enid mumford: a tribute

Info Systems J

(2006)

16

343ndash382

copy 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation copy 2006 Blackwell publishing Ltd

343

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford UKISJInformation Systems Journal1350-1917copy 2006 The Authors Journal compilation copy 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

2006

16

343382

Original Article

Enid Mumford a tributeD Avison

et al

Enid Mumford a tribute

David Avison Niels Bjoslashrn-Andersen Elayne Coakes Gordon B Davis Michael J Earl Amany Elbanna Guy Fitzgerald Robert D Galliers Rudy Hirschheim Juhani Iivari Heinz K Klein Frank Land Marco de Marco Andrew M Pettigrew Jaana Porra Bernd Carsten Stahl Carsten Soslashrensen Bob Wood amp Trevor Wood-Harper

INTRODUCTION

In this edited article we look at the many contributions of Enid Mumford as a worker teachercolleague researcher but most of all as a human being written by those who have been influ-enced by her many of whom knowing her personally

Andrew Pettigrew

first encountered Enid as an undergraduate later becoming her firstResearch Fellow and then Enid supervised his PhD His tribute introduces us to both her workand humanity

Frank Land

is often associated with the work of Enid and in his tribute he dis-cusses the roots of Enidrsquos views in socio-technical design her influence on the National Com-puting Centre and through her many roles in practice where she acted as facilitator forhumanistic as well as successful change using technology

Michael Earl

first met Enid as a lec-turer at Manchester Business School in 1974 His contribution recognizes her special personalqualities as a teacher as well as her impact on practice Like many authors of this paper

Gor-don Davis

will be well known to readers and it says much for Enidrsquos standing in the field thathe writes of her impact on himself and his understanding of information systems (IS) and ISresearch In his article

Niels Bjoslashrn-Andersen

refers to Enid as the lsquoFlorence Nightingalersquo of ITand he suggests that lsquono other researcher has contributed so much towards influencing thepractice of systems design in the direction of giving higher priority to humanistic values anddemocratizationrsquo This very worthy achievement of Enid is also highlighted by other writers inthis article

Trevor Wood-Harper

and

Bob Wood

suggest that Enid like Frank Sinatra did it lsquomywayrsquo but perhaps unlike Frank Sinatra Enidrsquos way is also a humanistic way to the future Theyprovide a useful overview of Enidrsquos contribution to the literature

Bob Galliers

refers to Enidrsquosvision as well as her humanity suggesting that her vision was much broader than most muchmore heroic For her IS had to speak of societal problems as well as organizational and tech-nical ones

David Avison

describes how Enid changed his life and reflects on how her friend-liness openness and kindness that she showed in personal relationships are evidenced in herwork that remains with us

Heinz K Klein

suggests that Enid was a leader in the lsquoinformal col-legersquo of paradigm change and advocates her as a role model for junior faculty Indeed he showsus how as a junior member of faculty at the time he learnt lsquothree lessonsrsquo from Enid

Rudy Hir-schheim

reflects on Enid as both a mentor and a colleague telling us the story of the lsquoAmazing

D Avison

et al


Information Systems Journal

16

343ndash382

344

Mumfordrsquo

Guy Fitzgerald

tells us how Enid charmed even the most hard-nosed practitionersand opened their minds and suggests that she will not only be greatly missed but also proveirreplaceable

Marco de Marco

looks especially at development post Mumford and suggeststhat the design ideas emerging from actor-network theory such as cultivation are unlikely tohave been developed were it not for Mumfordrsquos fundamental work

Jaana Porra

makes a callinspired by Enid to solve global wicked problems (as well as introducing us to a mouse calledGruffalo)

Elayne Coakes

has developed Enidrsquos ideas into what she calls the lsquoNew Sociotechrsquoand she also recalls how Enid herself was influenced by Mary Parker Follett

Bernd CarstenStahl

reinterprets the work of Mumford as a critical scholar allowing a differentiated under-standing of her achievement along with an analysis of some of the weaknesses of her workthus providing a theoretical platform to develop this work further

Juhani Iivari

discusses theimpact of Enidrsquos writings in his own research beginning in the early 1980s and also refers tohis daughterrsquos thesis which has also been influenced by Enidrsquos work This is particularly appro-priate as it suggests that Enidrsquos legacy will indeed last through generations of researchersteachers and practitioners Finally

Amany Elbanna

describes her thoughts when she was anMSc student on seeing Enid for the first time

ANDREW

M

PETTIGREW

This is a brief personal and certainly partial view of Enid Mumford as a scholar and a personEnidrsquos intellectual identity and contributions are clear She is an internationally renowned man-agement scholar who helped create worldwide interest in the human and organizational impactof information and computer systems Although she produced many journal articles her mostnotable work has appeared in research monographs In these monographs she had the spaceto reveal the best of her theoretically informed empiricism and her philosophically and empir-ically based approaches to the practice of systems design and development Through her longcareer she bridged theory and practice and effectively engaged with managers specialists andpolicy makers wrestling with the implementation of early generations of computer systems Shedid all this with an openness directness warmth and optimism that drew many students col-leagues and managers to her point of view

I first encountered Enid as an undergraduate in the Social Sciences (Sociology) Departmentof Liverpool University in 1964 She taught me in a postgraduate year at Liverpool in 196566and when she left Liverpool in 1966 to become the first lecturer in Industrial Sociology at thenewly created Manchester Business School she asked me to accompany her as her firstResearch Fellow there This is an opportunity I shall forever be grateful for We both arrived atthe very outset of the new industry of business school education in the UK More importantlyfor me I had the chance to learn the basics of how to conduct social science research in busi-ness from a person who by that stage had had approaching 20 years of experience of front linemanagement research from working with her Liverpool colleagues Enid supervised my PhD atManchester Business School (Pettigrew 1970) This was eventually published as

The Politicsof Organizational Decision-Making

(Pettigrew 1973)




16

343ndash382

345

Thereafter we published a book together (Mumford amp Pettigrew 1975) But by this time ourpaths had begun to diverge I left Manchester in 1969 to go to Yale and then London BusinessSchool and began to establish my own intellectual identity as Enidrsquos contribution became moreand more associated with the socio-technical aspects of IS design But the roots we shared inthe innovations and tensions of the industrial sociology group at Liverpool were foundational toboth of us and as such warrant some attention in any appreciation of the life and work of EnidMumford

Enidrsquos family and intellectual heritage were in the North West of England She was born in1924 on Merseyside attended Wallasey High School and then the Social Sciences Depart-ment at Liverpool University Her father was a barrister who became a prominent local figureas the stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool In 1947 she married Jim Mumford later to becomea professor of Operative Dental Surgery at Liverpool University Their long-term home at Apple-ton near Warrington was conveniently equidistant between Jimrsquos career post at Liverpool andEnidrsquos 20 plus years at the Manchester Business School

After her undergraduate education at Liverpool Enid spent time in industry first as a per-sonnel manager at an aircraft factory and later as a production manager at a factory manu-facturing alarm clocks These were important experiences for a teacher and researcher ofmanagement Enidrsquos intellectual identity was built as a member of the exceptional group ofindustrial sociologists who worked in the Social Sciences Department at Liverpool Univer-sity from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s Enid joined this group in 1948 The Liverpoolgroup in the late 1940s to 1960s included most of the key figures of British Industrial Sociol-ogy Joe and Olive Banks AH Halsey Tom Lupton WH (Bill) Scott and Joan Woodwardamong others Their studies of technical change in the steel coal and docks industries pio-neered the theoretically informed empiricism which helped to shape what is now known asmanagement research Key published studies in this tradition include Scott

et al

(19631965) Scott (1962 1965) and Mumford amp Banks (1967) Enid played a key role as anobserver in some of these studies notably as a canteen assistant on the Liverpool docksand then as an interviewerobserver underground with the miners of the North West coalindustry As the daughter of a Liverpool barrister these must have been notable encountersfor all the parties

Looking back now from a 2006 vantage point it is hard for us to appreciate the very limitedintellectual context faced by these pioneering social scientists in industry then located at Liv-erpool In the UK in the 1950s the only parallel experience was the Tavistock Institute in Lon-don There were no business and management school departments in university settingswhich engaged in management research few sociology and psychology departments whichhad business or organizational interests no tradition of publishing in academic journals andfew if any management journals and no accessible communities of intellectual companionshipfor business and management research The life experiences of the Liverpool group were alsosomewhat different from later generations of management scholars WH (Bill) Scott theleader of the group was a formidably hard man who had spent a great part of the SecondWorld War fighting the Japanese in the jungles of Burma Tom Lupton started life as a fitter inthe shipyards of the North East of England He had the good fortune to be evacuated from

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

346

Dunkirk in 1940 with the remnants of the British Army and as pacifists Joe and Olive Banks hadserved in the land army for much of the Second World War

Enid had come into this group from the comfortable surroundings of a middle-class life onthe Wirral This experience had been tempered by her undergraduate education in sociologyat Liverpool and then by industrial employment in Merseyside factories But the key to under-standing her intellectual roots is to appreciate the path breaking empirical studies of the Liv-erpool group These studies were centred on one of the biggest problems of the day technicalchange and industrial relations They were focused on the old industries of steel coal and thedocks and they involved primary data collection from surveys and detailed ethnographic workThey were also theoretically informed drawing upon the general sociological theory of WeberMarx Durkheim Merton and Parsons and the very early industrial sociology writings of Gould-ner Selznick and Mechanic

The creativity of pioneering groups can be fragile and dependent both on collective feelingsof success and on sound perpetuation strategies for the groups The Liverpool group man-aged neither of these challenges well and by the mid-1960s many of the group (includingEnid) had been offered opportunities elsewhere The Liverpool group also had a signal intel-lectual tension which even I as an undergraduate at the time remember Interestingly the ten-sion was posed as a dichotomy between social science founded on lsquofactrsquo and social sciencefounded on lsquovaluersquo Were we as social scientists here to theorize observe analyse andexplain ndash the lsquofactrsquo position or are we here as citizens and not just as scientists where as cit-izens we can take a value position and even an interventionist position on that which weobserve and explain

It is typical of Enid that she interpreted the above intellectual debate not as a dichotomy ofeitheror but as a duality of fact

and

value As we now know Enid post-Liverpool became achampion of fact and value She continued with the Liverpool tradition of managementresearch founded on primary data and theoretical analysis but complemented that with astrong value attachment to humanistic and democratic values and the potential enabling powerof action research (Mumford 2006b) I think Enidrsquos move to the Manchester Business Schoolin 1966 had a liberating impact on her work In this new context enriched by business edu-cation and management research she was quickly able to build stronger business contactswiden her national and international network of colleagues and generate a sustainable patternof research funding for her Computer and Work Design Research Unit

While at Manchester Business School she developed a close working relationship withmembers of the Tavistock Institute and became a follower of their democratic socio-technicalapproach Through successive action research projects she tried to apply this to the designand implementation of computer-based systems and information technology One of her larg-est socio-technical projects was with the Digital Equipment Corporation in Boston In the1970s she became a member of the International Quality of Working Life Group In a paperwritten near the end of her life and published in this issue of the

ISJ

(Mumford 2006b) she wasopen enough to recognize that the humanistic values and democratic ethos of the socio-tech-nical approach to IS design was ill-suited to the more punishing business context of the 1980sand 1990s But her deep-seated optimism about humanity led her to continue to believe that




16

343ndash382

347

humanistic values and democratic processes at work were still possible in pockets of use in afew enlightened firms and communities

But Enid was so much more than a careful accomplished scholar with an interventionistpoint of view She was a libertarian who gave her son Colin and daughter Michele space todevelop She had left-wing political leanings and like many of her generation had a briefencounter with the Communist Party In the 1950s this led her visa application to the USA tobe queried until she informed the US Immigration Authorities that her invitation to the USA hadoriginated from their Department of Defence She was a strong believer in womenrsquos rights andfelt that in academia she had an uphill battle in a male-dominated world She publicly tackleddiscrimination against women members in the golfing world and was eventually rewarded withfirst the Club Captaincy and then Presidency of the Frodsham Golf Club But above all it washer capacity to think and act with optimism that made her special in her world She believedthat in creative endeavours always taking the positive optimistic view was the key to theenergy which would deliver ideas with impact

Every novice needs a mentor Enid was my mentor when I needed intellectual and personalsupport the most We share a common intellectual tradition which I knew of but had not hadfirst-hand experience Enid was the pioneer I learnt from her my intellectual standards and mypersonal standards of dealing with people in field work She taught me how to deal with frac-tional situations in complex field work settings She taught me how to do ethnography and towrite up empirical work But the most important thing that I learnt from Enid professionally wasfounded on her great optimism in life Her attitude was that everything is possible unlessproven otherwise Now we all know that not everything is possible in life but it is a much morefulfilling life if one starts with a belief founded on optimism The research and scholarly pathwaycan be unpredictable and stressful Creativity requires structure it also demands sustainableenergy built on optimism Thank you Enid for providing me with this powerful insight at such anearly and formative part of my own life and career

FRANK

LAND

In 1967 I joined the London School of Economics (LSE) to establish teaching and research inwhat was then called Systems Analysis I had worked in the computer industry since 1953 pri-marily involved with the design and implementation of business systems for British industry andcommerce In that time I had developed a considerable amount of practical know-how but hadlittle knowledge of what was being said in the academic world about the kind of systems I hadbeen involved with The little I did know suggested that for the academic community the onlyproper approach had to be through explanations which on the one hand were couched in a lan-guage which verged on the obscure and on the other hand seemed unaware of the reality ofwhat took place in the workplace The approach seemed to me to smack of the lsquoivory towerrsquo

Then around 1970 the National Computing Council of the UK invited a group of academicsand practitioners to set up a study group to review the way IS were being evaluated and to sug-gest improved methods The group included Enid Mumford from the Manchester Business

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

348

School John Hawgood of Durham University Michael Reddington then Treasurer of LiverpoolCouncil and John Dorey chief information officer of Pfizer Ltd

Enid (with Olive Banks) had by this time published her study of an Irish bankrsquos attempt tointroduce computing to support its back office functions and had completed a study of Turnerand Newallrsquos use of computers for data processing She had began a work on Effective Tech-nical and Human Implementation of Computer Systems (ETHICS) with the assistance of MaryWeir a methodology for the design and implementation of IS which was based on socio-technical ideas and incorporated the notion that those affected by a system had to be involvedin its design Underlying the methodology was the socio-technical ideal that the object of gooddesign of a system is an improvement in the quality of working life and job satisfaction of thosewho had to work with the new system

