organizational analyses
doode
thefourparadims1.docxThe full document
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.2177&rep=rep1&type=pdf
FOUR PARADIGMS The most fundamental set of assumptions adopted by a professional community that allows its members to share similar perceptions and engage in commonly shared practices is called a “paradigm.” Typically, a paradigm consists of assumptions about knowledge and how to acquire it, and about the physical and social world.4 As ethnomethodological studies have shown [x] such assumptions are shared by all scientific and professional communities. As developers must conduct inquiry as part of systems design and have to intervene into the social world as part of systems implementation, it is natural to distinguish between two types of related ‘To establish this would need a representative empirical follow-up study of the belief systems held by practitioners. A first step in this direction is the study undertaken by Vitalari and Dickson [96]. It showed that the processes used by analysts in determining information requirements were more comprehensive than the literature on structured systems development approaches had suppested. ’ Only insofar as the literature influences ISD practice would the assumptions derived from the descriptions of systems development approaches also be representative of the actual beliefs held by practitioners. ‘Paradigms are defined by Eiurrell and Morgan [IS] as “meta-theoretical assunmtions about the nature of the sub&t of studv.” This differs somewhat from Kuhn’s classic conception of paradigms which were defined as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” [56]. assumptions: those associated with the way in which system developers acquire knowledge needed to design the system (epistemological assumptions), and those that relate to their view of the social and technical world (ontological assumptions). Two types of assumptions about knowledge (epistemological) and the world (ontological) are given by Burrell and Morgan [18] to yield two dimensions: a subjectivist-objectivist dimension and an order-conflict dimension. In the former, the essence of the objectivist position “is to apply models and methods derived from the natural sciences to the study of human affairs. The objectivist treats the social world as if it were the natural world” [18, p. 71. In contrast, the subjectivist position denies the appropriateness of natural science methods for studying the social world and seeks to understand the basis of human life by delving into the depths of subjective experience of individuals. “The principal concern is with an understanding of the way in which the individual creates, modifies, and interprets the world in which he or she finds himself [or herself]” (p. 3). In the order-conflict dimension, the order or integrationist view emphasizes a social world characterized by order, stability, integration, consensus, and functional coordination. The conflict or coercion view stresses change, conflict, disintegration, and coercion. The dimensions when mapped onto one another yield four paradigms (see Figure 1): functionalism (objective-order); social relativism (subjective-order); radical structuralism (objective-conflict); and neohumanism (subjective-conflict). This particular framework has been chosen because it allows us to capture the distinguishing assumptions of alternative approaches to information systems development in a simplified yet philosophically grounded way. The functionalist paradigm is concerned with providing explanations of the status quo, social order, social integration, consensus, need satisfaction, and rational choice. It seeks to explain how the individual elements of a social system interact to form an integrated whole. The social relativist paradigm seeks explanation within the realm of individual consciousness and subjectivity, and within the frame of reference of the social actor as opposed to the observer of the action. From such a perspective “social roles and institutions exist as an expression of the meanings which men attach to their world” [93, p. 1341. The radical structuralist paradigm emphasizes the need to overthrow or transcend the limitations placed on existing social and organizational arrangements. It focuses primarily on the structure and analysis of economic power relationships. The neohumanist paradigm seeks radical change, emancipation, and potentiality, and stresses the role that different social and organizational forces play in understanding change. It focuses on all forms of barriers to emancipation-in particular, ideology (distorted communication), power, and psychological compulsions and social constraints-and seeks ways to overcome them. These paradigms, initially identified by Burrell and Morgan [18] in the context of organizational and social October 1989 Volume 32 Number 10 Communications of the ACM 1201 OBJECTIVISM < Functionalism Radical Structuralism ORDER A Social Relativism ) SUBJECTIVISM Neohumanism V CONFLICT FIGURE 1. Information Systems Development Paradigms (adapted from [18]) research, also manifest themselves in the domain of information systerns development.5 Yet to show how the paradigms are actually reflected in ISD is complicated. The paradigms are largely implicit and deeply rooted in the web of common-sense beliefs and background knowledge [go] which serve as implicit “theories of action” [4]. A simplifying vehicle was sought to help develop and articulate the paradigms, in particular, the types of behaviors and attitudes that follow from them. Such a vehicle was found in the notion of “generic stories” or, more precisely, generalized story types (genres). Each story type consists of typical classes of behavior that follow from the assumptions of a particular paradigm. For example, different types of behavior in requirements determination arise depending on whether one believes in an objective organizational reality or not. These types of behavior were identified and grouped into story types. Each of these was derived by interpreting pools of systems development literature that