IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v3y2001i1d10.1023_a1011453721700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing Between Competing Design Ideals in Information Systems Development

Author

Listed:
  • Heinz K. Klein

    (The Fox School of Management Temple University)

  • Rudy Hirschheim

    (University of Houston, Houston, TX. 77204-6282)

Abstract

Whenever information systems are developed, they serve some interests at the expense of others. Just what those interests are and who possesses them need to be understood and debated as they involve value judgments. This paper contends that advice concerning the design of information systems must not be limited to technical design, but should also address what is good or bad, or right or wrong in any particular situation—a notion termed a design ideal. The paper offers an approach on how such value judgments involving competing design ideals may be approached in a rational way. This necessitates the adoption of a wider concept of rationality, one, which allows the insights of critical philosophical analysis to be brought to bear on the question of how information systems can best serve all project stakeholders. In order to address likely objections to our proposal, the conclusions discuss several research issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Heinz K. Klein & Rudy Hirschheim, 2001. "Choosing Between Competing Design Ideals in Information Systems Development," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 75-90, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:3:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1011453721700
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1011453721700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1011453721700
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1011453721700?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juhani Iivari & Rudy Hirschheim & Heinz K. Klein, 1998. "A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 164-193, June.
    2. Richard O. Mason, 1969. "A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(8), pages 403-414, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 0. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    2. James Sheffield, 2008. "Does health care for systemic development?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 283-290, March.
    3. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 2020. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 961-983, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    2. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    3. Mike Metcalfe, 2013. "A Pragmatic System of Decision Criteria," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 56-64, January.
    4. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    5. Abeer Al-Khoury & Sahraa Anwer Hussein & Muthana Abdulwhab & Zainab M. Aljuboori & Hossam Haddad & Mostafa A. Ali & Ibtihal A. Abed & Hakeem Hammood Flayyih, 2022. "Intellectual Capital History and Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    7. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    8. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    9. Henderson, John C. & Rockart, John F. & Sifonis, John G., 1984. "A planning methodology for integrating management support systems," Working papers no. 116. Working paper (S, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    10. repec:thr:techub:10019:y:2021:i:1:p:235-251 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kazem Haki & Michael Blaschke & Stephan Aier & Robert Winter, 2019. "A Value Co-creation Perspective on Information Systems Analysis and Design," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 61(4), pages 487-502, August.
    12. Richard Vidgen & Xiaofeng Wang, 2009. "Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 355-376, September.
    13. Rita Di Mascio, 2016. "Firms’ adoption of self-service technology: how managerial beliefs shape co-production decisions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 79-97, June.
    14. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    15. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    16. Dirk Basten & Linda Schneider & Oleg Pankratz, 2017. "Codification, Personalisation, or in Between? Exploring Knowledge Characteristics to Guide Knowledge Management System Design," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-46, December.
    17. Heffron, Raphael J., 2013. "The application of contrast explanation to energy policy research: UK nuclear energy policy 2002–2012," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 602-616.
    18. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    19. Ng, K. Yee & Van Dyne, Linn, 2001. "Individualism-Collectivism as a Boundary Condition for Effectiveness of Minority Influence in Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 198-225, March.
    20. Wilde, Thomas & Hess, Thomas, 2006. "Methodenspektrum der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Überblick und Portfoliobildung," Working Papers 2/2006, University of Munich, Munich School of Management, Institute for Information Systems and New Media.
    21. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:3:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1011453721700. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.