I was immediately struck by the way Enid tackled the issues we had come to review Herewas a scholar who quickly got to the heart of practical concerns but at the same time neverforgot the humanistic values she espoused Nor did she come with an

ideacutee fixe ndash

she rapidlyassessed the value of contributions from other group members and played a major part in forg-ing a consensus This led to a long-term collaboration between Enid John Hawgood andmyself Later some of the ideas we developed became embedded in ETHICS

Enidrsquos approach to problems was to immerse herself in the environment which had given riseto the problem She could not understand academics who pontificated on the basis of first prin-ciples without testing the validity of these principles in real-world situations If the problemarose via the introduction of new coal mining technology then she had to study the problemunderground in the coal mines themselves face to face with miners and the deputies who man-aged them If the problem arose through the introduction of computing technology in the officesof ICI she had to study the situation first-hand in the office in order not only to understand themanagementrsquos objectives in installing the technology but also to note how the technologywould impact the individual members of the work force and how that workforce could and wouldrespond

She had a profound belief that the understanding and knowledge of each stakeholder at anylevel in the organization could contribute to the design implementation and operation of sys-tems even if the new system was based on a technology which itself was evolving Indeed sheargued that without the contribution of all stakeholders new or changed systems had a highrisk of failure In a series of case studies published over the decades she demonstrated thatthe contribution and even the leadership of members of the workforce led to the implementa-tion of effective systems which combined an improvement in the quality of working life whilemeeting the managerial objectives of improving the effectiveness of the business

In her last book published in 2003 when she was nearly 80 years old (Mumford 2003) shesets out a reprise of her work and at the same time provides a practical and masterly step-by-step guide on how to set about redesigning organizations to make use of new technology Theguide is based on a series of case studies representing her lifersquos work with each case con-tributing lessons on redesign But the voices which are heard in each case study are the voicesof the participants themselves telling their story of how they perceived the issues and the waythey worked to achieve a solution The cases are described realistically warts and all The




16

343ndash382

349

book is an essential reading for all those preparing to engage in change using new technologyndash students as well as managers

Inevitably she had her critics Perhaps some of the most disturbing criticisms to her camefrom those who shared her humanistic values In particular those who espoused criticaltheory were concerned that in the end she simply provided managers with new tools forachieving their objectives without really changing the domination of the ruling caste and theultimate exploitation of the workforce The most wounding criticism suggested that all shehad achieved was to permit the prisoner to determine the direction of the stripes on hisprison uniform

There is no doubt that she appreciated the criticism But her response might be calledFabian Her role was not to foster revolution We live in a complex world She felt that her rolein that world with her abilities and the insights she had gained and her faith in the knowledgeand creativity of people was to encourage gradual harmonious change which satisfied asmany stakeholders as possible Through this approach lsquowinwinrsquo solutions could be achievedin a way utopian ideas never can

She worked on each of her many studies with evangelical zeal To be in her presence wasenough to be convinced that her new approach had to be tried Hard bitten managers of theauthoritarian school were persuaded to try her participative methods provided she was thereto coach the team and guide the team leaders Was she successful in fulfilling the role sheplayed as facilitator The success of her cases was in part based on the principles sheespoused but equally it was her personal qualities as a facilitator which played a critical partin the success

Enid Mumford was a phenomenon We in the discipline which grew up in the past four or fivedecades around the new information and communication technologies owe her an immensedebt She is no longer with us But her research and teaching will feed our discipline for yearsto come

MICHAEL

J

EARL

Others will write about the significant contribution to IS knowledge made by Enid Mumford Iwould like to recognize her special personal qualities and her impact on practice The two arein many ways interrelated

I first met Enid at Manchester Business School in late 1974 when I had started my academiccareer as a lecturer in Management Control ndash a post conceived as a small investment in IS asa subject but financially justified by a substantial accounting teaching load As an initiate Iwent in search of Enid only to find she was on sabbatical I also discovered that she was amember of the Organisational Behaviour Group alongside such influential names as Tom Lup-ton Dan Gowler Karen Legge Angela Bowey and John Morris Given the immaturity of lsquooursubjectrsquo and Enidrsquos orientation this should not have been a surprise The labels we might haveput on Enid then were management of change work design and job satisfaction and socio-technical systems

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350

We met when Enid risked a visit to the School in mid-sabbatical She had been working onan action research (another apposite label) project in a bank following previous engagementsin retailing She sensed that there was a need to help managers in banking not only to designand implement computer systems which met organizational and individual goals better butalso to make improved and more strategic decisions about which systems to develop A coursewas born Enid covered the former question and I the latter

But this was not a programme of lectures Enid wanted a workshop format We woulddesign exercises and case studies which would stimulate vicarious learning on our twinobjectives ndash materials based on real-world experience in the banking sector Enid was notcontent with lecturing she wanted to work

with

managers and encouraged me to dolikewise

This of course was what she did in her action research jointly analyse what could be donebetter jointly design systems (or make strategic decisions) and jointly evaluate outcomes andlearning But she did this by getting to know people through the process Employees managersand colleagues responded not only to her search for better systems ndash in a socio-technicalsense ndash but also to her human personal warmth care and attention to the details of workplacereality

The period just described perhaps marked an evolution in Enidrsquos work from a consultativeframing on systems design and decision-making to a more participative approach Consulta-tion in those days was for many a bold strategy I remember a systems manager of that erawhen I asked lsquoWhat about the usersrsquo replying lsquoBother (I think that was the verb) the users theytake what we give themrsquo Participation that is to say active and legitimized involvement in andinfluence on systems design could be seen as a breach of managerial prerogative and thusEnid had some interesting political moments with senior executives However results oftenspoke louder than rhetoric

Enidrsquos subsequent experimentation with stakeholder analysis and involvement in systemsplanning and design at the Trustee Savings Bank and the later development of her ETH-ICS method marked a further evolution towards democratic strategies The lsquomanagementoverheadrsquo required is substantial but the reward can be real lsquoreturn on managementrsquo Ittakes faith by managements to invest time and resources in the all-important initial deci-sions on IT resource allocation and systems design as well as on careful processes ofimplementation and learning This is still a handicap to effective IS management in organi-zations and Enid achieved considerable success in her action research and action learningon these fronts

Some 20 years after I first met Enid I organized a conference on the Information Society forEuropean Research Councils Enid agreed to be a keynote speaker A well known continentalprofessor opined lsquoBut we all know what Enid does ndash just one thingrsquo What an outrageous com-ment which I have never forgotten If socio-technical systems design was the one thing shecontinuously developed the field She remained a beacon citation for the social design ques-tions of IS in the literature She bridged organizational behaviour and IS She had value-creating impact on real organizations where value was based on different and all stakeholdervalues




16

343ndash382

351

And above all perhaps she was admired respected and loved not only by her students andcolleagues but by those she wanted to work with ndash lsquoreal people in the real worldrsquo I have metso many in recent years who would ask lsquoDo you know Enid Mumfordrsquo My reply now would belsquoYes and wasnrsquot I fortunatersquo

GORDON

DAVIS

I had two unique opportunities to speak for many in the field who believe Enid was makingremarkable consistent contributions to the development of IS as an academic discipline I wason the committee that awarded her the Warnier Prize for contributions to the field of computersand information processing I was also part of the committee in 1999 that recommended herfor one of the first four AIS LEO awards for lifetime significant contributions to the field of ISThese award committees gave me the opportunity to review her career and her contributionsand they were impressive

In looking at the impact of Enid Mumford I could write about her impact on the academic dis-cipline of IS and her impact on the practice of system design (with her ETHICS method) butinstead I am going to focus on her impact on me and my understanding of IS and IS research

My own exposure to Enid Mumford began early in my career but especially with her involve-ment in IFIP Working Group 82 As stated by the charter for the group the working group wasconcerned with lsquothe relationships and interactions between information systems informationtechnology organizations and society The word ldquoorganizationsrdquo covers the social group theindividual decision making and the design of organizational structures and processesrsquo

I attended many 82 working conferences I sponsored two 82 conferences in MinnesotaEnid and others brought new insights to me about the nature of IS in organizations This wasa gradual process in my education and Enid was at many of the conferences adding herinsights and increasing my understanding

She was one of a small band of interpretive researchers who enlarged my view of researchmethods In 1984 while Enid was the chair person for the 82 Working Group they sponsoreda landmark conference on research in IS It is often referred to as the lsquoManchester Conferencersquoafter the venue for the conference The proceedings are an important milestone (Mumford

et al

1985)I had a research epiphany at the 1984 Manchester conference Up to that point in time I did

not really comprehend the issues of positivist versus post-positivist research My educationand training had emphasized positivist research with hypothesis testing I was aware of inter-pretive research but it was not part of my thinking The conference altered my world view ofresearch The light went on in my head I began to appreciate interpretive research I even dida study with Allen Lee using hermeneutics

What was begun at Manchester with Enidrsquos leadership was continued Other research con-ferences by 82 were held in 1990 and 1997 In 2004 Working Group 82 held anotherManchester conference to look at the 20-year impact of the 1984 meeting and the current sta-tus of research methods in IS (Kaplan

et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352

I speak as one who was part of the same early period of development as Enid She was apioneer in the field She was a teacher a mentor and a great colleague She was a nice personShe influenced many she influenced me

N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN

In the autumn of 1969 when I had just started on my PhD scholarship I was approached bya Danish publisher asking me to do a review on a new book in Danish a translation of a workby Mumford and Ward lsquoComputers Planning for Peoplersquo published originally in 1968 It wasmy very first book review and it is still very clear in my mind I did not find the first half writtenby Ward particular interesting but the second half written by Enid Mumford opened a wholenew world for me Never before had I seen an articulation of concepts like job satisfactionchange agents and the role of personnel departments in relation to systems analysts

Accordingly I was thrilled when Rolf Hoslashyer in February of 1970 invited me to a seminar withEnid Mumford at a ski resort near Oslo I could not afford the flight but took the night train andarrived safely at the hotel where I was shown in to a room to where Professor Mumford wassupposed to be Silhouetted against a bright window through which could be seen beautifulsunshine on the snow to my great surprise was a lovely fair-haired woman standing in a blue-and-white checked dress with a belt above the waist A woman Until that moment I hadthought that Enid was a manrsquos name

She looked like what I had always imagined Florence Nightingale would be ndash a comparisonthat to me seemed more and more fitting over the years where we became friends and I hadthe good fortune to collaborate closely with her Just like Florence Nightingale Enid Mumfordhad a very strong sense of compassion for people and a deep urge to relieve suffering andimprove human conditions Enidrsquos efforts were not located on the battlefield of war but she hada similarly challenging environment to struggle with At the time computers were being intro-duced in all organizations almost exclusively applying a technocratic Tayloristic top-downapproach where the goal was the optimization of computer functionality and the role of thehuman being was no more than a designated bundle of manual tasks lumped into work basketsof 8 hours a day No wonder that the systems introduced in the 60s and 70s had huge negativeimplications for staff including the monotonous machine pacing of punch card operators thelack of workersrsquo autonomy as a result of enforced working procedures the monitoring of workperformance and the invasion of privacy

The most important part of the work of Enid Mumford is in my opinion her development ofjob satisfaction measurement instruments the many incisive studies on the impact of comput-ers and her normative methodologies and guidelines on how to carry out socio-technical sys-tems design It is not easy to point to her single most important publication not least whenfaced with her extremely extensive list of writings each of which found new audiences but letme very briefly characterize each of the three areas

In order to measure the impact of computers on job content and job satisfaction it was nec-essary to develop a new set of research instruments suited for characterizing job content and




16

343ndash382

353

job satisfaction in white-collar work The basis was the socio-technical research at the Tavis-tock Institute but Enid transferred this philosophy to the job of computer specialists and arange of clerical jobs in relation to computer systems These research instruments have beenused by a large number of researchers in some version or other (see especially Mumford1972)

Her work on computer impacts started with a field study in the insurance sector with OliveBanks (Mumford amp Banks 1967) which was probably the first empirical investigation of com-puter impacts and continued with a number of other studies The largest of these was initiatedby Enid in 1972 and included a comparative study in banks in four countries (Bjoslashrn-Andersen

et al

1979) I think it is fair to say that with the completion of these studies and of course otherwork inspired by Enid we now had a pretty good understanding of the way in which computersystems potentially could change the job of users and it became possible and unethical not totake that into account in designing new jobs

In line with this Enid was not satisfied by lsquojust publishingrsquo Her strong dedication to theimprovement of working conditions led to a constant stream of normative publications most ofwhich reporting on action research where Enid redesigned work environments together withthe employees The basis for this was the lsquoETHICSrsquo method which exists in many versionsand is now even available online (see Mumford 2006a) The ETHICS method has been usedin many settings But the largest impact has been more indirectly in many classrooms userenvironments and systems development functions where the ideas and the philosophy of theETHICS method have modified traditional systems development methods

Getting towards the end of this small intervention I think I did manage to make up for mymale chauvinistic faux pas at my first meeting with Enid thinking it was a manrsquos name This wasin the academic year of 197475 when I was a visiting scholar at Manchester Business Schooland where Enid very generously lent me her spacious office and the use of her secretary EmilyDuring the stay I took part in a survey of social scientists who were asked by the British SocialScience Research Council to nominate the lsquothree most influential men (my bolding) in BritishManagement researchrsquo I nominated Enid Mumford Rosemary Stewart and Joan Woodward

Now more than 30 years later I am convinced that the impact of Enid Mumford cannot beunderestimated No other researcher has contributed so much towards influencing the prac-tice of systems design in the direction of giving higher priority to humanistic values anddemocratization

There is no question that Enid Mumford is the founder of the lsquosocio-technical systems designschoolrsquo and its most prolific contributor She leaves a research legacy that will continue toinspire and light the way (in a true Florence Nightingale way) for many IS students researchersand practitioners

TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Enid Mumfordrsquos career was that she was the first fullprofessor in a UK business school at a time when such schools were largely dominated by men

