clarke, r. j (2001) l951-05: 1 critical issues in information systems buss 951 lecture 5 design 2:...

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 1

Critical Issues in Information Systems

BUSS 951

Lecture 5Design 2: Social Practices

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 2

Notices (1)General

Make sure you have a copy of the BUSS951 Subject Outline

BUSS951 is supported by a website (available from Tomorrow), where you can find out the latest Notices and get Lecture Notes, Tutorial Sheets, Assignments etc

www.uow.edu.au/~rclarke/buss951/buss951.htm Pick up assignment 1 now! Note there has been a change in the Lecture

schedule we will move lectures 8->4 and 9->5

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 3

Agenda (1)

Organisational MetaphorsMachinesOrganisms

Specific Organisational TheoriesComplex OrganisationsNetwork OrganisationsPopulation Ecology Models

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 4

Readings Week 6

3.Randal, D.; Hughes, J. and D. Shapiro (1993) “Systems Development- The Fouth Dimension: Perspectives on the social organisation of work”

8. Button, G. and W. Sharrock (1994) “Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers”

9. Johnson, R. ed/ (1996)

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 5

Agenda (1)

the point of this lecture is demonstrate that choices in theory are not ever just technical choices but are also necessarily social choices

in the first part of the lecture we will look at information and revisiting Shannon & Weaver to discuss it political and social effects

as we will see these political and social effects are a result of individualism

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 6

Agenda (2)

last week we discussed aspects of Design Problems and Solutions- neither are as simple as is claimed

we continue this theme in the second half of the lecture by looking at how to make ‘almost useless’ objects- this tells us a great deal about the design process

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 7

Definitions of Information

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 8

InformationTwo Definitions

everyday sense of the term is qualitative- associated with meaning

in the theory of information (Shannon & Weaver), it is a technical term which describes only quantitative aspects of messages

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 9

InformationTwo Definitions

ie. meaning of information in everyday language is different to meaning in the technical sense

does a manager mean the same thing as an IS developer- I think not!

but both have in common a sense of novelty

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 10

Ordinary Meaning of Information

“communication of the knowledge or ‘news’ of some fact or occurrence” (OED)

‘news’ is central to its meaning, what is known already is not information

ie. has a semantic and pragmatic aspect

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 11

Ordinary Meaning of InformationSemantics

information is a semantic property of a message because only meaningful messages can be informative

Semantics is defined as the study of meaninga branch of linguisticsthe study of relationships between signs

and symbols and what they represent

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 12

Ordinary Meaning of InformationPragmatics

informativity depends on pragmatic factors of communication a sender who informs, and a reciever who notices

Pragmatics advocating behaviour that is dictated more by practicle consequences than by theory

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 13

Information Probabilistic Definition

mathematical theory of communication defines information as a statistical property of a message, irrespective of its meaning

attempts have been made but they have failed!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 14

InformationProbabilistic Definition

Shannon & Weaver (1949) study of information relates signals to a general code of statistical averages

interest in the attempt to relate information to meaning has declined since the 1960s

attempts have been made to relate informativity to texts

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 15

InformationProbabilistic Definition

Shannon & Weaver’s were interested in communications, mathematical engineering.

Again the IS discipline did not invent these ideas

but we got these ideas in a very pure form (just like general systems theory)

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 16

Transmission Model (Shannon and Weaver 1949; Weaver 1949)

Information Source

Transmitter

Noise Source

Receiver Destination

Message SignalReceived

SignalMessage

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 17

Shannon & WeaverApplied to IS Development Practices (1)

whenever we talk about:an External Entity with respect to a

system (an IS or an organisation)Data Flow in any part of a manual or

computer based application

we will invariably be using Shannon & Weaver’s (1945) theory of communication

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 18


so in the case of an external Entity:where is the senderwhere is the recieverwhere is the channelwhere is the noisewhere is the message

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 19


Materials

SystemExternal Entity

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 20


so in the case of DFDs:where is the senderwhere is the recieverwhere is the channelwhere is the noisewhere is the message

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 21


Data Flow

Process 1

Process 2

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 22

Shannon & Weaver (1945)Diffusion to other Disciplines

Shannon & Weaver’s ideas also influenced many other disciplines as well

eg. media studies, linguistics, education etc. etc. and as these ideas were adopted they were also changed to suit the conditions of these other disciplines

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 23

Berlo's (1960) Variant of the Transmission Model

Source Message Channel Receiver

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 24

Scramm's (1973) Variant of the Transmission Model

Source of Contents

InformationProducts*

Audiences

Control

SupportRelatedServices

Media

newspapersperiodicalsbooksprogramsfilms etc.

