Collaborative techniques in systems development

Inf 364 Essay Collaborative techniques in systems development Participating design and Joint Application Development in the light of complexity Eli Hustad Agder University College March 2003 Copyright

Content ABSTRACT... 3 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 2. METHODOLOGIES APPROACHES USING COLLABORATIVE TECHNIQUES... 4 3. COLLABORATIVE TECHNIQUES IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT... 5 3.1 PARTICIPATING DESIGN... 6 3.2 JOINT APPLICATION DESIGN... 7 3.2.1 Comparison Between PD and JAD... 8 4. COMPLEXITY IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT... 9 4.1 A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM... 10 5. DEALING WITH COMPLEXITY... 11 5.1 CHALLENGES IN COLLABORATION... 11 5.1.1 Building collaborative groups... 12 REFERENCES... 12 2

ABSTRACT This paper concerns collaborative techniques in systems development in the light of complexity issues. Participating design and Joint Application Development are collaborative techniques which constitute important tools applied in several systems development methodologies of today. Both approaches are based on user involvement and user participation in the systems development process. Complexity is related to technical organisational, social, cultural and political aspects during the design process, and to deal with these complexities are important to get a successful implementation of the information system. Applying collaborative techniques introduces challenges which need to be considered to manage to deal with complexity in a proper way. 1. INTRODUCTION The main topic in this paper is discussion, analysing and comparing participating design (PD) developed in the Scandinavian tradition, and Joint Application Development (JAD) which was developed in the context of North-America. Both approaches constitute important principles for collaborative techniques which are applied in several systems development methodologies. Examples of methodologies which are using collaborative techniques are among others the Collective resource approach based on the Scandinavian tradition, the evolutionary approach of Highsmith (2000) Adaptive Software development, Mathiassen s (1998) Reflective systems development approach and Checkland s (1981) Soft System Methodology (SSM). Both PD and JAD are well known collaborative approaches in the systems development process, and the approaches focus on increased user involvement and user participation. Both of them emphasise integration between users and designers where dynamic group techniques are deployed to increase development of creative ideas, engagement and commitment to the new or improved system which should be implemented. Complexities in systems development are also an important part of the paper, and the concept of complexity towards systems development is discussed and outlined in terms of organisational, technical, social, cultural aspects. One important aim of the paper is to illustrate how application of collaborative techniques can deal with complexities in the systems development process, and what challenges they introduce concerning the complexities of building successful collaborating groups. The Adaptive Software development approach (Highsmith, 2000) is applying complex adaptive systems theory to support the software development process, and is relevant in the discussion of this paper due to dealing with complexities. The further structure of the paper is as follows: The first part discusses some examples of relevant methodological approaches which are all using collaborative techniques in the systems development process. Next chapter discuss PD and JAD-sessions and do a comparison and evaluation of these techniques. Then the concept of complexity related to systems development is outlined. In the final section of the paper there is an overall discussion and reflection on how these collaborative techniques can make contributions in 3

dealing with complexity in the organisation and the systems in use. Highsmith (2000) adaptive ideas are used in this argumentation. 2. METHODOLOGIES APPROACHES USING COLLABORATIVE TECHNIQUES Adaptive Software development is methodological approach applying complex adaptive systems theory to support the software development process. In an adaptive culture change and uncertainty are assumed to be the natural state (Highsmith, 2000). This approach to development of information systems are introducing frameworks to guide the iterative process of managing change and institute collaboration through interaction of people on interpersonal, cultural and structural levels. The techniques used during the systems development process towards the end-product will often change dependent of emergence of innovative happenings and ideas during the project period. But application of collaborative techniques like JAD, workshops and customer focus groups are arranged on a regular basis. Highsmith (2000) illustrates in a very sophisticated way the organisational complexity in systems development applying the science of complex adaptive systems theory. Through five important goals, he tries to define the essence of building software in a world where high speed, change and uncertainty are key characteristics, which intensify complexity. He is offering an alternative to the belief that optimisation is the only solution for increasingly complex problems. Optimising cultures believe they are in control, that they can impose order on uncertainty around them. Highsmith (2000) means that imposed order is the product of rigorous engineering discipline and deterministic, cause-and-effect driven processes. The alternative idea is viewing organisations as complex adaptive systems where an adaptive culture or mindset is included. An adaptive approach acknowledges an uncertain and complex world where the management is a part of a recognised and accepted strategy. Highsmith s view can be seen as contradiction to the Capability Maturity Model of Software (CMM). In CMM an optimising culture is predominant focusing on enhancement and gaining control in developing and maintaining software, and how to improve and evolve towards a culture of software and management excellence and increased maturity (Paulk et al., 2000). An optimising culture emphasises that increased rigor (process improvement) and stabilisation are the end goal. Optimising culture seem to see world as black or white, with a little room for grey, and if it is not rigours, it must be chaotic or immature (Highsmith, 2000). The adaptive culture on the other hand recognises grey, which is the turbulent area between order and chaos; the edge of chaos, the area where innovative ideas emerge. The goal of rigor in the adaptive approach is to maintain balance on this edge just enough to keep away from chaos, which means just enough rigor, but no more. Cockburn (2002) is concerned with agility in systems development, which builds on ideas from Adaptive software development. One description of agility is from Goldman et al. (1995): Agility is dynamic, context-specific, aggressively change-embracing, and growth-oriented. It is not about improving efficiency, cutting costs, or battening down the business hatches to ride out fearsome competitive storms... 4