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354

and when her chosen research area was not considered to be a mainstream topic within man-agement Forty years on her achievement can be seen to be all the more noteworthy given thatboth of these conditions still prevail Enidrsquos desire to investigate and understand the human andorganizational impact of computer-based systems came at a time when most people were stillfascinated by the nature of this new technology and had an almost slavish belief in the benefitsthat it would bring particularly to the fast emerging business and industrial sectors thatemerged during the 1960s

She wrote lsquoBut in addition there is another and equally serious problem That is the inabilityof many British managements to plan effectively for computer introduction This planninginadequacy is to some extent a consequence of our traditional approach to technical innova-tion ndash

that this is an engineering problem which must be made the responsibility of the tech-nical specialists

[our emphasis] Unfortunately this approach no longer works It is increasinglyapparent that the problems of innovation have more than a technical content They also containeconomic factors organizational factors human relation factors and so onrsquo (Mumford amp Ward1968)

Almost 40 years later these words still ring true as we read about the continuing failure toharness the benefits of advanced information and communication technologies in pursuit of thegoals of organized human activity Much of the writing about such technologies is still infusedwith simplistic models of human behaviour and naiumlve assumptions about the relationshipbetween the changes that may be brought about by introducing these technologies into com-plex patterns of individual group and organizational life It is precisely the importance of thisrelationship that Enid Mumford identified so early on and continued to reflect upon and writeabout for the whole of her professional working life

There are two main interlocking themes that run through Enid Mumfordrsquos work namely

par-ticipation

and

socio-technical systems design

and these themes are combined in the ETHICSmethod (Mumford amp Weir 1979) and which was influential to the design of Multiview (Avisonamp Wood-Harper 1990 Vidgen

et al

2002) Much of the motivation for this work lay in the beliefthat work systems of all kinds but particularly computer-based application systems should bedesigned with the explicit goal of increasing job satisfaction Mumford identified a number ofkey drivers at the time that were creating a greater awareness of the need for a better lsquofitrsquobetween the expectations that employees bring to a job and the actual requirements of that jobThese drivers were

1

the need to create a work environment better able to meet the needs of an intelligent striv-ing twentieth-century workforce

2

the movement towards shared decision-making and industrial democracy and

3

the increased change in the work situation brought about by modern information technol-ogies (Mumford amp Henshall 1979)

We shall return to consider the continuing relevance of these forces later The five lsquoFitsrsquo thatwere identified were

Knowledge Psychological Task-Structure Efficiency and Ethics the lat-ter seen as the degree to which the values or philosophy of the employer are compatible withthose of the employee (Mumford amp Weir 1979) Thus it was not just a neat convenience that




16

343ndash382

355

a suitable acronym for the method developed to accommodate the principles espoused byMumford turned out to be ETHICS

In ETHICS a system is designed primarily from the perspective of the user(s) and thereforeit is paramount that they work closely with developers to specify socio-technical requirementsUsers are also allowed to change work practices and organizational structures so as to enablethe smooth transition of the new system Participative design is seen as being consultativedemocratic and responsible in nature thus fitting with the ethical stance that individuals havean inherent right to take part in changes that take place within their own work situation

Although no one can doubt the contribution that Enid Mumford has made to our thinkingabout the ways in which computer-based application systems can be developed and deployedmore efficiently and effectively questions may be raised about the continuing relevance of herwork in the twenty-first century Let us return to the original drivers described earlier and try toassess the validity of the socio-technical systems approach in light of some major changes thatare taking place in the way in which modern societies are organized

First the developments brought about by wireless technology are one of the main factorsblurring the difference between work life and social life Thus when wireless technology isdeployed there are individual consequences for all as well as organizational impact The nec-essary emphasis on the development of complex technical software often overshadows thesocial and personal needs of the users and the consequences The ever-increasing mobilework environment therefore leads not only to new commercial opportunities but also to newchallenges for organization management computing communication and work itself(Soslashrensen

et al

2005)In considering the future of work a key determinant is that thanks to the rise of the Internet

and the Web employees have the freedom to make decisions by obtaining the information thatthey require from unlimited sources around the world This leads potentially to empowermentmotivation creativity and flexibility at an individual level

At an organizational level on the other hand this type of information sharing and freedomon the part of employees can result in much looser organizational hierarchies democraciesand markets These kinds of changes are happening because we want to communicate moreefficiently and more effectively in almost everything that we do whether in the workplace or athome So as mobile technology becomes more important we should expect to see organiza-tions of all kinds become more decentralized thus leading both managers and employees aliketo move from a culture of lsquocommand-and-controlrsquo to one of lsquocoordinate-and-cultivatersquo (Malone2004)

Therefore it would seem that the trends in both technological development and organiza-tional structure and extra-structure offer us the opportunity to achieve the kind of lsquofitrsquo betweenhuman aspirations and managerial performance that Mumford strove to achieve through herown work Appropriately however the most difficult barrier to break through may be the ethicalone as we constantly seek to reconcile the values and philosophies of lsquoemployersrsquo with thoseof lsquoemployeesrsquo in the face of an ever-expanding global capitalism fuelled by an apparently lim-itless ability to create capture store retrieve interpret and manipulate information about everyaspect of human existence (Capra 2003)

D Avison

et al


Information Systems Journal 16 343ndash382

356

ROBERT D GALLIERS

The worlds of Information Systems and Organisational Behaviour have been lessened by thepassing of Enid Mumford earlier this year It is our duty to take up the challenges she met head-on throughout her illustrious career so that her many contributions and the crucial lessons shebrought to our attention are not allowed to be forgotten And it is our duty to continue down thetrans-disciplinary paths she opened up to us

Enid was quintessentially lsquoaction womanrsquo Not for her the confines of the university Herresearch was always applied ndash and most importantly relevant and action-oriented From herbackground in industry such as when she was a personnel manager in an aircraft factory shesought out and examined real-world problems in situ Whether it was at the coal face or at Liv-erpool docks or more recently confronting the problems of drugs and cyber crime (Mumford1998 1999) Enidrsquos focus was on doing research that impacted theory and practice

Her approach was not only with an eye to the practical however but also with a view to theethical and the emancipatory While at Manchester Business School she worked closely withthe Tavistock Institute adopting and adapting the socio-technical school of thought that lsquotheTavvyrsquo had championed (for a recent account of the socio-technical approach see Coakeset al 2000) With this in mind she developed the ETHICS approach to the design and imple-mentation of computer-based IS ndash Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Com-puter-based Systems (emphasis added) This is described in for example Mumford amp Weir(1979) and Mumford (1995) While others appeared more intent on improving the lsquobottom-linersquoof corporations with the astute utilization of IT Enid was more concerned about the everydayworkers and ITrsquos impact on their working lives (see for example Mumford 1983a) Indeed shechampioned the participative approach to IS design at a time when it was more common to seetop-down data-driven hierarchical approaches that had a tendency to dehumanize the pro-cess (Mumford 1983b)

But I have thus far talked in the abstract I have unwittingly dehumanized this tribute Let metalk therefore about the person the human being I recall three events in particular that epit-omized Enid for me The first was in 1984 the second in 1998 and the third in 1999 In Sep-tember 1984 Enid organized the first conference ever to really question the widely differingconceptions of what constituted IS research (Mumford et al 1985) This was a seminalmoment for the field The approaches were many and varied ndash we were quite frankly ships inthe night Expressions of incredulity passed across faces of colleagues from different parts ofthe world ndash colleagues whose weltanschauungen were sometimes not only widely different butwidely divergent Picture philosophers from Finland experimentalist information systems pro-fessors from the States action researchers from the UK and Scandinavia ndash all coming togetherto discuss what they had until then thought to be a coherent field of interest Picture too a (rel-atively) young Brit lsquofresh off the boatrsquo from Perth Western Australia at only his second inter-national conference trying to make sense of it all How naiumlve we all were But how serenecheerful and helpful Enid was rising above the lsquoTower of Babelrsquo that we had created for our-selves Her smiling face gave me the impression that she knew precisely what was likely tohappen and that this discussion was occurring not before time


copy 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation copy 2006 Blackwell publishing Ltd Information Systems Journal 16 343ndash382

357

At the International Conference in Information Systems (ICIS) in Helsinki December 1998Enid presented a paper concerned with solving complex problems (see Mumford 1998) RudyHirschheim kindly asked me to be the discussant for that paper If I may quote from my remarksmade at the time lsquoIn reflecting on Enidrsquos paper I have been thinking of two things one seriousthe other somewhat flippant First the more serious comment What I have always respectedabout Enidrsquos work is the fact that she makes us think and brings an ethical dimension to ourdiscourse whether it is the need for an emancipatory inclusive dimension to systemsdesign or in this case drawing our attention to complex pervasive and worrying problemsagainst which societies across the globe appear defenceless The more flippant thought isa quote from Somerset Maugham ldquoIt is bad enough to know the past ndash intolerable to know thefuturerdquo But that attitude while entirely understandable is inappropriate given the threateningnature and devastating impacts of the problems to which Enid draws our attention And notonly do we need to recognize those problems we need also to anticipate them and theldquoability to analyze the present and forecast the future [is] always a difficult taskrdquo as Enid notesrsquo(Galliers 1998 p 271)

What I found particularly wonderful about the experience was not so much our presentationsat ICIS but our communication before and after the conference ndash having the opportunity to dis-cuss the points that Enid was making and to relate them to the directions in which our fieldshould be heading Not for her ndash or me ndash the focus on the IT artefact alone or on design nar-rowly defined Her vision was much broader much more heroic For her IS had to speak tosocietal problems as well as organizational or technical ones

When I was president of the Association for Information Systems in 1999 I helped institutethe LEO Award for Lifetime Exceptional Achievement in Information Systems There were fourrecipients of the award in the first year C West Churchman J Daniel Couger Boumlrge Langeforsand Enid Mumford No one could doubt how deserving Enid was of that recognition by theacademy I can recall to this day the standing ovation each received I had tears in my eyesthen ndash as I do now Enid expressed to me surprise that the IS academy would deem her workworthy of such recognition For her IS was truly egoless We owe so much to these giants ofour field and we should never forget their contributions Thank you Enid for your vision andfor your humanity

DAVID AVISON

It is fair to say that Enid Mumford changed my life I studied social sciences at university (it wasin the 1960s) I loved every moment and found the topics discussed interesting and relevantAs an aside I have found the material interesting and relevant ever since (I wonder if thosepeople studying vocational IT courses later have found the topics discussed so useful in theirfuture life)

But it had to come to an end as I did not have the finance for further study ndash I had to get ajob I worked in computing because I thought it would be exciting and I worked for a numberof companies for 4ndash5 years I found Cobol programming very difficult for about 2 months inter-

D Avison et al


358

esting for 2 months and boring for the rest of the 2 years Systems analysis was indeed moreinteresting but the goals of the firms I worked for an oil company a property company and alsquofood-manufacturingrsquo company did not coincide with my own goals

I had to get out and by then I could afford to do a Masters course where I met Guy Fitzgeraldfor the first time as a fellow student It was a way of getting into teaching and I was delightedto get a job as a lecturer a year later and I met Trevor Wood-Harper ndash he also started as a newlecturer at the same time at Thames Polytechnic I wanted to research I did so in data mod-elling and databases I have nothing against this as a research topic for others but for me itwas arid and a price to pay for being a lecturer The conferences I attended were about data-base modelling I did this for some years but I was never passionate about the topic

Some time later Trevor suggested that I come to the now famous Manchester 1984 con-ference The fact that I did was somewhat serendipitous Thanks to Enid Mumford I could seethat research in our area could be interesting Somehow Enid attracted so many interestingpeople doing interesting research I heard such words as lsquoMarxismrsquo lsquophilosophyrsquo lsquometaphorsrsquolsquoHabermasrsquo lsquoethicsrsquo (to name only a few) that I had not heard since being a student and we hadcritical debate about interesting things (at least in my eyes) intellectually challenging and yetgood fun ndash just how it should be Of course in so doing I was introduced to Enidrsquos world andthe world of IFIP Working Group 82 of which she was chair (I became chair of this superbgroup many years later) I do not know how she managed to get such people together inManchester (I guess it was a mixture of hard work her charm powers of persuasion and feelfor the subject matter along with her sheer enthusiasm) She was an inspiring person and theconference was electric There was a high level of intellectual debate and yet we all felt lsquoathomersquo among friends

In the book of the Manchester proceedings that she edited she added a chapter containingguidance for the inexperienced researcher showing how research (including action research)could be done It is such a helpful and practical guide Action research was not an obviouschoice to a young researcher indeed a forbidden one in some academic cultures and here wasa guide to help us Many years later at another IFIP Working Group conference at PhiladelphiaI was part of a panel on action research Scarily Enid was in the audience The first panel mem-ber presented a survey of published action research in IS Enid got up and pointed out strongly(but in the kindest fashion) that he had failed to represent action research well as it was not tobe found in MIS Quarterly IS Research and the like as his survey had limited itself but in theless traditional European journals and even more in books (she did not say but I will say in par-ticular in her excellent books) It is not a surprise that action research was her preferredresearch approach At least the way she practised action research it facilitates the cooperativedevelopment of systems which the stakeholders may comfortably live with showing us andthem that technological change can be positive

She was such a good communicator I remember at one IFIP Working Group 82 conferencea leading researcher could not attend and asked Enid to present his paper and she didIndeed she may have presented it too well as that evening a group of us agreed that it was thefirst time we had fully understood (or at least thought we had understood) this research Wellit is true that we were sharing a drink together but I think there was some truth in the claim



359

Of course Enid has also inspired me through her ETHICS methodology for IS developmentIt is one of the cornerstones of the Multiview framework It is a methodology based on the par-ticipative approach to IS development and its inclusion in the original edition of lsquoAvison andFitzgeraldrsquo in 1988 was important because it made a contrast with the conventional approachesat the time such as the Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method and the structuredschool The methodology and the philosophy it embedded remain in the 4th edition (Avison ampFitzgerald 2005) In addition it encompasses the socio-technical view that for a system to beeffective the technology must fit closely with the social and organizational factors The philos-ophy of ETHICS is thus different from most IS development methodologies and is also explicitlystated which is also not common in most methodologies The philosophy is one which hasevolved from organizational behaviour and perceives the development of computer systemsnot as a technical issue but as an organizational issue which is fundamentally concerned withthe process of change What a legacy to be associated with a humanizing approach to whathas sadly often been a dehumanizing change in practice

