is understandable given that Walsham’s article is published in JIT. The ‘we’ in this case can be assumed to refer to the IS research community. In the 1950s, one of the popular TV series of the day was ‘The Lone Ranger,’ the eponymous hero was a masked man aided by his ‘trusty side-kick’ Tonto, who would now be described as a Native American. Dating from this time there is a joke that the Lone Ranger and Tonto see a horde of Indian braves bearing down on them in full battle fury. ‘Looks like we are in trouble, Tonto,’ says the Lone Ranger to his companion. ‘What do you mean “we,” white man?’ Tonto responds. So, in similar fashion, the present authors raise the question ‘What “we” Professor Walsham?’ In other words, why assume that the challenges facing IS academics and their ilk are only to be taken up within a fairly narrowly conceived view of the IS academic discipline? Walsham offers the very apposite example of ICT4D (ICT for Development) in the context of his paper, although somewhat confusingly he refers to it as a ‘subfield’ of IS; later using terms such as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. In fact, ICT4D exemplifies what Griselda Pollock has termed the trans-disciplinary; defined as trying ‘to hold on to both the specificity of particular ways of thinking and knowing that define disciplines, while creating the space of their productive encounter so that a different kind of knowledge emerges in the act of intersection and traverse of varied fields through which a shared concept might travel’ (Pollock, 2007). In this sense ICT4D exemplifies a key site for such encounters. Indeed, Shirin Madon in her study of E-governance in India demonstrates the problems which arise when ICT4D is regarded as a ‘subfield of IS’ or ICT in a narrow technical sense; leading to systems failures resulting from a lack of awareness of aspects such as the underlying concerns of Indian villagers, political structures, and cultural mores (Madon, 2009). Taking this perspective and using Walsham’s example of ICT4D, the term ‘we’ can and indeed should be seen as potentially encompassing a wide range of skills, interests, specializations, and disciplines brought together by those concerned with a relatively well-understood field which involves looking at the ways in which technological developments around ICTs can be brought to bear on issues around development. This is a far more complex picture, but as Richard Feynman noted it is better to

Cognitive Informatics, Distributed Representation and Embodiment

BPR has become a popular topic for discussion among managers. After its initial enthusiastic reception in the early 1990s, severe doubts and concerns have begun to emerge. The article considers some of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, and outlines a more inclusive framework within which BPR might be more critically and pragmatically assessed and applied.

Chinese Encyclopaedias and Balinese Cockfights - Lessons for Business Process Change and Knowledge Management

This paper is a revised and extended version of a keynote contribution to a recent conference on Cognitive Informatics. It offers a brief summary of some of the core concerns of other contributions to the conference, highlighting the range of issues under discussion; and argues that many of the central concepts and preoccupations of cognitive informatics as understood by participants--and others in the general field of computation--rely on ill-founded realist assumptions, and what has been termed the functionalist view of representation. Even if such ideas--albeit in a revised form -- can be defended, there must be a more extensive engagement with the literature and issues outside the confines of the computing and computational orthodoxy.