*

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 25

McCrosky and Wheeles (1976) Variant

Messages

Messages

Channels

Feed Back

DetermineMeaning

EncodeMessages

TransmitMessages

Change

ReceiveMessages

DecodeMessages

Respond toMeaning

Change

Source Destination

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 26

Effects of Shannon & Weavers’ (1945) Model

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 27

Effects of Shannon & WeaverMany Effects

there are plenty of effects of the adoption of Shannon & Weaver’s (1994) model of information

most of them are bad:affects research in ISaffects IS methods that get developedincreases ‘individualism’ in organisationshas unfortunate political consequences

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 28

Effects of Shannon & WeaverIS Research (1)

Effects the type of research questions that get posed in academic studies of IS

couches them in terms of individuals (Swanson 1987): What are the determinants of an

individual’s information system useWhat are the effects of an individual’s

information system use

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 29


this fits right into the individualism in existing IS research:questions are couched in terms of

individual performancehard to do (hard to get the kind of

workplace monitoring needed to measure individuals performance

so other features (surrogates) are used like ‘user satisfaction’

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 30


fits right into the individualism of a great deal of research in other areas eg./ management literature

therefore organisational theory has focused for the most part on individual information system use

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 31


areas of reseach effectively excluded include the study of CSCW, developed in Europe, which had a social focus

but latter appropriated in the US as Groupware

eg. Microsoft development of Windows for Workgroups!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 32


another area that is devalued is software ergonomics which had a social emphasis (Turner & Karasek)

this kind of research direction (skewed towards individuals) does have real (ie. social and economic) effects

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 33


often systems incorporate workplace monitoring facilities (because its easy to do if you use a sender receiver model) eg./ Microsoft Mail; eg./ EFTPOS ckeckout systems eg./ Truck Scheduling Systems

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 34


the kinds of research which don’t tend to get as much attention are extremely important for organisations (Swanson 1987) eg.: organisational communicationorganisational semiotics

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 35

Effects of Shannon & WeaverIS Methods

it helps to skew the types of IS methods that get produced and therefore used (many of them are developed in academic institutions

ie. the methods come with inbuilt with individualism as a theoretical assumption

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 36

Effects of Shannon & WeaverPolitical Effects (1)

rather communication gets reduced to “the exchange of information between a sender and a receiver and the inference of meaning between organisational participants” (O’Reilly & Pondy 1980, 121)

inference = hint or imply

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 37


if this model is about ‘transmission’ then who has the role of the sender becomes a political act (in an organisation or a society)

that is:who can ‘speak’who is allowed to ‘speak’who has the authority to ‘speak’

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 38


in everyday life we know this to be true:when our parents speak we are

expected to obey “Little children should be seen and not heard”

when the teacher speaks you should be silent “No talking in class [except for me]”

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 39


therefore by adopting a position about a communication model like Shannon & Weaver

we also adopt a theory of communication

which privaledges those who have the power to speak over those who may only be permitted to listen!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 40


in terms of systems analysis then, those who have the authority to speak in organisations are generally managers

check out any SDLC based methodology you like and you will find that most will just adopt what a manager thinks is required

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 41


but, what if we want to develop a system for non-managerial users

how can we have participative methodologies which promote and enable others to speak!

well we must look for other models of communication...

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 42

Alternatives to Shannon & Weaver

Latter in the subject we will find a very good theory of communication, one which allows us to understand the use of informationbut its not based on a model of communication

like Shannon & Weaverit therefore changes and challenges what is

communicationif applied to IS development it changes almost

everything!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 43

Social Process of Design:

Almost Useless Design

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 44

Almost Design: ‘Chindogu’

one way of demonstrating a point is by finding a negative example

an example which actually establishes the case for the truth of its opposite

Chindogu is an ‘art’ that applies humour to design

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 45


Chindogu involves the attempt to create almost useless objects

its name comes from two Japanese words (chin = "weird" dogu = "tool")

although based in Japan, it has an international following...

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 46


there is a book on Chindogu, and even an institute dedicated to it

there is also a website at http://info.pitt.edu/~ctnst3/chindogu.html

the following ten tenets are from this website

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 47

Example 1: Hay Fever Hat

“The Hay Fever Hat gives allergy sufferers a head start”

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 48

Example 2: Eye Drop Funnel Glasses

“Eye Drop Funnel Glasses: for pupil-point accuracy”

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 49

Example 3: Noodle Eater’s Hair Guard

“The Noodle Eater’s Hair Guard: why spoil nice clean hair?”

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 50

Example 4: Vertigo Soothing Glasses

“Vertigo Soothing Glasses help high-rise tenants feel grounded”

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 51

Chindogu Tenet 1

A Chindogu cannot be for real use. It is fundamental to the spirit of Chindogu

that inventions claiming Chindogu status must be, from a practical point of view, (almost) completely useless. If you invent something which turns out to be so handy that you use it all the time, then you have failed to make a Chindogu. Try the Patent Office.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 52

Chindogu Tenet 2

A Chindogu must exist.You're not allowed to use a Chindogu,

but it must be made. You have to be able to hold it in your hand and think 'I can actually imagine someone using this. Almost.' In order to be useless, it must first be.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 53

Chindogu Tenet 3

Inherent in every Chindogu is the spirit of anarchy.Chindogu are man-made objects that

have broken free from the chains of usefulness. They represent freedom of thought and action: the freedom to challenge the suffocating historical dominance of conservative utility; the freedom to be (almost) useless.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 54

Chindogu Tenet 4

Chindogu are tools for everyday life. Chindogu are a form of nonverbal

communication understandable to everyone, everywhere. Specialised or technical inventions, like a threehandled sprocket loosener for drainpipes centred between two under-the-sink cabinet doors (the uselessness of which will only be appreciated by plumbers), do not count.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 55

Chindogu Tenet 5

Chindogu are not for sale. Chindogu are not tradable commodities.