I have been based in France for 6 years Last year I did my Habilitation agrave Diriger des Recher-ches This is a French postdoctoral qualification that gives the right to supervise research andresearchers in French universities Notwithstanding the fact that I have been directing researchfor many years I was pleased to do it as it enabled me to discuss my research to a largelyFrench audience In the presentation I reflected on my research and it was an honour to seethree people in the audience who were at the Manchester 1984 conference Unfortunately Enidwas too unwell to come I took the opportunity to discuss the work of those people that hadinfluenced me Of course Enidrsquos photograph loomed large as a major influence

I was pleased to do a review of her (sadly) last book Redesigning Human Systems Thisbook is a very useful resource for academics and students It can also be seen as a book forpractitioners as it provides guidelines about how to develop effective systems There are anumber of case studies in the book written partly from the point of view of the practitioner thatare based on her work with many organizations both large and small In most of the casesEnid acted as facilitator as well as researcher I recommend this book without hesitation

The description of a number of case studies of managing change at Liverpool docks (wherethe author worked as canteen assistant) for the coal industry (where a both very amusing andharrowing description is given on what it was like to be a woman researcher interviewing min-ers down a pit) and a multinational study in the car industry are particularly fascinating alongwith more recent experiences At the end of the book we look at her most recent work in crimeprevention (designing for security rather than for development) and her reflections on designingfor an uncertain future

It need hardly be stated that these are not simplistic descriptions of cases (which I fearform the basis of some IS teaching) but well-rounded discussions of real problem situationsexperienced by the author All the work presented evidences the highest ethical values In1999 Enid Mumford gained the LEO Award for Lifetime Exceptional Achievement Redesign-ing Human Systems looks at her many contributions over the years proves to be a goodsummary of her work and shows why her award was so richly deserved It would be wonder-ful to think that the content of this book might influence all IS practitioners academics and

D Avison et al


360

students If taken on board these reflections on past experience of managing change canonly improve the way we introduce new technology and the quality of working life in thefuture Let us hope that we have indeed lsquomoved from the macho nineties with their focus onfinancial success at any pricersquo If so this book will be one contribution that enables a morehumanistic vision

I find it inspiring that Enid had been involved in so much varied research in so many orga-nizations which has made such a major contribution and yet maintaining her ethical stancenever varied Happily her friendliness openness and kindness that she showed in personalrelationships are evidenced in her work that remains with us

HEINZ K KLEIN

It was a sad day when the news reached me that one of the great researchers and teachersof our field had passed away It is a welcome opportunity to express long overdue thanks andrecognition

The influence of Enid Mumford as a researcher teacher and role model for junior faculty can-not be overstated Many others have already given sufficient testimony to this Therefore I willhere recall some personal experiences with Enid that are little known yet were formative forthe IS discipline and with it for my own career They are connected to the 1984 IFIP WorkingGroup 82 Conference (now often affectionately called the lsquo1984 Manchester Conferencersquo) andthe subsequent publication of its proceedings The events are worth telling not only for the sakeof celebrating the personal contributions of Enid Mumford but because they illustrate theimportant influence of subjectivity in academic work From this perspective the following couldbe read as a belated confessional in the sense defined by Schultze (2000) that could haveand should have been formally reported as the authorrsquos lsquoinforming practicesrsquo in some of thepublications referenced below However the primary interpretation intended is that of a tale ofMumfordrsquos leadership in the lsquoinformal collegersquo that brought about mental paradigm shifts in theIS research community From the mid-1980s forwards these shifts lead to a considerablebroadening of the field in both substance and methods The result of this was that scientificenquiry today is concerned with a much broader range of significant meanings than was orig-inally anticipated when the classical lsquoPopperianrsquo methods of the social sciences were intro-duced into IS research

I do not know exactly how the seminal theme of the 1984 Manchester conference lsquoResearchMethods in Information Systemsrsquo emerged but I can testify that its revolutionary impact (in thesense of Kuhnrsquos notion of paradigm shifts) must be attributed to Mumfordrsquos efforts The pivotalresource on which she and probably only she could draw were her personal relationships withprominent representatives of the most important and divergent streams of IS research at thetime and her persuasive talents to induce their active participation This was critical becausemany of these leading spirits of IS research at the time were recognized only in some parts ofEurope but were completely unknown on the west side of the Atlantic from where other sem-inal contributions with contrasting paradigmatic assumptions were emerging



361

Indeed the 1984 Manchester conference was a watershed event not only for the field ofinformation systems but also for the future of my own career In the fall of 1983 when the twopapers (Klein amp Lyytinen 1985ab) were drafted which later were published in the proceedingsneither of the two junior authors understood the geographical social and intellectual lsquolay of thelandrsquo that during the next decade would become the bedrock of the newly emerging IS disci-pline The importance of paying close attention to the intellectual-social structures of the fieldand with them the significance of reflecting the impact of these structures on research prioritiesgoals strategies and detailed methods was the first major lesson that we learnt from Enidrsquosorganizing vision She enabled many of the participants to bring together in their minds whatbelonged together but what was still separated by both geographical distance and invisibleintellectual walls Of course geographical distances in the early 1980s did contribute to intel-lectual barriers more than nowadays because the beginnings of email in the form of Bitnet werenot yet commonplace the instant retrieval powers of todayrsquos Internet were still lsquoscience fictionrsquo

Brought physically together at the conference the participants collectively sketched a roadmap to the future of IS research maybe unbeknown to them yet definitely guided by Enidrsquosintuitive vision of the future Within the short time span of a few years this road map led to theso-called paradigm debate overcoming the pre-conference tunnel vision which dominated thefield With this tunnel vision we as junior authors were in the good company of many seniormembers also present Even worse neither one of us at the time had a sufficiently compre-hensive grasp of the immense importance of recognizing alternative research methods both forthe sake of fruitful academic debate and for the external academic legitimacy of the disciplineThis was the second major lesson for us It paid off well in later publications now well knownndash but Enid Mumfordrsquos input was critical for motivating us and pointing us in the right direction(see Hirschheim amp Klein 1989 1994 Hirschheim et al 1996 Klein amp Hirschheim 2001)

Finally we as junior authors had not yet sufficiently internalized and reflected the insight inour drafts that the rhetorical form of a contribution is just as important as its contents that infact the two are intertwined to the point that the form is the message (modifying a byword fromMarshall McLuhan) Enid personally provided immense collegial guidance to help us expressourselves in ways so that others with contrary views could at least understand the point thatwe were trying to make even if they continued to disagree This was a lsquopricelessrsquo third lessonfor the future of own work

In the end I would just like to say lsquoThank you very much Enidrsquo in public Your example willcontinue to shine through the doctoral students that we have exposed to your ideas and whoin due time will inform the next generation

RUDY HIRSCHHEIM

After spending my formative years studying Computer Science I was somewhat dismayed thatthe field paid too little attention to the application of computers in organizations The focus wason numerical analysis complexity theory systems languages graph theory and so on Sys-tems analysis ndash or data processing as it was often referred to at that time ndash was not the subject

D Avison et al


362

for lsquotruersquo Computer Scientists That is why I left the field in the early 1970s and started studyingthe newly emerging information systems discipline Here academicians were truly interestedin how best to design develop and use the new technology in real organizational settingsWhat a refreshing change I thought At the time I was a faculty member at McMaster Universityin Canada working with Richard Welke His advice was to lsquogo get your PhD but if you are reallyinterested in the social and organizational side of information systems you might considerstudying in England where the true experts arersquo The names of Enid Mumford and Frank Landwere mentioned as possible mentors So I packed my bags and headed for England There Imet Frank who was at the LSE and Enid who was at the Manchester Business SchoolAlthough I wound up going to the LSE to study I was really impressed by Enid and admired thework that she was doing So much so that in 1979 I took a job at the National Computing Cen-tre in Manchester this afforded me the opportunity to meet with Enid regularly and learn moreabout her research

At the time I went to England in the late 1970s Enid was engaged in the development of herETHICS method for designing and implementing IS She was busy applying her ideas to realorganizations such as Turners Asbestos Cement Rolls Royce Aerospace ICI and DigitalEquipment Corporation I was enthralled and kept in touch with Enid while she proceeded toenhance her ideas on melding socio-technical principles with IS development further Her ideashad a profound effect on me and helped to shape my own thinking about how to develop ISeffectively By the early 1980s IBM had taken a keen interest in Enidrsquos work and asked me toevaluate the participativesocio-technical approach to systems development In analysing thecases that Enid had been involved in it became clear that the approach did work and that thefield had to take notice of this particular way of understanding organizations and how to imple-ment IS within them Clearly Enidrsquos work had made a major contribution to the field and thesystems development community subsequently recognized this when she was awarded theprestigious Warnier Prize for her contribution to IS

I used Enidrsquos ETHICS ideas in three of my own projects The first was to study organizationswho had used participative design (such as ETHICS) to ascertain the impact of using such anapproach As an alternative to traditional systems analysis and design approaches this heldmuch promise for the field (Hirschheim 1983 1985) I was so impressed with the result thatin the second project I attempted to incorporate the spirit of ETHICS thinking into the devel-opment of our FAOR (Functional Analysis of Office Requirements) project ndash an ESPRIT-fundedproject involving eight teams from around Europe While many of my collaborators were morecomfortable with Petri-nets and formal modeling than socio-technical thinking socio-technicalnotions did find their way into the projectrsquos output (Schafer et al 1988) A third major projectthat I was engaged in (with Heinz Klein) involved conceptualizing how Mumfordrsquos ETHICScould be extended to include emancipatory principles such as those espoused by Jurgen Hab-ermas We believed that the emancipatory notions of Habermas were more than pure idealismand used ETHICS to show conceptually how this could be implemented in practice (Hir-schheim amp Klein 1994)

But Enidrsquos work extended beyond her ETHICS method and advancements in systems devel-opment theory and practice Enid had always taken a keen interest in how to help the IS



363

research community how to broaden the focus of research how to broaden the recognition ofalternative research methods and how to think about the values underlying the research thatthe community does To this end Enid organized the first IS conference whose focus was onalternative IS conceptions and the various research methods that could be used to study themMany of the leading scholars of the field at that time took part in the conference I was delightedto be part of the exercise that resulted in the book (Mumford et al 1985) In fact Enid was oneof the initial founders of IFIP Working Group 82 and was instrumental in its growth from itsinception in 1978 through to today Enid continued to be an active participant in the grouprsquosactivities even though she officially lsquoretiredrsquo from academia a number of years ago

After many years working in the IS domain Enidrsquos interests shifted towards broader societalissues She worried that much work in academia was devoid of real substance She thus devel-oped a keen interest in the societal problems of drugs and cyber crime This interest culmi-nated in a fascinating book (Mumford 1999) In the book Enid argued for problem solving thatwas neither naiumlve nor simplistic She eschewed such simplistic notions such as that suggestingthat merely throwing more resources at problems can solve complex problems Indeed com-plex problems such as drugs and cyber crime defy simple solutions

Consider some of the statistics that Enid offered about drugs It is a well known fact thatdrugs today are controlled by large-scale criminal organizations that cross national and inter-national boundaries Todayrsquos drug trafficking industry is worth approximately $500 billion ayear She notes that lsquoThe illegal drug industry is now believed to be the second largest industryin the world second only to the arms industry and larger than the oil industryrsquo The US gov-ernment has spent in excess of $20 billion during the past 10 years on international drug con-trol programmes with little or no effect lsquoUS and Mexican interdiction efforts have had little ifany effect on the overall flow of drugs through Mexico to the United Statesrsquo In the United Statesalone 85 million people have tried illegal drugs and around $75 billion a year is spent on theseillegal drugs And across the globe there are an estimated 45 million people addicted to illegaldrugs These are indeed sobering statistics

It should be apparent to all that Enid Mumford was a very special person One who focusedher attention on the social side of technology to making the use of technology pleasing andbeneficial to the user to warning us of the dangers of drugs and cyber crime How did shecome to have this focus Consider how her lsquosocialrsquo interest always guided her career

Enid Mumfordrsquos first degree was a Bachelor of Arts in Social Science which she receivedfrom Liverpool University She then spent some time in industry first as a personnel managerat an aircraft factory and later as a production manager at a factory manufacturing alarmclocks The first was the most valuable job experience she ever had as it involved looking afterpersonnel policy and industrial relations strategy for a very large number of women staff Hersecond job proved invaluable as it gave her the experience of running a production depart-ment an experience that is unusual for academics She next joined the Faculty of Social Sci-ence at Liverpool and carried out research in industrial relations in both the Liverpool docksand the North West coal industry In order to get in-depth information for the dock research shebecame a canteen assistant in three canteens used by the stevedores for meals The coal mineresearch required her to spend many months underground talking to miners at the coal face

D Avison et al


364

These are hardly the usual places to find academics but are indicative of Enidrsquos strong desireto understand the lsquosocialrsquo side of work

After a year at the University of Michigan where she worked for the University Bureau of PublicHealth Economics she joined the newly formed Manchester Business School Here she hadmany research contracts to study the human and organizational impact of computer-based sys-tems At Manchester she was Professor of Organizational Behavior and Director of the Com-puter and Work Design Research Unit She was also Director of the MBA programme for 4 years

While at Manchester Business School she developed a close relationship with members ofthe Tavistock Institute and became a follower of their democratic socio-technical approachShe was at the forefront in applying these ideas to the design and implementation of computer-based systems and information technology In the 1970s she became a member of the Inter-national Quality of Working Life Group Her goal was to spread the socio-technical messagearound the world She later became a council member of the Tavistock Before her death Enidwas Professor Emeritus of Manchester University and a Visiting Fellow at the Manchester Busi-ness School She was a Companion of the Institute of Personnel Management and a Fellow ofthe British Computer Society (BCS) as well as a founding member and ex-chairperson of theBCS Socio-Technical Group In 1996 Enid was given an Honorary Doctorate by the Universityof Jyvaskyla in Finland It is clear that Enidrsquos career was a long and distinguished one

While I am deeply saddened by her death I am delighted to have had the opportunity toknow her and work with her I will especially cherish the many afternoons we spent chattingabout socio-technicalparticipative design in cold rainy Manchester But most of all I will missher scholarship humour kindness friendship and thoughtfulness She was a great mentor