It is two core ideas in agile software development: 1) Different projects need different processes or methodologies. 2) Focusing on skills, communication, and community allows the project to be more effective and more agile than focusing on processes. This ideas are related to skill-based user participation in the Scandinavian approach (Ehn, 1993). Mathiassen s (1998) Reflective systems development has many similarities with Highsmith s (2000) ideas to approach systems development. Mathiassen emphasises the role of the local organisational environment in development of information systems. He is also using Checkland s (1981) ideas about an intellectual framework used in relation to specific application areas. This intellectual framework is dealing with ontological assumptions like how the physical and social world are operating, which is far as important as the technical part of the systems development process. Soft system methodology is using a collaboration technique called rich picture which give and graphical overview of the organisational context illustrating different interests, goals and can identify conflicts on an early stage. Presentation of a rich picture could be part of a JAD-session. The collective resource approach (Ehn, 1993) to systems development recognises the importance of different perspective, interests, conflicts, and participation among people involved in the design process, managers and end-users at different levels of the organisation. The approach aims to increase the collective understanding of the design process. This approach is built on the Scandinavian culture where autonomy and independency are strongly established. The Scandinavian business tradition is based on less hierarchical organisational structure, increased autonomy and empowerment among the employees, democratic processes and close cooperation between the management and the union. This approach is using PD as the main collaborative technique. These methodological approaches share many main principles where increased flexibility and less prescription and context sensitivity in systems development are dominating. Regular reflective actions during the systems development process is emphasised, which is carried through by applying workshops, JAD-sessions and user participation. The latter is a continuously collaboration technique during the whole systems development process represented mainly in the collective resource approach. 3. COLLABORATIVE TECHNIQUES IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT Participating design and Joint Application development are approaches to systems development which emphasises the importance of user involvement and user participation (Carmel et al., 1993). The approaches have been developed in Scandinavia and North America respectively. Both of them focus on the interaction between users and system designers and how collaboration could improve the systems development process and product. In this chapter the collaborative techniques participating design, the session phase of Joint Application Development are outlined, compared, evaluated and reflected. One interesting discussion is if combinations of these techniques are suitable in systems development, and what challenges exist for successful application of these collaborative techniques? How are 5

