ارزیابی رویکردهای اقتضایی به طراحی سیستم های اطلاعاتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|5051||2002||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5856 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Information Management, Volume 22, Issue 5, October 2002, Pages 343–356
The search for contingency approaches to information systems design (ISD) began in the early 1980s when it was recognised that there is no single best methodology for all ISD projects and when there existed heterogeneous methodologies to select from. Twenty years later, there is now in the IS field not one, but three contingency approaches: ‘contingency at the outset’, ‘contingency with a fixed pattern’, and ‘contingency along development dynamics’. While the variety of contingency approaches provides IS developers and users with richer insights and greater flexibility to tackle diverse, complex and uncertain ISD situations, to realise the promises and potential benefits of these approaches demands further research on at least three questions: the question of ‘which contingency approach’, the question of rigor, and the question of cultures.
The search for contingency approaches to information systems design (ISD) began when it was recognised that (1) there is no single best methodology for all ISD projects/situations and (2) there exists a variety of methodologies to select from. This paper suggests that the search has so far produced three kinds of contingency approaches, namely: contingency at the outset (choosing a single methodology or a fixed combination of methodologies for the whole lifecycle of an ISD project), contingency with a fixed pattern (selecting methodologies according to a conceived linear working sequence of human-technical issues in the ISD process) and contingency along development dynamics (employing various methods and tools as the dynamic complexity of ISD unfolds). The development of contingency approaches in such a historical order is not accidental but was informed by the failures (and successes) in ISD practice in the last twenty years, as well as by advances in other disciplines such as sociology, organisation studies, cognitive sciences, systems and management sciences (see, e.g., Burns & Stalker, 1961; Child, 1984; Flood & Jackson, 1991; Galbraith, 1973; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1981; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969; Perrow, 1973; Pugh & Hickson, 1976; Thompson, 1967). This paper is not particularly concerned with the wider debate since the 1970s on the contingency approach to organisational management in general (for an introduction to that significant debate see, e.g., McFarlan (1985), McFarlan (1995) and Donaldson 1985, 1995 (2001)); rather, it will mainly address the on-going search in the field of information systems for flexible, rigorous and workable design approaches. Further, the paper will not present the details of each contingency ISD approach (interested readers may consult related materials listed in the references). The major objective of the paper is to bring together and present to the IS community an overview of the variety of such approaches, to surface their assumptions, to analyse similarities and differences, and to suggest directions for further research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
As developers and users face the increasing uncertainty and complexity in ISD situations as well as the wide range of heterogeneous ISD methodologies, contingency approaches that assist in selecting, combining and applying appropriate methodologies have been insistently sought. Today, there has in the IS field developed not one, but a variety of contingency approaches, of which three are discussed in this paper: contingency at the outset, contingency with a fixed pattern, and contingency along development dynamics. The purpose of contingency approaches is to provide flexibility to understand and manage the complexity and uncertainty in technology, the marketplace, human relations and cognitive capabilities that shape ISD. However, the promise comes hand-in-hand with challenges. To tackle these challenges and to realise the potential benefits of contingency approaches, further research is urgently needed and can begin with three questions: the question of ‘which contingency approach’, the question of rigour, and the question of cultures.