In closing let me relate a humorous story on how Enid was viewed in my family During my10 years in England there were many occasions when Enid would ring to discuss one thing oranother or just to say lsquohellorsquo Phone calls backwards and forwards as well as visits were com-monplace especially in the early 1980s One summer day in 1983 Enid rang our home in Ham-bleden That was just about the time our son Geoffrey who was about 3 years old thendecided he was now old enough to answer the telephone He beat us to the phone Enid musthave said who she was and chatted a few minutes with him Geoffrey had a look of pure joyand almost shock on his face as he held the phone and stood speechless My wife looked athim and asked who it was ndash he said lsquoMummy it is the Amazing Mumfordrsquo Now it turns out thaton lsquoSesame Streetrsquo at that time there was a character a magician called lsquoThe Amazing Mum-fordrsquo Geoffrey a big lsquoSesame Streetrsquo fan in those days was certain that he was speaking tothis magical character We told Enid the story later and all had a good laugh Henceforth shewas always known in the Hirschheim household as lsquoThe Amazing Mumfordrsquo And she was Shewas an inspiration to us all and she will be dearly missed

GUY FITZGERALD

As a new academic I was introduced to Enidrsquos work by Trevor Wood-Harper when we workedtogether at Thames Polytechnic as it then was I recall that the first thing I read was her book



365

on her experiences of redesigning work systems at Rolls Royce (Mumford amp Henshall 1978)This work excited me as it was practical and reflected some of my own experiences in industryas a systems developer Enid managed to combine theory and practice with clear philosophicaland ethical underpinnings ndash a revelation for me I was hooked and read almost everything elseshe had produced Enidrsquos work made me realize that academic ideas could actually be rela-tively straightforwardly expressed and that clarity was a benefit and had a power to revealrather than obfuscate and confuse Such straightforwardness was emancipatory but I quicklylearned that it also had dangers because it clarified the crux of onersquos arguments to othersincluding any weaknesses and thus one had to be absolutely sound in those arguments Enidachieved this and was always consistent whereas I was not Enidrsquos work also introduced meto the notion of action research which again fitted with my view of the importance of practiceand I saw how effective research in IS could be and her work legitimized and justified this byexample

On a personal level I first met her in 1980 I organized a series of public lectures on behalfof the BCS entitled lsquoComputers Servant or Masterrsquo together with Tom Crowe also fromThames Polytechnic and among the speakers we invited was Enid Mumford I did this withsome trepidation because I was a very junior lecturer inviting academic luminaries and direct-ing them as to what kind of thing we wanted Enid of course agreed as she always seemedto do This was partly her good nature but also she was very keen to disseminate her workparticularly to those outside the academic world On the evening of the lecture I decided tostand outside the venue to welcome her I waited and waited but eventually concluded that shewas not going to turn up I went back inside to tell the assembled audience that the lecture wascancelled only to find that she had somehow slipped past me and that the talk was alreadyunderway She had decided that despite my having failed to appear and even though therewas no chairperson she would just get on with it She gave a spellbinding talk and managedto convince many of the practitioners in the audience not only of the effectiveness of her par-ticipative approach to systems development (which would become ETHICS) but also of its fair-ness and practicality I had mistakenly assumed that she would arrive in grand style by taxi atleast and would expect to be met at the door But no she was a normal person she arrivedby tube walked from the station and entered by a side door I was mortified to have put her ina difficult position but she would have none of it Typical Enid as I was to discover over theyears

This series of talks were recorded and compiled into a book but at the last minute thepublisher (whom had better remain nameless) decided to renege on the deal and pulledout I informed Enid expecting some annoyance on her part as she had worked hard onconverting her talk into a publishable chapter but she was only upset for me and mywasted efforts Enid had strong view on publishers which were not complimentary and thissimply confirmed her views Indeed she later decided to publish many of her own booksherself

My next meetings with Enid were at various conferences One I recall was an IFIP 82 con-ference at the University of Minnesota in 1983 where I gave a presentation on IS develop-ment methodologies The talk outlined various methodologies and summarized their

D Avison et al


366

strengths and weaknesses As I started on the weaknesses of ETHICS I suddenly noticedEnid in the audience This threw me somewhat as I had not expected any of the methodologyauthors to be there Anyway I persevered with my interpretation including the weaknessesand at the end she congratulated me on my presentation which pleased me greatly and shemade some further comments about ETHICS in action It was only sometime later on reflec-tion that I realized she was in fact putting me right on a number of points but she didit in such a way that I could not possibly be offended indeed it was so gentle that I almostmissed it

Later I worked with Enid on the IFIP 82 conference at Manchester in 1984 where her strongviews on the relevance of research and the role of qualitative research approaches were to thefore However she also recognized the right for others to have different views and helped coinwhat became a theme of the conference which was to lsquolet many flowers bloomrsquo The proceed-ings (Mumford et al 1985) were jointly edited by Enid Trevor Wood-Harper Rudy Hirschheimand myself In this task I found her to be very open and constructive and prepared to work veryhard to produce an excellent book out of the conference She even did much of the drudgework of tidying up the proceedings improving the English and making it into a coherent wholeand most of the credit for the conference and the proceedings which have subsequentlybecome something of a classic was down to her

Since that time I got to know Enid reasonably well and she came regularly to give talks ona post-experience MSc programme that I ran at Warwick University She was a delight andinvariably charmed the hard-nosed practitioners and opened their minds They found thenotion of Ethics (both as a development approach and as a principle) strange but interestingThey would often ask how it could work where the objective of the IS being developed was staffreduction (as was often the case with IT systems in those days) Enid would put them right andtell them that of course it would not work in such circumstances and if that was the case it wasthe objective that needed changing Right to the heart of the matter every time I realized dur-ing these sessions that I would not so long ago have thought as these practitioners did and howmuch I had changed myself ndash and in a large part Enid was the catalyst for that change Otherstalk more about her influence on the discipline but for me her influence was personal She willbe greatly missed and will I believe prove irreplaceable

MARCO DE MARCO

When a scholar of the standing of Enid Mumford dies one is likely to ask two questions whatwas their contribution to the disciplinary knowledge of the field in which they worked and whatwill remain of their thinking in the years ahead

In my youth I realized in a purely indiscriminate way that the advent of information tech-nology would trigger a sea change in the way we work and that designing an IS thus took ona value that went far beyond the services of a specialist influencing as it did the working con-ditions of a vast number of people The 1960s saw the designing of computerized systemswhich involved the grouping of the various work activities and then their regrouping in line with



367

a computer-compatible logic The focus was on the machines and on efficiency but disre-garded the user-work aspect The designers realized that this was a crucial issue but had noidea of how to raise it Enid Mumford gave this sentiment a solid scientific imprint She statedclearly that technical systems created at the expense of social systems obtain suboptimalresults

Mumford was a major figure in the universe of European IS Her work was well-grounded inboth the European tradition of industrial design and the socio-technical approach Her mostsignificant contribution to the field of IS research is the ETHICS methodology In it she devel-oped a set of guidelines for steering the design of IS These guidelines indicate that designersneed to approach both systems architecture and systems functioning as a collaborativeendeavour The recognition of both the technical and the social dimension of IS as key designelements pursues the socio-technical ideas developed at the Tavistock Institute in London withwhich Mumford enjoyed a long-established working relationship

The ETHICS methodology suggests a new way of approaching the process of IS designMumford proposed addressing IS design as a joint effort enabling the whole group to nego-tiate all the relative issues and solutions from needs analysis functionality requirements sys-tem design and prototypepilot project to full implementation training tracking and retro-fitting

The idea of IS development as a collaborative contractual procedure has opened a newpathway for IS research The idea that an IS is not a technical artefact but the result of theinteraction among technological artefacts and their users ndash as proposed by Mumford with theETHICS methodology ndash has enriched the bedrock upon which the humanistic paradigm in ISresearch has developed The ETHICS methodology can be considered a major contribution tothe development of the research path that continues to be central to the IS debate For exam-ple the Scandinavian approach based on the idea of participatory design is closely connectedwith the ideas proposed by Mumford and can be viewed as a further development of her orig-inal approach

The idea of social dimensions in IS as proposed by Mumford is pivotal to the research in ISeven today Her initial contribution has not been forgotten Recently actor-network theory(ANT) suggested a new way of looking at the problem of IS development along similar albeitnot identical lines as the ones proposed by Mumford Indeed ANT proposes approaching theoverlapping of technological artefact and social setting as the natural domain within which ISneed to be shaped In this case the focus is not on the research into the equilibrium betweenthe technological and the social subsystems as put forward by the socio-technical ideasunderpinning Mumfordrsquos work but on the coevolution of the two However we must recognizethat the design ideas emerging from ANT such as cultivation probably could have not beendeveloped without Mumfordrsquos fundamental work which has paved the way for this new conceptof researching the problems and issues linked to IS design

Mumford was one of the most important initiators of this research path into IS design over-coming the constraints of the engineering concept of design which only takes into account thedesign technicalities of technical artefacts Mumford has helped to bring the human side of ISfully into the picture and has laid the foundations for developing the social studies of IS For thiswe must always be grateful to her

D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA

The enduring quality of Enid Mumfordrsquos work can be shown from Mumford (2003 p 1) lsquoTheworld changes and technology comes and goes human problems remain the samersquo I learnedabout Enid Munfordrsquos work during my first doctoral seminar at the University of Jyvaskyla Fin-land During a seminar series led by Kalle Lyytinen and Markku Nurminen I wrote a paperabout the socio-technical design and ETHICS I was lsquosoldrsquo Enid wrote about simple practicaland doable things that helped made IS more ethical and more humane (Mumford 1983b1995 2000b 2003) I had a Masters degree in computer science but as a graduate of a Scan-dinavian university I was trained to think in people terms when designing IS During my yearsat work however I had learned that the rest of the world does not necessarily see systemsanalysis and design in the same way Ideas included in ETHICS were not commonly includedin IS design practices ETHICS gave me a formalized way to include the humane side into ISdevelopment projects Today I continue to teach ETHICS in my systems analysis and designclasses Management IS students are surprised to learn that designing IS should not mainly bea process where technical and economic aspects prevail

I first met Enid in my doctoral defence at the University of Jyvaskyla Finland in 1996 (devel-oped in Porra 1999) She was my opponent The task of the opponent is to challenge the dis-sertation being defended I never forget how her friendly demeanour was in stark contrast withher questions Enid asked me to go beyond my dissertation She asked how my Colonial Sys-tems ndash essentially a model of sustained group level behaviour ndash could describe the behaviourof terrorist groups Similar questions followed I was prepared to defend my theoretical modelInstead I had to apply it to real problems on the spot The defence turned into an intense learn-ing process Enidrsquos constant smile and soft voice stopped me from panicking Needless to sayI had not prepared to discuss how my model would apply to solving wicked problems of theworld

That year Enid received an honorary doctorate from the University of Jyvaskyla In Finlandsymbols of doctorate are a top hat and a ceremonial sword Whenever we met from then onEnid brought up the fact that we both had a sword lsquofor fighting intellectual battlesrsquo In her candidway Enid also kept reminding me how good it was that in Finland we had finally made thefemale doctorrsquos top hat as tall as the male doctorrsquos and the female doctorrsquos sword as long asthe male doctorrsquos The old way struck her as lsquomost unacceptablersquo ndash I could not have agreedmore At that time I had no idea that I would have the opportunity to spend many times withEnid talking about her career work life and being a female scholar I was a keen listener

Even among general systems theorists Enidrsquos ability to cross commonly held boundarieswas impressive She was one of the few people I have ever met who could move between the-ory and practice with considerable ease and teach others how to see the connections The abil-ity to cross boundaries also shows in her life Enid turned working opportunities into researchlife situations into work opportunities and research into money-making projects for organiza-tions These in turn would fund more research She worked in canteens on Liverpool docks todo research on dockers When she moved in order to accommodate her husbandrsquos careerManchester Business School hired her She turned one time projects with organizations like ICI



369

and Shell into long-term research relationships Enidrsquos talent in creating interesting and con-sequential research opportunities struck me as uncommon among all scholars

Another talent I always admired in Enid was her direct no nonsense approach to researchFor her the purpose of research was about lsquogetting to the bottom of thingsrsquo In this respect shereminded me of Ms Marple or Sherlock Holmes In order to find out about things Enid did herbest to become part of the scene she was investigating even under difficult and novel circum-stances (eg in the Maypole mine Enid was the first woman to set foot underground)

Enidrsquos main influence in research methodology was anthropology Enid sought to learn toknow the people and the circumstances she was investigating at first hand Once I asked herabout her views of research methods in general Without hesitation Enid replied lsquoMuch moreimportant than talking about what method you are going to use is to ask what is it that you wantto find out You will use any way that will help you find answers You must choose a methodthat fits your research problemrsquo She used her own research as an example Her comment ongoing into the mine to interview miners was lsquoI am reporting on a comparative study of workingminersrsquo lives Would I be sitting around with a questionnaire on the surface What couldbe dumber Enid felt so strongly about her research principles that she went into the mineknowing that Maypole was known for poor working conditions and had once blown up

Enid contributed her entire career to good luck starting with her first job as a personnel man-ager at Rolls Royce Aerospace She used to say lsquoI was always enormously fortunatersquo when-ever I asked how she got a specific project or job Enidrsquos positive attitude shows in her senseof humour She lightened up serious conversations I recently re-listened to my last interviewwith her from which l use a number of extracts here Throughout the tape we laughed almostas much as we talked I believe that Enidrsquos positive demeanour allowed her to speak candidlyabout serious problems without offending anyone

this new and mysterious group of programmers offered a great new career to maleclerks For them it was splendid But it brought some DREADFUL jobs for women becausethis terrible punch-operating role appeared where women had to punch the data into thecomputer All the interesting bits were done by the computer The women had to punch thedata in and collect the output so they were just kind of bits of machinery ndash machine mindersIt was a very bad period for women Computers didnrsquot enhance the jobs of women AT ALL

A few years before her death Enid still felt that the IS research field continues to give lip ser-vice to the human side of computing

The field can say all it wants that lsquowersquore all about humansrsquo but then when you have a guestspeech about the human side of things you donrsquot get anybody Somebody might raise a littleflag occasionally just to show that it [the human side of computing] hasnrsquot been totally for-gotten

She also continued to maintain a humble viewpoint of her impact in the IS field lsquoHow far haveI ever penetrated I have gotten high marks from a ldquoutopian correctrdquo rsquo Enid felt however thatthe future for more ethical approaches to IS design looks bright lsquoPeople are going to want thismore participative involved LEARNING processrsquo