the collaborative groups being built when the participants have different ideas, goals and interests and how to deal with conflicts during the process? 3.1 PARTICIPATING DESIGN In the Scandinavia the tradition of systems development have been concerned with participating and skill in the design and use of computer-based systems. Traditionally democratic values like technical and economic factors have been the focus in the design process. Both the socio-technical approach (e.g. Mumford, 2000; 1983; 1979; Orlikowski and Gash, 1994) and the collective resource approach developed in Scandinavia (Bjerknes and Bratteteig, 1987) have challenged this design tradition. Kristen Nygaard and the Norwegian Metal Workers Union were starting the pioneering work regarding collaboration between researchers and trade unions. This kind of political, interdisciplinary, and action-oriented research on resources and control in the design processes and use has contributed to a distinctively Scandinavian approach to systems design, called the collective resource approach which is building on principles of participating design (Ehn, 1993). The Scandinavian approach is identified as a work-oriented design, and participatory design raises questions about democracy, power, and control at the work place. This approach includes action research and socio-technical aspects. The socio-technical view emphasises interaction between people, organisations, institutions, and a range of technologies in rather intricate heterogeneous arrangements in which is social and what is technical cannot be readily isolated in practice (Lamb et al., 2000). However, it may appear paradoxical that some Scandinavian researchers and trade unions developed the work-oriented approach in opposition to the socio-technical view rather than within its tradition. The reason was that practical use of the socio-technical approach was not sufficient in the context of the democratisation of the work, but where more useful in theoretical analysis of the work organisation, job requirements and production technology. The alternative was the collective resource approach which emphasises the democratising of design and use of computer-based systems in the workplace building on the Scandinavian situation in terms of historical, social and political aspects where the trade unions are playing a major role. Instead of unions supporting the researchers, the researchers should support them, and the local unions should choose the topics for studying at the workplace (Ehn, 1993). The collective resource approach to systems development recognises the importance of different perspective, interests, conflicts, and participation among people involved in the design process, managers and end-users at different levels of the organisation. The approach aims to increase the collective understanding of the design process. The participating design has been expanding rapidly, in terms of number of practices, extent of theoretical development, numbers of practitioners, and geographical and institutional diversity of practice. Outside Scandinavia, researchers and practitioners use PD to pursue a locally adapted form of democratic decision-making, and to increase effectiveness in knowledge acquisitions and product quality (Damian, et al., 1999). The advantages of using PD is that users from different organisational groups are involved and provide a forum in which the participants can better understand boundaries and explore 6

ways to overcome them. It is also increasing the workers influence on technical change, and participating in the design process also prepares people for changes. PD can be used as a tool to open up conflicts and allow negotiation throughout the whole design process (Harris and Taylor, 1996). In the Scandinavian approach users participate in many phases of the systems development, as co-designers. In that way the knowledge upon the systems which are built, is improved, and people are developing realistic expectations to the system and the resistance to change are reduced. The democracy at the workplace is increased by giving members of the organisation the right to participate in the decision which will affect their work situation (Bjerknes and Bratteteig, 1995). The notion of user participation is more related to the Scandinavian approach where users in systems development act as co-designers during participating and the systems development are looked upon as an organisational, technical and human change process. This is in some extent different from the concept of participatory design which is more related to the USA and their software production and the discipline of Human Computer Interaction. In the paper these notions are mixed, but the reader should have the Scandinavian approach in mind. PD build upon two main principles; 1) that workers and customers are intelligent, creative, and productive contributors to the organisations if they are empowered to express their insights, apply their expertise, exercise that their decision are making capabilities, and given responsibility for the impact of their actions. 2) PD emphasises that good ideas are as likely to come from bottom-up as from top down of the organisation (Miller, 1993). Examples of techniques used in PD are visualising of the current workplace through immersions of designers and facilitators in the target workplace (hands-on apprenticeship), games in terms of structured activities and interactions. Further, visualising the possible work-place through future workshops metaphors based on design site visits, storyboard, video productions, brainstorming, improvisational theatre and role-playing, and various types of graphic illustration (Carmel et al., 1993). Another important technique is prototyping which is also viewed as an approach based on evolutionary view of software development and having an impact on the development process as a whole. It includes presentation and evaluation of early working versions (prototypes) of the future application system and experimenting with them (Buddhe, et al., 1991). Participating design in itself is a complex process involving technology and multiple levels of the organisation. It has been acknowledged that it is difficult to apply a standard solution or some best practices appropriate in PD because choice of practice will be highly dependent of the specific organisational context. 3.2 JOINT APPLICATION DESIGN Joint Application Development (JAD) focus on the concept of collaboration; and JAD sessions are collaborative tools that produce a variety of software development deliverables. Originally it was developed by IBM in 1977 as an innovative way of developing installation plans for use by systems designers and users. In recent years it has become a joint venture among any people who need to make decisions affecting multiple areas of an organisation. A JAD-session has become a structured workshop where people come together to plan project, design systems, or make business decisions. Highsmith (2000) describe a JAD session as 7