share the assumptions of a particular paradigm. These pools have been identified by analyzing the specific core assumptions and beliefs that are revealed in the concepts and examples they employ. This allows us to explicitly compare sets of assumptions that typically have not been widely articulated or systematically compared. ‘The view that these four paradigms capture the whole of sociological and organizational research is not without its critics. Numerous writers have criticized the Burrell and Morgan framework for being oversimplified [cf. 21, 46). For example, many are unhappy with the way functionalism is portrayed. e.g., that it denies conflict and that functionalists always adopt positivism. Coser’s [23] treatment of functionalism does take into account conflict; and certain functionalists did not necessarily adopt positivism (cf. Talcott Parsons]. Others argue that the dichotomies projected by Burrell and Morgan are artificd. Although there iwe other frameworks for categorizing social science research [37, 911, none is xs representative of the IS development domain. We see the framework proposed by Burrell and Morgan--with some modification-as best depicting the different classes of systems development approaches, relatively speaking. This is not meant, however, to rule out the need to explore other alternatives. After each story type has been articulated in some detail, we provide a theoretical interpretation and discuss some of its potential consequences. (For stylistic reasons, we shall now drop the qualifier type and simply speak of story. The theoretic interpretation will take the form of discussing the (1) key actors of the storythe “who” part of the story; (2) narrative-the “what” of the story, what are the key features and activities; (3) plot-the “why” of the story, why did the action of the story take place the way it did; and [4) assumptions-the fundamental beliefs held by the actors of the story, discussed in terms of epistemologi.cal and ontological assumptions. The four stories are neither equally well-developed nor known. The same is true of their consequences. For the first story, there is a large experiential base from which to draw. It is the orthodox approach to systems development and has been used to develop information systems for decades. Its consequences, therefore, are reasonably clear cut. The other three stories are more recent and have not been widely applied. Thus practical knowledge about them is sparse and their consequences largely conjectural. They are presented in the rough chronological order in which they emerged. The four paradigms, as depicted through the stories, are not as clear cut nor as animated as they are made out to seem. There is overlap and their differences are overstated for the purpose of effect. They are, in fact, archetypes-highly simplified but powerful conceptions of an ideal or character type [80]. ‘These ideal types do not exist as real entities; rather their properties which are exhibited (to a greater or lesser degree) in existing entities give the archetype meaning. The archetypes reflected in the stories play #an important role in conveying the essential differences that exist in alternative conceptions of, and approaches to, systems development. 1202 Communications of the ACM October 1989 V&me 32 Number 10 Articles
STORY I: THE ANALYST AS SYSTEMS EXPERT Interpretation Systems Development as Instrumental Reasoning This story has progressed considerably over the years [24, 87, 88, 941, and has been the source of many successful systems. The story suggests that all information systems are designed to contribute to specific ends. The role of management is that of the leadership group in the organization that knows or develops the ends which are then translated and specified in terms of systems objectives. The usual assumption is that the specification is as objective as possible. The resolution of polemical issues associated with objectives is seen as the prerogative of management and not normally within the domain of the systems developer. As a result, the ends can be viewed as being articulated, shared, and objective. Of course, there are many kinds of conflicts with which the system developer does deal, but the tools and methods used typically concern only the choice of means to prespecified ends, not the substance of the ultimate ends of a system. Key Actors: Management, the system developer and users. Managers are responsible for providing the system objectives. The systems developer is the expert who takes the objectives and turns them into a constructed product, the system. Management dictates the ends; the developers use specific means to achieve the ends. Users operate or interact with the system to achieve organizational objectives. The primary role of the analyst is to be the expert in technology, tools and methods of system design, and project management. Their application helps to make systems development more formal and rational, placing less reliance on human intuition, judgment, and politics. Politics is seen irrational as it interferes with maximal efficiency or effectiveness. As noted by DeMarco, [27, p. 131 “Political problems aren’t going to go away and they won’t be ‘solved.’ The most we can hope for is to limit the effect of disruption due to politics. Structured analysis approaches this objective by making analysis procedures more formal.”
Nnrrutive: Information systems are developed to support rational organizational operation and effective and efficient project management. The effectiveness and efficiency of IS can be tested by objective means tests which are similar to the empirical tests used in engineering. Requirements specification builds on the notion of a manifest and rational organizational reality. Information systems development proceeds through the application of “naive realism”-the notion that the validity of system specifications, data models, decision models, and system output can be established by checking if they correspond to reality. Reality consists of objects, properties, and processes that are directly observable.