If you accept money for one you surrender your purity. They must not even be sold as a joke.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 56

Chindogu Tenet 6

Humour must not be the sole reason for creating a Chindogu. The creation of Chindogu is

fundamentally a problem-solving activity. Humour is simply the by-product of finding an elaborate or unconventional solution to a problem that may not have been that pressing to begin with.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 57

Chindogu Tenet 7

Chindogu is not propaganda. Chindogu are innocent. They are made

to be used, even though they cannot be used. They should not be created as a perverse or ironic comment on the sorry state of mankind.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 58

Chindogu Tenet 8

Chindogu are never taboo. The International Chindogu Society has

established certain standards of social decency. Cheap sexual innuendo, humour of a vulgar nature, and sick or cruel jokes that debase the sanctity of living things are not allowed.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 59

Chindogu Tenet 9

Chindogu cannot be patentedChindogu are offerings to the rest of the

world - they are not therefore ideas to be copyrighted, patented, collected and owned.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 60

Chindogu Tenet 10

Chindogu are without prejudiceChindogu must never favour one race or

religion over another. Young and old, male and female, rich and poor - all should have a free and equal chance to enjoy each and every Chindogu.

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 61

Chindogu and Design

by trying to create almost useless objects, Chindogu teaches us about what design is (a negative example)

it also demonstrates how the design process is a social phenomenon

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 62

Chindogu and DesignClass Exercise

some examples of Chindogu will be shown, but for each consider the following questionswhat does a Chindogu designer need

to know about a situation and a culture and in order to design the each Chindogu

why is each Chindogu nearly useless rather than completely useless!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 63

Chindogu and DesignClass Exercise

Designer: what knowledge of...situation culture

Chindogu Artifact: why is it...nearly useless completely useless!

Hay Fever HatEye Drop Funnel GlassesNoodle Eater’s Hair GuardVertigo Soothing Glasses

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 64

Systems Design as a Social Activity

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 65

Methodologies & Ontology (1)

but methodologies also consist of “coherent bundles [of concepts] which constitute a perspective on social life” (Kling 1980, 151)

ontology: ‘the set of entities presupposed by a theory’

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 66


most methodologies (especially process & data-oriented) consider the world to be ‘a priori’

that is ordered logical, rule-based, natural- however, if systems development is really a social process- then this cannot be true!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 67


most methodologies do not state their ontology

most academics who construct methodologies don’t consider this to be important- they are wrong!

we have seen that ‘everything has a theory’

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 68


we can apply this idea to methodologies

just because its theory about the world is not made explicit doesn’t mean there isn’t one

in fact it guarantees that there is a politically conservative, naive, common sense view of the world informing the methodology!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 69


even good methodologies (eg. SSM) get this wrong

SSM views the world is a common sense view

the world is real, but people have a range of perspectives from which they can view it!

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 70


this contains a contraction- why do you need to insist on there being a ‘real world’ somehow separate from a ‘social world’

the social world is real & has ‘real consequences’

try to treat the world as socially constructed

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 71

Systems Design as Social Activity (1)

social processes are always at work during the analysis, design, development and implementation of systems

all these activities take place in organisational and institutional settings

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 72


need to ‘locate’ social processes and human interactions within historical and organisational contexts

some justification is required for this approach...

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 73


systems development, implementation and maintenance is highly dependent on the skills of large numbers of IT professionals

communication processes and social interactions within the developer community are of great importance

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 74


changes in systems development practices, whether related to technology or organisational issues, are always driven and mediated by social factors

eg./ shift from ad-hoc methods to SDLC, shift from C to C++ are all socially motivated

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 75


systems development is a complex bridging process linking areas of specialized and diverse expertise; the domain of the IT professional and the domain of the user

systems development concerns itself with IT innovation, application and diffusion- all social

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 76

Summary so far...

So far we have treated systems development as if it is a technical science

but, it is actually social and its not a science either!

so what is it that we do when we design a CBIS?

Clarke, R. J (2001) L951-05: 77

Summary

we will see in coming weeks that not only is systems development not a science, but...

if we theorise the social aspects of systems development and use, we can use this to create systems

knowing about the social world is enough to create CBIS!

clarke, r. j (2001) l951-05: 1 critical issues in information systems buss 951 lecture 5 design 2:...

Documents