follows: a facilitated workshop that brings together cross-functional groups to build collaborative relationships capable of producing high-quality deliverables during the life of a project A JAD-session is a facilitated session and can be characterised as feed-forward meetings, intended to help participants to extract information, solve problems, plan further activities and make decisions. For high-speed projects, JAD-sessions are important for early mission-setting and project-planning efforts, and for outlining the system requirements. In that way divergent meanings from different participants can be revealed and consensus on specific items can be reached on an early stage of the project. To get a successful session, it is important that objective and the agenda are related, which enables the participants to prepare for the session. One objective could be to explore and define the project s mission. Relationship-building is important in the session where everyone s individual mental models should be uncovered, and a common philosophy on important issues should be developed. The four key roles in a JAD-session are project manager, participants, facilitator and a reporter. While each role has certain characteristics and responsibilities, some overlap can occur. In general, the facilitator s role is to plan the session (in conjunction with the project leader), to motivate for interactions during the meeting, and to assist in preparation of documentations, and to follow up after the session. The facilitators should only be responsible for the group process, which in many cases can be challenging, but in some cases a disadvantage since many facilitators have a lot of content knowledge and their neutral status could eliminate an important source of ideas. The participants are responsible for the contents of the agree-upon deliverable. They have been brought together because of their experiences and knowledge about the problem area. Participants need to have sufficient decision-making authority towards the contents of the specific deliverable from the particular session. All participants should be equal, and the facilitators should allow all views and ideas are illuminated and discussed. When conflicts occur, the facilitator should shadow the conflicting personalities, focus on facts and issues. The facilitator should limit the dominant participants influence in the meeting and encourage the sky users. Technical expressions should be used with care, and the facilitator should ensure that everyone understands the language and concepts used. The selection of participants is critical to success, and so is management commitment of the JAD session. Roles and role swapping within the team could enhance collaboration and give better results based on evaluations from different persons with dissimilar viewpoints. 3.2.1 COMPARISON BETWEEN PD AND JAD Both of these approaches focus on facilitated interactions between users and designers, and involve the users in workshops that encourage creativity and emergence of new ideas and thoughts. It is common to use simple, low level documentation and visualising methods in the workshops in order to improve the communication and collaboration with the user. 8

However, due to their different socio-political contexts, there are several contrasts between these collaborative tools. The interest in JAD has been related to industry, and JAD benefits are reported in terms of increasing productivity and cost reductions. It is quantitative related to economic optima, performance indices and time saving. PD is based on democracy, mutual learning, mutual education and resolving conflicts. In contrast to JAD, the benefits of PD are reported in terms of qualitative gains such as increasing the consciousness by workers regarding how social implication of information technology influences on the organisation. JAD is based on group dynamic issues in terms of increasing creativity through brainstorming, and software engineering traditions. PD is based on labour relations and group learning through software and organisational prototyping. The goals of these approaches are also different; JAD focus on an improved system which is gained by identifying the users needs and then set up a system or process that will provide it. JAD is one way of achieving the goal by involving the users. The goal of PD is an improved workplace which points out that it is not enough to improve an information system or develop a new system, the empowerment of he workers as co-designers influencing the future of their own workplace in this process are far as important. The approaches have different perspectives on users where PD does not include the managers and the focus is on lower-level, operational users excluding the management form the user participating process. PD practitioners presume that operational users are the most qualified authorities on improving their workplaces. In JAD both managers and workers are considered as users, and user selection is based on competence criteria. 4. COMPLEXITY IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT This chapter outlines different aspects of complexities which must be considered in the systems development process. An information system could be defined as a computer-supported system which provides a set of people (users) with information on specified topics of interest in a certain organisational context. According to this interpretation, one can distinguish between three major aspects in the modelling of information systems; organisational context and users, topics of interests of the users, and computers (Iivari and Hirschheim, 1996). These three aspects will all introduce different kinds of complexity in systems development on the technical as well as the organisational level. Depending of how the information systems is viewed by the users; as a technical artefact or tool, which is a technical view, or as an artefact which entails inherent social and organisational aspects, which represents a social view, or at as an intermediate position, which is the socio-technical view. If all these views are represented among the users in the organisation, it will introduce a complexity in terms of different interest and goals of the system. Complexity is related to different levels and aspects in the systems development process in terms of organisational complexity, software or information system s complexity, complexity in the business processes, organisational routines and practices, and further to political, technical economical and cultural aspects and power relations between people in the organisation. 9