D Avison et al


370

Enid left a legacy beyond IS design She challenged the IS field to tackle global complex andwicked problems such as drugs crime cyber crime and the effect of globalization on corporatemanagement

But today there is another set of challenging problems that managers are confronted withThese are new complex and often very threatening They are outside the managerrsquos normalday-to-day experience and there may be few experts available to give advice but the con-sequence of not tackling them may send a company on a route to commercial disaster Someproblems are so serious that despite our lack of knowledge we must make major efforts toremove or reduce them even though the likelihood of success in doing so is poor (Mumford1999 p 1)

A few years ago I met Enid at her home in England She had a present for my son Julianthen 2 years old It was a book called Gruffalo (Donaldson amp Scheffler 1999) In the book themain character is a mouse who invents a mean scary character called Gruffalo The mousewalks along a path through a big dark forest convincing every animal along the way that Gruf-falo actually exists until one day the mouse actually meets its own creation Starting thatmoment the mouse goes everywhere with Gruffalo along its side Even the sceptics must nowbelieve that Gruffalo actually exists Enid Mumford invented her own Gruffalo ETHICS Sheconvinced a considerable number of people worldwide of the value of her approach The bigdifference between Enid and the story about a mouse and Gruffalo is that Enid was no mouseand ETHICS is for kind and humane Enidrsquos influence will remain with us for generationsto come

ELAYNE COAKES

I first met Enid not long after I became an academic having spent many years as a practitionerI remember the occasion vividly as it was at a small conferenceworkshop held at the IEErsquoscentre on Londonrsquos Embankment Savoy Place on 11 March 1996 on lsquoHuman Organisationaland Technical Challenges in the Firm of the Futurersquo The audience was very much reduced asthere had been a major bomb scare that had closed much of the London Underground Thisgave me the opportunity to talk to Enid

Her talk at this workshop explained for me my uneasiness in some of the ways I had beenexpected to work as a practitioner and gave me an insight into a lsquosofterrsquo way of developing sys-tems and processes in organizations (I had been a practitioner with little academic knowledgeas my first degree had been in Public Administration and it was not until I became an academicthat I actually studied IS) The workshop looked at Vision and Transition management empha-sizing that the future of technology was for integration in a socio-technical structure with amulti-skilled and self-directed human resource Malcolm Peltu with whom Enid later wrote anexcellent paper on the issues concerned with Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) alsopresented at this workshop discussing the reasons why the systems for the London AmbulanceService and the London Stock Exchange (Taurus) went wrong In particular Enid and Malcolm



371

pointed out why stakeholders needed to be involved This later greatly influenced my PhDstudy which was grounded in a humanistic and socio-technical perspective

During our discussion after the workshop Enid asked me to join what was then the Socio-Technical Working Party which had an interesting role within the BCS The Party was consid-ered a part of the BCS Technical Committee on HumanndashSystems Interaction originally chairedby Professor Ken Eason now of the Bayswater Institute but was not a recognized entity ofits own

One of the aims of the working party was to find a wider audience for socio-technical ideasThe Tavistock Institute which had been a driving force in the period post Second World Warwas concentrating on the psychological and human relations aspects but the working partysaw a wider application of the principles in general organizational theory and process andtechnical application development In the Working Party we saw that the purpose of socio-technical theory was to combine the closed technical view of IS with an open view whereorganizations were adaptable systems We looked initially at how to combine IS developmentand use processes with these theories so that both technical and social goals could beachieved but in due course our discussion widened this view out into where socio-technicaltheory could be utilized more generally and not just for the development of IS Enid was there-fore extremely supportive of the book the group developed called The New Sociotech (Coakeset al 2000) where we hoped to show the wider origins and applications of socio-technicalthinking for modern organizations ndash thus writing Graffiti on the Long Wall (our subtitle) Shecontributed an excellent chapter on Technology and Freedom emphasizing that participationgives freedom of choice when systems (and processes) are being developed ndash a key tenet ofsocio-technical thinking Involvement according to Enid came in three flavours ndash consultativerepresentative and consensus and it was true participation that helped achieve success in theaction As Macgregor (1960) argued participation lsquocreates opportunities under suitable con-ditions for people to influence those decisions that affect themrsquo Mumford (2000a) also arguedthat lsquoparticipation is a process that allows employees to influence both the work they do andthe conditions under which they do it rsquo she also said lsquoit is right it is fair and itincreases profitrsquo

The group also started the Socio-Technical Lecture Series (archive available on httpwwwsociotechnicalorgLondon_prev_lecthtm) where Enid Mumford was of course the inau-gural speaker in 1999 I have had the privilege of organizing this series since commencementand have found it an excellent place to hear about the wider applications of socio-technology

At group meetings and a number of conferences I had the opportunity to talk further withEnid and one discussion we had in Manchester related to BPR and the harm that these ideasas they had been interpreted had caused within organizations It became obvious to me as Ireflected not only on Enidrsquos words but also my own practical experience that as processeswere re-engineered much of the understanding of how they operated especially under timesof uncertainty was being lost to organizations This reflection was developed into the conceptof lsquosticky knowledgersquo (Coakes et al 2004) whereby the tacit understanding of exceptional cir-cumstances was linked closely to the process workerrsquos experiences both with that particularprocess and also other processes both related and unrelated

D Avison et al


372

Reading Enidrsquos books and articles also introduced me to the fundamental socio-technicalprinciples of Cherns (1976 1987) which seemed to me to apply equally to the field of knowl-edge management as to that of more generic organizational design A second book (Coakeset al 2002) specifically applied these socio-technical ideas and principles to knowledge man-agement and in here I expounded how these principles could now be interpreted

Over the course of her career Enid wrote many books and her final book (2003) containeda collection of her work from the 1950s I reviewed this book (Coakes 2005) and said lsquoMumfordargues that one of the major challenges of the future lies in the necessity for companies to buildand retain teams with vision competence and loyalty to navigate through ldquouncharted waterswith no guaranteed safe haven on the far siderdquo Organisations in order to succeed in the cur-rent commercial environment need to establish mutually beneficial relationships with theiremployees They also need to establish a work ethic so that the groupsrsquo needs will be in har-mony with individual needs through self-development and generally agreed values She dis-cusses (in Chapter Two) not only the history of Socio-Technical Design (STD) but also itspossible future Mumford argues that the most important thing that Socio-Technical Design cancontribute is its value system that says that even though technology and organisational struc-tures change the rights and needs of the employee must be given as high a priority as any non-human element of the organisation The question that Mumford set out to answer is in herwords ldquoCan greater employee participation and humanisation of work help make industry moreefficient more people-friendly and better able to deal with the challenges of the futurerdquo rsquo

Her work on the origins of the socio-technical movement and the antecedents (1996a)looked at the work of Eric Trist and how he was influenced by his study of the Scottish Juteworkers in the 1930s where the introduction of new technology caused unemployment andalienation In Coakes et al (2004) I reviewed the early history of the socio-technical move-ment and commented lsquoAs Mumford (1997) says Cole (1985) in his seminal 1985 paperargued that there was a belief that the small and restricted jobs that had emerged from theTaloyristic view of organisations had led to employees not only being demotivated but alsoprevented them from realising their full potential The values and objectives of the Tavis-tock and of sociotechnical design by change agents have always been directed at helpingcompanies to manage change successfully This is done by creating work (and process) sys-tems that enable individuals groups and organisations to work together productively and har-moniously (Mumford 1996a) Mumford (1996b) grounds her arguments in the work ofMary Parker Follett who wrote and lectured in the early 1900s Follett was a managementconsultant who espoused group networks with self-government instead of bureaucraticorganisations Mumford explains that Follett believed in a broad attitude towards organisa-tions They should be coordinated and closely knit linking and so making a working unit notmany pieces individuals should have the freedom to join with others to form group powerFollett emphasised that group freedom meant no domination or compromise but integrationand functional capacityrsquo

These ideas that Enid Mumford espoused as derived from Mary Parker Follett have alsoinfluenced my current thinking about how Communities of Practice might operate in organiza-tions and how they might best be supported



373

It is now some years since I spoke to Enid in person as she stopped attending the groupmeetings because of her failing health Nevertheless her influence remains on my book-shelves and in my mind with her contribution to the application of socio-technical thinking inthe broader context She has influenced not only my thinking in my academic articles but alsomy teaching practice ndash my module aims and learning outcomes invariably mention that a socio-technical perspective will be taken And as I tell my students that means an emphasis on thesocio and not the technical as I believe Enid Mumford would also have declared

BERND CARSTEN STAHL

I never had the good fortune to meet Enid Mumford in person This is particularly unfortunatebecause we share an interest in some developments in IS that are worth further explorationand development as I will outline below These hold the promise to improve IS theory and prac-tice and will form part of her lasting intellectual heritage In this section I will briefly outline howI came to appreciate her work and then I will present a critical reading of her achievements thatI hope will open avenues for further development of Enid Mumfordrsquos work

Like many others in the field of IS I arrived at it more by accident than by design The onequestion that I found most interesting when I started to understand the field was how moralactivities and ethical reasoning can or should be incorporated into the design and use of sys-tems I now know that this is a question that Enid grappled with over many decades but whenI started my own investigations and considerations I was not aware of her work My approachwas to analyse the concept of responsibility and see what it can mean in the context of the useof technology in organizations When I wrote up these ideas (Stahl 2004) I was fairly confidentthat they had a sufficient degree of theoretical stringency but their practical application andrealization seemed problematic

This is the point where I started to read Mumfordrsquos work in more detail and I recognized thatit included many of the answers I had been seeking The concept of reflective responsibility thatI have developed is based on the idea that the different dimensions of responsibility need to beconstituted collectively through discourse It is strongly inspired by Habermasrsquo Theory of Com-municative Action (Habermas 1981) Responsibility cannot be understood as an objectivelyand externally given reality but as something that needs to be negotiated by all stakeholdersin order to gain the legitimacy it requires But how do we do this in practice Part of the answerto this is that dealing with IS in a way that can claim to be reflectively responsible will requireparticipation And this is where Mumfordrsquos prior work particularly that on the ETHICS meth-odology and QuickETHICS provides a direct link to responsibility Many years before I hadbecome aware of the problem she had already given part of the answer In her attempt to findways to facilitate change and its management she had built up a strong body of knowledgewith regards to participative research and design She was also very much aware of the ethicalimplications of such participation Most importantly she had shown theoretically as well aspractically that the assumption of reflective responsibility is not only possible it is even eco-nomically viable in a market environment

D Avison et al


374

In my current reading about Mumfordrsquos work there is a different but related aspect that Ithink is very interesting which if explored properly will contribute to her lasting legacy Theaspect I have in mind is her affinity to critical research which is currently seeing a surge ininterest in the field of IS Interestingly Mumford never called herself a critical researcher Shewas interested in change problem solving and innovation and tried to address theses issuesin an acceptable manner What she does not seem to have realized is the close affinitybetween her interests and those of critical theory Critical theory here will be understood to beinterested in changing an alienating social reality with the aim of facilitating emancipation It istheoretically linked to the Frankfurt School and non-orthodox Marxism but it can also berelated to other theoretical approaches for example to Foucaultrsquos writing (Brooke 2002)

This very brief definition does not do the critical approach justice but it allows pinpointingareas where Mumfordrsquos work displayed clear characteristics of critical research Most impor-tantly Mumford was not content to leave things as they are but she shared the critical intentionto change the status quo This was the recurring theme of her research as well as her con-sultancy practice The main aim of the social changes she envisaged was emancipation Againshe did not use the term but her attempts to facilitate participation create legitimacy and pro-mote liberation and democracy in the workplace can easily be translated into the language ofcritical theory Her topics of interest were inspired by her perceived sense of alienation amongworkers that needs to be overcome In some instances she even used classical critical dictionsuch as the lsquoideology of capitalismrsquo (Mumford 2003 p 8) Her critical intention is also reflectedin her research approach including her penchant for interventionist action research (Mumford2001) But most of all her ethical intention to improve the lot of the workforce by catering totheir needs and allowing them to achieve their potential were clear signs of a critical drive

This interpretation of Mumford as a critical researcher is not only a self-serving descriptionof a fellow critical researcher It also allows us to understand some aspects of her work betterand to address and hopefully overcome some of the inconsistencies of her work This is nec-essary because her theoretical and practical achievements may be undermined by some of theweaknesses of her approach Among them there is a lack of theoretical consistency Shenever explored the connection her approach has with critical theory despite the paper of Hir-schheim amp Klein (1994) that emphasized it This precluded her from participating in current the-oretical developments There are other signs of lack of theoretical reflections of her work Sheproposed the neutrality of the researcher (Mumford 2001 p 64) an unlikely aim for a criticalresearcher and promoted a simple increase in the amount of knowledge as the aim of research(Mumford 2003 p 197)

More importantly there is a practical self-contradiction in her work If her assurance that par-ticipative work is equally conducive to worker as to management interests were true then mar-ket mechanisms should by now have led to a general acceptance of participative methods Thisis not the case It is therefore arguably the case that some of her basic assumptions are falseor that she has overlooked a serious drawback of participative work In fact she does not seemto have addressed the critique of participation that can be found in the literature Moreover sheaccepted parts of the managerial literature that are in ostensive contradiction to participationsuch as the emphasis on top management support Current management thinking cloaks



375

many hidden agendas and ideology and Mumford while surely aware of this fact did not spenda large amount of effort on exposing these Another serious shortcoming from the critical per-spective is that she did not question the capitalist system in which IS are designed and usedThe critical view of society as a collection of conflicting interests would have clashed with herbelief in the concurrence of interests of management and employees but it might have hadmore explanatory power In a similar manner she accepted the technology that is currentlyavailable without asking whether it could be conceptualized differently as the critical theory oftechnology suggests (Feenberg 1999)

And finally despite her emphasis on ETHICS her notion of ethics remained superficialWhile she referenced philosophical ethics in some parts of her oeuvre this never fed back inher understanding of the moral properties of participation She implied concepts of relativismcontractualism natural rights and consequentialism without defining her own position clearlyAs a result of this theoretical lacuna her ethical intention remains rather fuzzy and does notprovide a measure that would allow the practitioner of participation to develop criteria of suc-cess or failure