PIot: The ideal of profit maximization. As an organization’s primary goal is to maximize its shareholders’ wealth, the developed information systems must contribute to its profitability. Management is the most appropriate group to decide how profitability is to be attained and thus, is empowered to specify what the system objectives should be. In this story there is one reality that is measurable and essentially the same for everyone. Otherwise it would not be possible to have what McMenamin and Palmer [77] call the “true requirements of the system.” The role of the developer is to design systems that model this reality [36] in a way that will turn the system into a useful tool for management to achieve their ends [7]. In principle, these ends coincide with organizational goals. Through the concept of economic requirements, economic reality becomes measurable, taking on a naturelike, given quality. The economic reality (translated into quantitative, financial goals, and systems performance characteristics) allows system objectives to be derived in an objective, verifiable, and rational way. Systems design becomes primarily a technical process6
Assumptions: The epistemology is that of positivism in that the developer gains knowledge about the organization by searching for measurable cause-effect relationships. The ontology is that of realism since an empirical organizational reality that is independent of its perceiver or observer is believed to exist. The paradigm is that of functionalism, which is defined by Burrell and Morgan as an overall approach which: “seeks to provide essentially rational explanations of social affairs”
[18, p. 261.
Analysis and Discussion The developer-as-systems-expert story, through its emphasis on various forms of modeling, focuses on grasping the underlying order of the domains in which organizational actors operate. In the process, it assumes that there are general laws or regular patterns that help to explain and predict reality. It seeks to capture these by identifying key organizational relationships and aspects in IS that help the actors to orient themselves and achieve their objectives. This simplifies a complex reality, making organizational life more rational. Rationality, in this case, relates to choosing the best means for achieving given ends (i.e., maximize efficiency and effectiveness). The systems development approach suggested by this story attempts to follow the scientific ‘This is in part due to the reification of economic requirements which hides the human authorship of systems objectives, presenting them more as technical objectives. Such a view has a rich historical backing. The belief that the economic laws are not of human authorship is very clearly portrayed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations who writes of an “invisible hand” that directs management de&i& to realize the economic interests of individual companies for the common good. From a social and economic policy perspective. it is therefore unwise to question the legitimacy of management in deciding system objectives. This could only reduce the general welfare by leading to suboptimal allocation of economic resources. Furthermore this stow adouts manv features of the “bureaucraw ideal tvoe” of Weher 1971 such . . _ ~1 . 1 as instrumental rationality, formalization, and depersonalization. October 1989 Volume 32 Number 10 Communications of the ACM 1203 Articles method. This aids its clarity and comprehensibility, and makes it widely acceptable to the community at large. Moreover, it helps operationalize fuzzy issues and directs efforts to finding productive technical solutions. The features of this story support a number of apparently appealing beliefs. First, it allows the developer to play a neutral and objective role during systems development which helps in clarifying the implications of alternative system design options. Second, many would claim it makes the issues of power, conflicting interests, and system goals appear to be largely outside the domain of the systems developer. Moreover, a large number of systems have been successfully completed by foll.owing the tenets of this story. However, as Bostrom and Heinen [14] have pointed out, the systems designer’s assumptions associated with this story can lead to a number of conditions that contribute to system failure. The story, therefore, has a number of potential dysfunctional consequences. For one, the primary emphasis is on investigating means rather than discussing ends. There is an implicit assumption that the ends are agreed. But in reality, ends are controversial and the subject of considerable disagreement and debate. By assuming the ends and thus sys,tem objectives are agreed, legitimation can become little more than a hollow force or thinly concealed use of power. The prespecified ends meet the needs of certain system stakeholders at the expense of others. There are also more fundamental problems with legitimacy. It is now widely doubted that economic laws govern social affairs in a similar way as natural laws govern the physical universe. Instead, it is believed that economic affairs are governed by social conventions and the decisions of a powerful socio-political elite. There are no rational, deterministic laws that emerge from an objective reality. A reaction to the erosion of these legitimating beliefs is end user resistance to change. To overcome resistance to change, systems developers have relied on a series of approaches, games, and strategies. These have taken the form of planned change models (e.g., the Lewin-Schein and Kolb-Frohman models), implementation strategies [2, 631, counterimplementation and counter-counterimplementation strategies [6, 491, and the like. These approaches, however, simply perpetuate the notion that systems development and implementation is a type of game. They continue to concentrate on means not ends. The assumption that the system objectives are legitimate and agreed remains. Failure to focus on the legitimation of the ends has led to an inappropriate conception about why users resist change. The adoption of functionalism as the preferred paradigm for organizational knowledge acquisition also poses problems. As Burrell and Morgan [18] point out, the assumptions intrinsic to functionalism have proved to be at odds with much of recent social science thinkin,g. Functionalism’s two essential assumptions. (1) that there exists an objective empirical reality and positivistic: methods are the best way to make sense of it, and (2) that the nature of the social world is best conceived in terms of an integrated order rather than conflict, are widely felt to be problematic. Many now argue that functionalism has not been a particularly successful paradigm for understanding organizational and societal life, as the subject of study-people-does not lend itself to study through positivistic means (cf. [12, 32, 43, 53, 62, 951). People have free will and observation is not neutral. This latter point reflects the fact .that people as objects of study always “observe back.” Tlhey can perceive the observer’s plan of study and counteract it. Note, however, that the more recent forms of functionalism (cf. [l, 311) have recognized these p:roblems and have proposed ways to overcome them. In some of the more advanced thinking in ISD, there is an awareness of the changing nature of organizational reality facing the developer. It is explicitly recognized that at any point in time a system can, at best, approximate the changing requirements emerging from the constantly shifting trends and policies of organizational life which can never fully be known to developers.7 Such insight transcends the mental “cage” of functionalist tenets in ISD and insofar as practitioners realize the consequences, they will see value in the following stories.