In the earlier phases of systems development the purpose of using IT was to increase the productivity and efficiency mainly by automation of existing working routines and manual procedures. User practices were typical structured and routine-related and computers played a dominant role in shaping them. The main trend was localised exploitation of IT, deploying isolated systems. To day computer systems are used to support play, communication, work, and collaboration in a variety of human activities, and systems development is just one of them. Globalisation of technologies and economics is bringing radical changes in the way of developing software and in the practical use of the system products and applications which also increase the complexities in terms of political, technological, social and cultural aspects. Developing of new organisational forms have introduced different ways of developing software; virtual teams are and increasing trend in systems development which introduces new challenges and complexities in terms of coordination of the teams, the time difference virtual communication aspects and applying different collaboration tools like groupware. Systems development in multinational organisations increases the complexity because of different cultural context. Systems developers in different countries may use different models and design techniques in systems development, and implementing systems in developing countries which are constructed in the Western world, is a complex process because of the differences in conceptual models, knowledge sharing, culture, language and the user expectations in different contexts. These aspects will influence and introduce new risks in systems development due to high modernity and globalisation issues (Giddens, 2002). To achieve successful implementation of information systems in third world contexts far from where the software was developed is difficult and challenging. Differences in the organisational cultural context must not be undervalued (Walsham, 2001). Dynamic environments increase the speed of change which also increases the pressure for continuous upgrading of the technology. New technologies introduce more complexity and risks in decision processes and enhance the need for risk management. Different interests and interest groups in the organisation could increase the conflict level because of different goals and expectations to the system. Anxiety towards the new system in terms of how it will change the work practices and routines, fear for possible discharges and shift in the power-relations, are social complexities which could decrease the commitment to the system and increase the resistance. 4.1 A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)-system can be characterised as a large scale information system supporting different user-groups horizontally in an organisation. An ERP-system is a typical example of modern IT-based control technologies which is often implemented as a shared installation in a global organisation. This means a common system implemented in all of the locations in the organisation across geographical boundaries. The complexity will be represented in business processes which should be integrated functionally throughout the organisation. Further to social and cultural aspects in terms of local interests and cultural differences in each local unit. The use of the system is also complex because the system often requires radical changes in the working routines for the employees in terms of business process reengineering (BPR) and a demanding implementation phase. Some of the ERP- 10

systems have been characterised as less user friendly because of their complex user interfaces and steep learning curves. 5. DEALING WITH COMPLEXITY This chapter will discuss how collaborative techniques like PD and JAD can deal with complexity in systems development and contribute to improvements of the systems development process and the software product for the organisation as a whole and meat the expectations of the users on different levels. Research of information systems in general has changed its scope and picture from issues being pure technological based towards more comprehensive and complex aspects where organisational and managerial topics are included, which is also the case for systems development. It has become usual and necessary to see technology and organisation as interacting components rather than two separate parts. This socio-technical view which is an important part of the PD philosophy, to some extent favours PD collaborative technique compared to JAD sessions in dealing with complexities. PD focuses more on an improved workplace which means that organisational issues like different interests and goals with the new system are considered. Also the continuously practice of PD which means participating in the whole systems development process (all phases) is a better solution for coping with complexity. JAD-sessions do not ensure continuous user involvement in the same way as PD; the numbers of sessions are often limited during the systems development process. However, both of these collaborative techniques contribute to dealing of the complexity, but PD more on the organisational level. The users deal with the technical complexity, they get to know the technical details of the system at an early stage, and have the possibilities of changing the functionalities to improve the alignment between the system and the business processes. The users deal with organisational complexity (mainly PD) because through participating in the design process the commitment and ownership towards the system increase and the chance for a successful implementation is improving. This could also decrease the resistance of the system. The communication could be improved when relation between users and designers are built during collaboration. Collaborative techniques are very important to deal with complexity in global contexts where cultural and social differences are challenging issues. Especially will these techniques be helpful in implementation processes of information systems which have been developed in a country far away from where the system is implemented. To deal with the complexity, changing and adapting the system to the local context should be done through collaboration with the users in that particular context. 5.1 CHALLENGES IN COLLABORATION Collaboration is the main focus in the model of management in the adaptive software development approach (Highsmith, 2000). The leadership is not based on command-control which is insufficient to manage complex ecosystems which is the metaphor the author is using to illustrate the degree of complexities in organisations. When organisations are viewed as machines, the management is more concerned with the defining what the machines should produce. When organisations are viewed as complex living organisms, the main focus from the management in systems development is on participation and building relationships to deal 11