Given the importance and contribution of Mumfordrsquos work I believe it is important that it willbe taken up and developed by a new generation of scholars The insights she provides areinvaluable and provide an interesting link between research and practice The interpretation ofMumford as a critical scholar allows a differentiated understanding of her achievement Mostimportantly it allows the analysis of some of the weaknesses of her work and provides a the-oretical platform to address these I hope that this short tribute will contribute to the debate ofMumfordrsquos work and that it will help us to think with Mumford beyond Mumford in the expec-tation that this will allow us to further develop the participative systems in the democratic soci-ety that Enid Mumford hoped for

CARSTEN SOslashRENSEN

With the sad departure of Professor Enid Mumford we have witnessed the loss of yet anotheracademic so essential to the field of IS Sadly Kristen Nygaard Rob Kling and Claudio Ciborrahave all left us within the last couple of years

I knew Enid Mumford from a very early academic age being a computer science student inDenmark 1982ndash89 However I only knew her through her work and indeed only met her at con-ferences a couple of times This celebration of Enid Mumford is therefore one based on howI interpret her influence through her work and not a personal one

The essence of our field is the unspoken assumptions we share As I have spent my entirecareer moving between technical communities in computer science departments multidisci-plinary groups in research laboratories business schools and lastly a social science institu-tion questioning the basic assumptions about the world and how to inquire it has been anintegral part of my career In a computer science department the average IS person will oftenthink of themselves as not being particular knowledgeable on databases log-likelihood-ratioparsing and B-Trees compared with the computer boffins surrounding them but rather some-

D Avison et al


376

what of an expert on matters concerning Heidegger and Goffman However placed among phi-losophers and social scientists this assumption could easily turn out to be wrong Howeverwithin IS there is an acute understanding of the relevance of studying the complex relation-ships between human actors engaged in their daily activities within a social or indeed organi-zational context and the various technological artefacts they rely on to do so This is what weconsider at the core of our field In this Enid Mumford very much represents the fundamentalconcern for the human actor in this relationship Faced with strong business arguments for cer-tain arrangements dictated by the need for human actors to accommodate the arrangementsof major capital investments in production machinery it is essential to consider how the socialarrangements will fare Today we need this discussion more than ever (Hochschild 1997Bunting 2004) One of the significant changes is the tighter and tighter coupling of humanaction and information and communication technology Since the 1970s computers havemoved beyond secure basements and onto desks laps and into pockets Armed with laptopsand mobile phones more and more people do work outside offices at home or in cars as wein the past years had studied at LSE (httpmobilitylseacuk) This both relates to and fuels thechanges to the way work is organized in terms of rapid changing reconfigured distributedproject teams global sourcing and increased fluidity between home life and working life Oneof the consequences is an increased interest in understanding the fundamentals not exclu-sively as systems but also in terms of infrastructures (Ciborra et al 2000) and services (Math-iassen amp Soslashrensen forthcoming) This shift does by no means imply that the fundamentalissues Enid Mumford has raised throughout her extensive career now will become irrelevantand obsolete on the contrary However it does mean that we must reassess our understandingof the relationships between human and technological agency

Indeed it can be argued that the application of modern information and communicationstechnology to a large extent serves as means of effectivizing information work much as thetechnologies Enid Mumford studied aimed at effectivizing factory work (Zuboff 1987) If theapplication of advanced organizational information services based on complex global infra-structures is to succeed then significant attention to the issues raised by Enid Mumford is ofessence In highly distributed and mobile work contexts the core concerns relate not to theproper availability of 3G roaming agreements but to the proper care for interpersonal trust themanagement of invisible work and the agreements of what data can be mined and appliedacross the organization As a small example the use of location- and context-based servicesto coordinate and manage remotely distributed mobile workers can of course greatly improvetheir performance However without significant consensus of how this can be arranged it willbe highly problematic to establish the trust needed to engage in this kind of working arrange-ment (Soslashrensen 2004 Soslashrensen amp Pica 2005)

Enid Mumford placed participation at the centre of the discourse when the current wisdompreached far from that I have been so fortunate not having to question this rationale as I spentmy academic youth being influenced by the Scandinavian School of Systems DevelopmentParticipatory Design or The Collective Resources Approach which in turn clearly was greatlyinfluenced by established researchers such as Enid Mumford and Kristen Nygaard In fact oneof the questions this tradition raised in the mid-1980s when I was an MSc student at Aalborg



377

and Aringrhus University in Denmark was to what extent the socio-technical approach was radicalenough This is all water under the bridge now and for me the fundamental questions are stillthe same even if they must be asked in greatly different contexts with potentially significantlydifferent outcomes Whereas much of the work associated with the socio-technical school wasconcerned with understanding the relationships between manual work and the use of ICT wehave come to the point in time where the next challenge is the mobilization of information workspanning the highly routinized to the highly discretionary

The future of socio-technical arrangements is one that can be understood in terms of activeand concrete participation where organizational actors assembling and instantiating hetero-geneous information services suiting specific needs in specific contexts (Mathiassen ampSoslashrensen forthcoming) This requires not less but more attention to the understanding of thesocio-technical relationship The challenge will not be its demise but the fact is that the rela-tionships will be increasingly complex and essential

Investigations into socio-technical relationships at work at home or in society at large willalways be indebted to Enid Mumford for her immensely important work on emphasizing a sym-metrical relationship between the concerns for the human and for the technical The ubiquityof her contribution is essentially impossible to assess She will be greatly missed

JUHANI I IVARI

I met Enid Mumford the first time in 1983 It was at the IFIP Working Group 82 Conference onlsquoBeyond Productivity Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectivenessrsquo inMinneapolis I do not think that I had a personal contact with her then but I remember that shewas charming as always During the years I met her a number of times even though I knew hermore from some distance rather than as a close colleague

At the time of the Minneapolis conference I already knew Enid through her work To meEnidrsquos legacy can be summarized as three pillars the idea of an IS as a socio-technical sys-tem job satisfaction as an important objective in IS evaluation and user participation Ofcourse one could analyse Enidrsquos contributions from a number of other perspectives for exam-ple how she foresaw some sort of business process redesign much before BPR became a hottopic even though her approach was governed by quite different values than the later BPR(Mumford 1994) Enid also applied action research from the 1960s onwards when developingETHICS (Mumford 2001) years earlier than when it became widely known as a researchmethod in general and especially in the IS research community

In my contribution I will pinpoint some connections of her work with my own thinking My ear-liest reference to Enid seems to be in Iivari (1982) in which I refer to Enidrsquos model of job sat-isfaction (Mumford 1973) but in my first international paper (Iivari amp Koskela 1979) I refer tothe British research community (Hawgood 1975 Land 1975 1976) in which according to myunderstanding Enid was closely involved In my dissertation (Iivari 1983) I also make severalreferences to Mumford amp Henshall (1979) At that time I was working on the PIOCO model forIS development that comprised three major components PIOCO metamodel for an IS PIOCO

D Avison et al


378

process model and PIOCO model for choice and quality criteria for IS selection Enidrsquos ideasof an IS as a socio-technical system clearly influenced my conception of an IS as a componentof the redesigned organizational context ie the pragmatic (P) model in the PIOCO model foran IS Her idea of job satisfaction inspired us to include the IS impact on the quality of work asan aspect of effectiveness in the PIOCO model for choice and quality criteria for IS selection

In 1984 I developed and implemented for the first time a course lsquoTheory of Information Sys-tems Developmentrsquo that was the last mandatory course in our MSc curriculum in Oulu Whendeveloping the course I started to work on the idea of lsquoschools of information systems devel-opmentrsquo that gradually led to a scientific article (Iivari 1991) Socio-Technical Design asapplied to IS clearly was one of the strongest of such schools at that time In that work I gotmore broadly acquainted with Enidrsquos work and recognized her strong connections with Scan-dinavia already in the mid-1970s especially with researchers such as Bo Hedberg and NielsBjoslashrn-Andersen (Hedberg amp Mumford 1975 Bjoslashrn-Andersen et al 1979) The socio-technicalmovement in Scandinavia was very influential in inspiring a more radical trade-unionistapproach in Scandinavia as explained in Iivari amp Lyytinen (1998)

The topic of Enidrsquos talk in Minneapolis was lsquoParticipation ndash from Aristotle to todayrsquo It may bethat she is most well known as a great proponent of user participation of usersrsquo ethical rightto participate in the IS development that affects their daily work Even though I have followedthis stream of Enidrsquos work I have never really worked in the area of user participation There-fore I am more than pleased that just when writing this commentary I got access to my daugh-terrsquos PhD dissertation (Iivari 2006) Her thesis critically examines discursive construction oforganizational culture and user involvement in academia and in the development of commercialsoftware products in industry She refers a number of times to Enidrsquos work (Mumford 1983b)This shows how Enidrsquos legacy continues over generations In our field of fast change it is quiteexceptional that a researcher is able to make such an influence that continues over genera-tions Enid has a privilege of being such an exceptional person Her life continues in her workand ideas After her death it is really sad that the new generation of researchers do not havean opportunity to meet her in person to see the real human being behind those ideas In Enidrsquoscase I always found an exceptional harmony or fit if you wish between her personality and thehumanistic ideals she represented in her work

AMANY ELBANNA

I met Professor Mumford in 1997 when I was studying for an MSc at the LSE She visited theIS department and gave us MSc students a lecture on BPR at that time We wondered how anauthor of so many publications would look like When she entered the lecture theatre my col-leagues and I were impressed She looked so elegant with very well-coordinated clothes andlovely golden hair Her smile easy-going approach and remarkable enthusiasm quickly bridgedthe gap between her and us After the lecture a friend of mine and I approached her and wewere even more surprised by her generosity and ability to listen and engage in a very kindcharming and respectable way We talked about BPR and our term assignment and she lis-



379

tened carefully and discussed some of our points enthusiastically We could not believe that thelsquogreat professorrsquo seemed so modest and approachable

I always admired her spirit energy and remarkable persistence that allowed her to maintainher mission even during the 1990s when BPR was booming She bravely continued advocatinghuman choice in the face of computers incorporating the business needs to rethink the orga-nizational structure to respond to its increasingly competitive environment and be more attrac-tive to customers (Mumford 1994 1997) She published a whole stream of literature to remindacademia and industry that human organizational and technical factors were inseparable andthat the design environment that provides challenge work freedom and opportunities for ini-tiative is the one most likely to produce high-quality design for the benefit of employees andtheir organizations (Mumford 1996a) She has never stopped campaigning for the introductionand use of technology lsquoin a humanistic way with beneficiaries rather than victimsrsquo until the endof her life journey

I was reading extensively her work and was planning to interview her this spring as part ofthe data collection part of a research project on her work that I collaborate with ChrisanthiAvgerou and Frank Land Alas this was not feasible and my 1997 discussion with her is myonly personal encounter with the lady professor But I will never forget her smile charm andsympathetic mission for people Her inspiration will continue

REFERENCES

Avison DE amp Fitzgerald G (2005) Information Systems

Development Methodologies Techniques and Tools

4th edn McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK

Avison DE amp Wood-Harper AT (1990) Multiview An

Exploration in Information Systems Development Black-

well Scientific Oxford UK

Bjoslashrn-Andersen N Hedberg B Mercer D Mumford E

amp Soleacute A (1979) The Impact of Systems Change in

Organizations Sijthoff amp Ringhoff Alphen aan den Rijn

The Netherlands

Brooke C (2002) What does it mean to be lsquocriticalrsquo in

is research Journal of Information Technology 17

49ndash57

Bunting M (2004) Willing Slaves How the Overwork

Culture Is Ruling Our Lives Harpers Collins London

UK

Capra F (2003) The Hidden Connections Flamingo Lon-

don UK

Cherns A (1976) The principles of sociotechnical design

Human Relations 29 783ndash792


revisited Human Relations 40 153ndash162

Ciborra CU amp Associates (2000) From Control to Drift

The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures

Oxford University Press Oxford UK

Coakes E (2005) Redesigning human systems ndash Enid

Mumford Journal of Organisational and End User Com-

puting 17 58ndash60

Coakes E Willis D amp Lloyd-Jones R (eds) (2000) The

New Socio-Tech Graffiti on the Long Wall Springer-

Verlag London UK

Coakes E Willis D amp Clarke S (2002) Knowledge Man-

agement in the Sociotechnical World The Graffiti Con-

tinues Springer-Verlag London UK

Coakes E Bradburn A amp Sugden G (2004) Managing

and leveraging knowledge for organisational advantage

Knowledge Management Research and Practice 2

118ndash128

Cole RE (1985) The macropolitics of organisational

change a comparative analysis of the spread of small

group activities Administration Science Quarterly 30

560ndash585

Donaldson J amp Scheffler A (1999) The Gruffalo Mac-

millan Basingstoke UK

D Avison et al


380

Feenberg A (1999) Questioning Technology Routledge

London UK

Galliers RD (1998) Problems knowledge solutions

solving complex problems ndash a response to Enid Mum-

fordrsquos paper ICIS 1998 Helsinki Finland Journal of

Strategic Information Systems 7 271ndash274

Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Han-

delns ndash Band III Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt Germany