STORY II: THE ANALYST AS FACILITATOR Systems Development as Sense Making The second story has emerged relatively recently (cf. [5, 9, 13, 20, 54, 731). It is partly a reaction to the shortcomings of the first and in many ways its opposite. It recognizes that knowledge about human means and ends is not easily obtained because reality is exceedingly complex and elusive. There is no single reality, only different perceptions about it. Business does not deal with an objective economic reality, but one that evolves through changing traditions-social laws, conventions, cultural norms, and attitudes. Trying to discern economic laws is one way in which people try to make sense of confusing experiences by imposing a possible order. No one has a privileged source of knowledge, all see different parts. Furthermore, the role of people in shaping reality is very unclear. What they subjectively experience as a willful choice of action may simply be a reaction induced by enculturated habits or by circumstances. Management, too, tries to make sense of the confusion and instill others with a commitment to the organizational mission that is constantly evolving. IS are part of the continually changing social environment and somehow should help to identify which ends are desir- ’ In particular. consider the case when users and management are identical, such as in executive support systems. In such cases, the goals of systems development cannot be treated as if they were predetermined by higher authoritv. Rather. the coals are derived from an analvsis of the shifting forces f&n the envir&nent that affect the continueh vzability of the &ganization. This is the responsibility of senior management. On the other hand, in the classical data processing era, it was easy to set the gc& for systems development because the systems dealt with well-understood and structured tasks. 1204 Communications of the ACM October 1989 Volume 32 Number 10 Articles able and feasible. The distinction between ends and means is fluid and reversible. System objectives emerge as part of the organizational construction of reality, the “sense-making process” [8]. The role of the system developer is to interact with management to find out what type of system makes sense, but there is no objective criterion that distinguishes between good and bad systems. It all depends on what the parties come to believe to be true. The developer should work from within the users’ perspective and help them to find their preferred views. He or she should ease the transition from one viewpoint to another, thereby alleviating possible resistance to change. Ideally the developer-by virtue of prior experiences, wisdom or special insights-is able to reduce the pains of change. But, the purpose and direction of change is hidden from him or her just as much as it is from everyone else. The developer’s expertise is similar to that of the midwife who can ease the process of birth and make sure that the baby emerges safe and sound, but has no part in designing its genetic characteristics. Any system that meets with the approval of the affected parties is legitimate. To achieve consensus or acceptance, continuous interaction among all parties is critical. Through interaction, objectives emerge and become legitimized through continuous modification. Systems cannot be designed in the usual sense, but emerge through social interaction. The mechanism of prototyping or evolutionary learning from interaction with partial implementations is the way technology becomes embedded into the social perception and sense-making process.
Interpretation
Key Actors: Users and the systems developer. Users are the organizational agents who interpret and make sense of their surroundings. The systems developer is the change agent who helps users make sense of the new system and its environment.
Nurrafive: Information systems development creates new meaning. The effectiveness of the information system rests on its ability to help users better understand the currently accepted conventions and meanings. Information systems development proceeds through the application of symbolic interactionism, which suggests that organizational actors interpret system objectives and specifications and act according to the meaning their interpretation provides for them. Mead [78, p. 781 captures the essence of symbolic interactionism when he writes “Language does not simply symbolize a situation or object which is already there in advance; it makes possible the existence or appearance of that situation or object, for it is part of the mechanism whereby that situation or object is created.”
Plot: None manifest. As the social environment is under continuous evolution, no particular rational explanations can be provided to ‘explain’ organizational reality.
Assumptions: The epistemology is that of anti-positivism reflecting the belief that the search for causal, empirical explanations for social phenomena is misguided and should be replaced by sense-making. The ontology is that of nominalism in that reality is not a given, immutable “out there,” but is socially constructed. It is the product of the human mind. Social relativism is the paradigm adopted for understanding social phenomena and is primarily involved in explaining the social world from the viewpoint of the organizational agents who directly take part in the social process of reality construction.