with the complexity. Collaboration is the basis for adaptive management through creation of an environment which could meet the challenge of meeting extreme projects. This reflects much of the principles in the user participation where users are co-designers, and the management should support and collaborate more in the background. Also in JADsession the users involvement are in focus, and their competences could make the business practices more clearly for the designers. However, commitment from the managers in arrangement of JAD-sessions is important. 5.1.1 BUILDING COLLABORATIVE GROUPS Collaborative techniques should improve communication and build relations between the users and the designers. Communication lines, hierarchical structures represent a complexity in the systems development process. The collaboration techniques are supposed to deal with that complexity, but building collaborative groups could represent a barrier. To improve the collaboration in a systems development team where both users and designers are represented, some core values are important. These are mutual trust, mutual respect, mutual participation, and mutual commitment. Mutual trust involves honesty, safety and dependability. Trust levels are built up by showing respect towards the group members. Mutual respect means to value others for their unique contribution, even if it is outside their own sphere of expertise. Mutual participation does not mean equal participation, but participation related each person s capacity or experience. All team members should try to understand what others are trying to convey. Mutual commitment means that the members of the collaborating group should have both individual and a collective commitment to achieving the purpose and the goals of the project. Despite many advantages, collaboration can create solutions that reflect so many opinions that the final results are insufficient. It can slow projects through endless meetings, discussion, and involvement of everyone in everything. This is a price which the democratic approach of user participating sometimes must deal with. Too much involvement from too many users could make the systems development process more complicated. To find the right balance for the degree of empowerment from the users, and decide how to handle the decision-processes, is important to deal with, and represents a complexity on its own. REFERENCES Bjerknes, G., and Bratteteig, T. (1995). User Participation and Democracy. A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 7, pp. 46-63. Bjerknes, G., and Bratteteig, T. (1987). Florence in Wonderland systems development with nurses. Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian challenge. Aldershot, UK. Buddhe, et al. (1991). Prototyping An Approach to Evolutionary Systems development. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 12

Carmel, E., Whitaker, R.D., and George, J.F. (1993). Participating design and Joint Application Design: A transatlantic Comparison. Communication of the ACM, vol. 36, pp. 40-48. Checkland P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley, England. Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile Software Development. Pearson Education, Inc, Boston, 278 p. Damian, A., Hong, D., Li, H., and Pan, D. (1999). Joint Application Development and Participatory Design. [Online] Available: http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng/613/f97/grp1/report.html [2003, 15. may]. Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill. Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. Participatory Design: Principles and Practice. Laurence Erlbaum, US, pp. 41-77. Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway World: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. Profile Books, Ltd, London, 104 p. Goldman, S., Nagle, R., and Preiss, K. (1995). Agile Competitors and Virtual organisations. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Harris, G. B., and Taylor S. (1996). Participatory Design Using the Action Workflow Model. Proceedings of CSCW 96, Boston, MA. Highsmith J.A. (2000). Adaptive Software Development- A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems, Dorset House Publishing, New York, 358 p. Iivari, J., and Hirschheim, R. (1993). Analyzing Information Systems Development: A Comparison and Analysis of eight IS Development Approaches. Information Systems, vol. 21, pp. 551-575. Lamb, R., Sawyer, S. and Kling, R. (2000.) "A Social Informatics Perspective on Socio- Technical Networks," H. Michael Chung, H. M. (ed). Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, CA. Mathiassen, L. (1998). Reflective Systems Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 10, pp. Miller, E. S. (1993). From System Design to Democracy, Communications of ACM, vol. 36, pp. 38. Mumford, E. (2000). Socio-Technical Design: An Unfulfilled Promise or a Future Opportunity? Baskerville, R., Stage J., and DeGross, J. (Eds.), The Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology, Chapman-Hall, London, pp. 33-46. 13

Mumford, E. (1983). Participative systems design: Practice and theory. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, vol. 4, pp. 47-57 Mumford, E. & Weir, M. (1979) Computer systems in work design. Wiley, New York. Orlikowski, W.J. and Gash, D.C. (1994). Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 12, pp. 174-207. Paulk M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., and Weber, C.V. (2000). The Capability Maturity Model for software, Software Engineering Institute (SEI). Walsham, G. (2001). Making a World of Difference. IT in a Global Context, Wiley, England, 272 p. 14