Hawgood J (1975) Quinquevalent quantification of com-

puter benefits In Economics of Informatics Frielink

AB (ed) pp 171ndash181 North-Holland Amsterdam The

Netherlands

Hedberg B amp Mumford E (1975) The design of computer

systems manrsquos vision of man as an integral part of the

systems design process In Human Choice and Com-

puters Mumford E amp Sackman H (eds) pp 31ndash59

American Elsevier Publishing Company New York NY

USA

Hirschheim R (1983) Assessing participative systems

design some conclusions from an exploratory study

Information and Management 6 317ndash327

Hirschheim R (1985) User experiences with and assess-

ment of participative systems design MIS Quarterly 9

295ndash303

Hirschheim R amp Klein HK (1989) Four paradigms of

information systems development Communications of

the ACM 32 1199ndash1216

Hirschheim R amp Klein H (1994) Realizing emancipatory

principles in information systems development the case

for ETHICS MIS Quarterly 18 83ndash109

Hirschheim R Klein HK amp Lyytinen K (1996) Exploring

the intellectual structures of systems development a

social action theoretic analysis Accounting Manage-

ment and Information Technologies 6 1ndash64

Hochschild AR (1997) The Time Bind When Work

Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work Owl Books

New York NY USA

Iivari J (1982) Taxonomy of the experimental and evolu-

tionary approaches to systemeering In Evolutionary

Information Systems Hawgood J (ed) pp 101ndash119

North-Holland Amsterdam The Netherlands

Iivari J (1983) Contributions to the Theoretical Founda-

tions of Systemeering Research and the PIOCO

Model Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Ser A 150 Oulu

Finland

Iivari J (1991) A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary

schools of IS development European Journal of Infor-

mation Systems 1 249ndash272

Iivari N (2006) Discourses on lsquoCulturersquo and lsquoUsability

Workrsquo in Software Product Development Acta Universi-

tatis Ouluensis Ser A 457 Oulu Finland [WWW doc-

ument] URL httpherkulesoulufiisbn9514280725

Iivari J amp Koskela E (1979) Choice and quality criteria for

data system selection In Proceedings of EuroIFIP 79

European Conference on Applied Information Technol-

ogy Samet PA (ed) North-Holland Amsterdam The

Netherlands

Iivari J amp Lyytinen K (1998) Research on information

systems development in Scandinavia ndash unity in plurality

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 10 135ndash

186

Kaplan B Truex DP Wastell D Wood-Harper AT amp

DeGross JI (eds) (2004) Information Systems

Research Relevant Theory and Informed Practice

Kluwer London UK

Klein HK amp Hirschheim R (2001) Choosing between

competing design ideals in information systems

development Information Systems Frontiers 3 75ndash

90

Klein HK amp Lyytinen K (1985a) The poverty of scientism

in information systems In Research Methods in

Information Systems Mumford E Hirschheim R

Fitzgerald G amp Wood-Harper AT (eds) Elsevier

Amsterdam The Netherlands

Klein HK amp Lyytinen K (1985b) Critical social theory as

a basis for the theory of information systems In

Research Methods in Information Systems Mumford

E Hirschheim R Fitzgerald G amp Wood-Harper AT

(eds) Elsevier Amsterdam The Netherlands

Land F (1975) Criteria for the evaluation and design of

effective systems In Economics of Informatics Frielink


Netherlands

Land F (1976) Evaluation of systems goals in determining

a design strategy for a computer based information

system Computer Journal 19 290ndash294

Macgregor D (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise

McGraw-Hill Maidenhead UK

Malone TW (2004) The Future of Work How the New

Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization Your

Management Style and Your Life Harvard Business

School Press Boston MA USA

Mathiassen L amp Soslashrensen C (forthcoming) A theory of

organizational information services Under Review for

International Journal

Mumford E (1972) Job Satisfaction A Study of Computer

Specialists Longman Harlow UK

Mumford E (1973) Job satisfaction a major objective for

the system design process Management Informatics

2



381

Mumford E (1983a) Designing Secretaries The Partici-

pative Design of a Word Processing System Manches-

ter Business School Manchester UK

Mumford E (1983b) Designing Participatively A Partici-

pative Approach to Computer Systems Design

Manchester Business School Manchester UK

Mumford E (1994) New treatments or old remedies is

business process reengineering really socio-technical

design Journal of Strategic Systems 3 313ndash326

Mumford E (1995) Effective Systems Design and

Requirements Analysis The ETHICS Approach Mac-


Mumford E (1996a) Systems Design Ethical Tools for

Ethical Change Macmillan Basingstoke UK

Mumford E (1996b) Designing for freedom in a technical

world In IT and Changes on Organisational Work

Orlikowski W Walsham G Jones MR amp DeGross

JI (eds) pp 425ndash441 Chapman amp Hall London UK

Mumford E (1997) The reality of participative design con-

tributing to stability in a rocking boat Information Sys-

tems Journal 7 4

Mumford E (1998) Problems knowledge solutions solv-

ing complex problems Journal of Strategic Information

Systems 7 255ndash269

Mumford E (1999) Dangerous Decisions Problem

Solving in Tomorrowrsquos World Kluwer New York NY

USA

Mumford E (2000a) Only the democrats will survive

The Observer Sunday 16th July [WWW document]

URL httpmoneyguardiancoukworkstory0613717

00html (accessed 4 May 2006)

Mumford E (2000b) A socio-technical approach to sys-

tems design Requirements Engineering 5 125ndash133

Mumford E (2001) Action research helping organizations

to change In Qualitative Research in IS Issues and

Trends Trauth E (ed) pp 46ndash77 Idea Hershey PA

USA

Mumford E (2003) Redesigning Human Systems IRM

Press Hershey PA USA

Mumford E (2006a) The Ethics Method [WWW docu-

ment] URL httpwwwenidu-netcomindexhtm

Mumford E (2006b) The story of socio-technical design

reflections on its successes failures and potential Infor-

mation Systems Journal 16 317ndash342

Mumford E amp Banks O (1967) The Computer and the

Clerk Routledge and Kegan Paul London UK

Mumford E amp Henshall D (1978) Participative Approach

to Computer Systems Design A Case Study of the Intro-

duction of a New Computer System Halsted Press New

York NY USA

Mumford E amp Henshall D (1979) A Participative

Approach to Computer Systems Design Associated

Business Press London UK

Mumford E amp Pettigrew AM (1975) Implementing Stra-

tegic Decisions Longman London UK

Mumford E amp Ward TB (1968) Computers Planning for

People Beekman Woodstock IL USA

Mumford E amp Weir M (1979) Computer Systems in

Work Design The ETHICS Method Wiley New York

NY USA

Mumford E Hirschheim R Fitzgerald G amp Wood-

Harper AT (eds) (1985) Research Methods in Informa-

tion Systems Elsevier Amsterdam The Netherlands

Pettigrew AM (1970) A behavioural analysis of an inno-

vative decision PhD thesis University of Manchester

Manchester UK

Pettigrew AM (1973) The Politics of Organizational Deci-

sion-Making Tavistock Publications London UK

Porra J (1999) Colonial systems Information Systems

Research 10 38ndash69

Schafer G Hirschheim R Bjorn-Andersen N Domke

M Harper M amp Hansjee R (1988) Functional Analysis

of Office Requirements A Multi-perspective Approach to

Analysis Wiley Chichester UK

Schultze U (2000) A confessional account of an ethnog-

raphy about knowledge work MIS Quarterly 24 3ndash41

Scott WH (1962) Office Automation and the Non-manual

Worker OECD Paris France

Scott WH (1965) Office Automation Administrative and

Human Problems OECD Paris France

Scott WH Mumford E McGivering I amp Kirkby J

(1963) Coal and Conflict Liverpool University Press

Liverpool UK

Scott WH Banks JA Halsey AH amp Lupton T (1965)

Technical Change and Industrial Relations Liverpool

University Press Liverpool UK

Soslashrensen C (2004) The Future Role of Trust in Work ndash The

Key Success Factor for Mobile Productivity Microsoft

Soslashrensen C amp Pica D (2005) Tales from the police

mobile technologies and contexts of work Information

and Organization 15 125ndash149

Soslashrensen C Yoo Y Lyytinen K amp De Gross J (2005)

Designing Ubiquitous Information Environments Socio-

Technical Issues and Challenges Springer London

UK

Stahl BC (2004) Responsible Management of Informa-

tion Systems Idea Hershey PA USA

Vidgen RT Avison DE Wood JRG amp Wood-Harper

AT (2002) Developing Web Information Systems

Butterworth-Heinemann Maidenhead UK

D Avison et al


382

Zuboff S (1987) In The Age of the Smart Machine Basic

Books New York NY USA

Contributors

David Avison is Distinguished Professor of Information

Systems at ESSEC Business School Paris

Niels Bjoslashrn-Andersen is Professor at the Institute for

Informatik of Copenhagen Business School Denmark

Elayne Coakes is a Senior Lecturer in Business Informa-

tion Management University of Westminster London

Gordon B Davis is Honeywell Professor of Management

Information Systems Emeritus University of Minnesota

USA

Michael Earl is Professor of Information Management at

Saiumld Business School University of Oxford and Dean of

Templeton College Oxford

Amany Elbanna is Researcher at the Department of Infor-

mation Systems London School of Economics

Guy Fitzgerald is Professor of Information Systems at

Brunel University Uxbridge UK

Robert D Galliers is Provost at Bentley College USA

Rudy Hirschheim is Professor of Information Systems at

EJ Ourso College of Business Louisiana State University

USA

Juhani Iivari is Professor in Information Systems at Oulu

University Finland

Heinz K Klein is Associate Professor in Information

Systems at State University of New York Binghamton

USA

Frank Land is Emeritus Professor in the Department of

Information Systems at London School of Economics

UK

Marco De Marco is Professor in the Department of Eco-

nomic and Management Sciences Catholic University of

Milan Italy

Andrew M Pettigrew is Dean School of Management

University of Bath UK

Jaana Porra is at the CT Bauer College of Business Uni-

versity of Houston USA

Bernd Carsten Stahl is Reader in Critical Research in

Technology at the Faculty of Computing Sciences and

Engineering De Montfort University Leicester UK

Carsten Soslashrensen is Senior Lecturer in Information Sys-

tems in the Department of Information Systems at London

School of Economics UK

Bob Wood is Professor of Information Systems Faculty of

Humanities University of Manchester UK

Trevor Wood-Harper is Professor of Information Systems

Faculty of Humanities University of Manchester UK

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

344

Mumfordrsquo

Guy Fitzgerald

tells us how Enid charmed even the most hard-nosed practitionersand opened their minds and suggests that she will not only be greatly missed but also proveirreplaceable

Marco de Marco

looks especially at development post Mumford and suggeststhat the design ideas emerging from actor-network theory such as cultivation are unlikely tohave been developed were it not for Mumfordrsquos fundamental work

Jaana Porra

makes a callinspired by Enid to solve global wicked problems (as well as introducing us to a mouse calledGruffalo)

Elayne Coakes

has developed Enidrsquos ideas into what she calls the lsquoNew Sociotechrsquoand she also recalls how Enid herself was influenced by Mary Parker Follett

Bernd CarstenStahl

reinterprets the work of Mumford as a critical scholar allowing a differentiated under-standing of her achievement along with an analysis of some of the weaknesses of her workthus providing a theoretical platform to develop this work further

Juhani Iivari

discusses theimpact of Enidrsquos writings in his own research beginning in the early 1980s and also refers tohis daughterrsquos thesis which has also been influenced by Enidrsquos work This is particularly appro-priate as it suggests that Enidrsquos legacy will indeed last through generations of researchersteachers and practitioners Finally

Amany Elbanna

describes her thoughts when she was anMSc student on seeing Enid for the first time

ANDREW

M

PETTIGREW

This is a brief personal and certainly partial view of Enid Mumford as a scholar and a personEnidrsquos intellectual identity and contributions are clear She is an internationally renowned man-agement scholar who helped create worldwide interest in the human and organizational impactof information and computer systems Although she produced many journal articles her mostnotable work has appeared in research monographs In these monographs she had the spaceto reveal the best of her theoretically informed empiricism and her philosophically and empir-ically based approaches to the practice of systems design and development Through her longcareer she bridged theory and practice and effectively engaged with managers specialists andpolicy makers wrestling with the implementation of early generations of computer systems Shedid all this with an openness directness warmth and optimism that drew many students col-leagues and managers to her point of view

I first encountered Enid as an undergraduate in the Social Sciences (Sociology) Departmentof Liverpool University in 1964 She taught me in a postgraduate year at Liverpool in 196566and when she left Liverpool in 1966 to become the first lecturer in Industrial Sociology at thenewly created Manchester Business School she asked me to accompany her as her firstResearch Fellow there This is an opportunity I shall forever be grateful for We both arrived atthe very outset of the new industry of business school education in the UK More importantlyfor me I had the chance to learn the basics of how to conduct social science research in busi-ness from a person who by that stage had had approaching 20 years of experience of front linemanagement research from working with her Liverpool colleagues Enid supervised my PhD atManchester Business School (Pettigrew 1970) This was eventually published as

The Politicsof Organizational Decision-Making

(Pettigrew 1973)




16

343ndash382

345




et al



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

346





and



ISJ





16

343ndash382

347




FRANK

LAND



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

348












16

343ndash382

349






MICHAEL

J

EARL



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy


















16

343ndash382

345




et al



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

346





and



ISJ





16

343ndash382

347




FRANK

LAND



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

348












16

343ndash382

349






MICHAEL

J

EARL



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

346





and



ISJ





16

343ndash382

347




FRANK

LAND



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

348












16

343ndash382

349






MICHAEL

J

EARL



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy


















16

343ndash382

347




FRANK

LAND



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

348












16

343ndash382

349






MICHAEL

J

EARL



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

348












16

343ndash382

349






MICHAEL

J

EARL



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy


















16

343ndash382

349






MICHAEL

J

EARL



D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

350



with









16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy


















16

343ndash382

351


GORDON

DAVIS






et al




et al

2004)

D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

352


N IELS

BJOslashRN

-

ANDERSEN









16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy


















16

343ndash382

353



et al






TREVOR

WOOD

-

HARPER

AND

BOB

WOOD


D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison

et al



16

343ndash382

354







par-ticipation

and



et al


1


2


3







16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy


















16

343ndash382

355





et al





D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison

et al



356

ROBERT D GALLIERS







357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy

















357




DAVID AVISON



D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















D Avison et al


358








359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy

















359






D Avison et al


360



HEINZ K KLEIN






361





RUDY HIRSCHHEIM


D Avison et al


362







363






D Avison et al


364






GUY FITZGERALD




365





D Avison et al


366




MARCO DE MARCO





367







D Avison et al


368

JAANA PORRA







369









D Avison et al


370




ELAYNE COAKES





371






D Avison et al


372







373


BERND CARSTEN STAHL




D Avison et al


374







375








D Avison et al


376






377




JUHANI I IVARI




D Avison et al


378




AMANY ELBANNA




379




REFERENCES










The Netherlands



49ndash57



UK


don UK










puting 17 58ndash60



Verlag London UK







118ndash128




560ndash585



D Avison et al


380


London UK










Netherlands






USA






295ndash303













New York NY USA








Finland












Netherlands




186




Kluwer London UK




90














Netherlands

















2



381





















tems Journal 7 4






USA










USA













York NY USA










NY USA






Manchester UK

















Liverpool UK












UK






D Avison et al


382



Contributors









USA











USA


University Finland



USA



UK



Milan Italy















enid mumford: a tribute

Documents