Judy McKay

How shared is shared understanding in information requirements determination

The task of determining information requirements for information systems is notoriously challenging and a number of contributing difficulties have been ascribed as causal factors including the problem of achieving a shared understanding of information requirements. However, a ubiquitous and perhaps naive assumption has always been that approaches which explicate ‘shared understanding’ do just that ie they achieve a very high degree of mutual understanding between participants. The findings in this paper contradict that view. An approach which is well-respected for its ability to facilitate shared understanding, SODA (Strategic Options Development and Analysis) and its associated technique of cognitive mapping were applied in an action research project in which the degree of mutual understanding between individual participants was measured by cross-tabulating individual cognitive maps. A qualitative data analysis was then performed. The findings demonstrate that in this case at least, espoused ‘shared understanding’ was limited. The paper also describes how further steps were successfully introduced which appear to improve the degree of mutual understanding.

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of a Business Process Reengineering Project

Over the past twenty years business environment has changed dramatically. Modern organisations are now faced with the increasing strain of global competition, globalisation of markets, shorter business cycles and technological and political changes. This new business climate has almost ‘forced’ organisations to find new ways, techniques and methodologies to help enhance business performance. Amongst the many business concepts which exists today, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is said to be the business concept of the 1990s (Carr and Johansson, 1995). Although this claim may seem somewhat of an overstatement, there can be little disagreement that in a relatively short period of time, BPR has generated large amounts of interest within the business community (Rigby, 1993), and has spawned a very substantial literature. The majority of these case studies in the BPR literature were reported from the perspectives of the academics and some consultants who performed the post-hoc investigations on BPR projects. Hence there has been very little work stemming directly from the perspectives of the BPR participants. In recognising these issues, research using the case study methodology was conducted on a large government organisation in Western Australia in order to determine the appropriateness and relevance of some of the recurrent and salient theoretical issues in practice. This paper reports on qualitative research undertaken as a “reality check” of these issues from the perceptions of the people who were involved in and affected by the BPR project.

Incorporating Individual Differences in Perspective in a Systemic Approach to Information Systems Requirements Analysis

Investment in information systems (IS) and information technology (IT) in contemporary organisations is both widespread and substantial. There are few businesses today that can operate effectively and competitively without resorting to at least minimal reliance on IS/IT as an integral part of day to day operations. For most, investment in IS/IT now represents a significant proportion of capital and operating expenditures. Indeed, for these organisations, seeing adequate returns on their investments has now become a pressing management issue (Ward et al., 1990). Hence it can be concluded that information systems development (ISD), whether this is defined as developing computer-based systems from first principles, or tailoring off-the-shelf packages, or some variant of these two extremes, is a common, necessary and important process in most contemporary organisations.

Systems methodologies and enabling technologies: a role for group support systems?

Managers in contemporary organisations have little option other than to do business in increasingly turbulent environments. As a result, they are more frequently confronted with large, highly interconnected and complex problem situations for which no obvious or appropriate course of action exists. Problem situations should not be interpreted as referring solely to negative, potentially damaging situations, but should also be viewed as including opportunities for improvement, requiring reflective and considered problem solving and decision making in order to take advantage of the opportunity. Crucial decisions taken in these environments are often based on highly uncertain information, and are often subject to time constraints, yet these decisions may have a big impact on the future stability and viability of the organisation.