Paper Title: Information Systems and Systems Thinking: Time to Unite?

Authors: P. B. Checkland

Summary of Content of Paper

Checkland (1988) discusses information systems and systems thinking as being a juxtaposition of concepts owing to the initial conception of both systematic and systemic approaches to information theory.  The author believes that the confusion arose from the non-clarification of the initial idea around an information system, which largely was quantitatively classified instead of the semantics attached to it.  He postulated that the dominance of an information system by the computer has resulting in giving a means the status of an end, and as such has created room for confusion in the perception of reality.  Furthermore, the author presented his idea of a system, distinguishing between a system as a concept and an object.  The author expressed concern over the chaotic presentation of an information system by side stepping the semantic interpretation of the concept to embrace a rather anthropomorphic language, which also includes the use of the metaphor “memory” to describe the manipulation of stored tokens for data. He believes that while the use of the word “storage” could be justified, it is unlikely that computers are able to exercise memory.  Checkland and Holwell (1997) also presented the idea of the confusion in the conceptualisation of an information system, stating that the rapid trend in technological development has not come with a concomitant growth in the understanding and meaning attached to information systems.

A: Quality of the Research

Is the research question or objective clearly stated?

The author presented a vivid idea of the research question and objective. He asserted that the disparity between a system as a concept or object requires the interpretation of systems thinking in accordance with the semantics of information theory, which bears its relevance from the view of a system based on concepts.

Is the research question interesting and important?

The research question tends to create a synergy between information systems and systems thinking, and is relevant in the context of the research.  This is because the chaotic placement of information in the context of an information system dominated mainly by the computer has to a large extend neglected the rudiments of information processing from an organisation’s perspective.  The research question, therefore, provides a well-defined guide for giving answers and clarity to this hybrid field.

Is the work original?

The work of Checland (1988) is an original critique of the purview of the earlier usage of information and information theory from a systematic to a systemic systems thinking approach.  This new concern presents a process orientation of the information needs of organisations, and is likely to give the desired meaning to information in definition and usage.

Is the background research clear and relevant?

The background research in Checkland (1988) is a pointer to the wrong use of concepts in describing information in information systems and systems thinking.  This poise at providing clarity to the chaotic interpretation of information gives credence to the Chekland’s research background.  This agrees with the assertion of Daft and Griffin (1986) who claim that organisations process information to reduce uncertainty.

Are there any ethical problems?

The research does not present any ethical problems in its structure and contents.

B: The Research Method

Summarise the research method:

The research method was exploratory, and dealt much on extant literature on the concepts and perceptions of information systems and systems thinking.  Stigler et al (1999) posit that exploratory research is relevant in giving clarity to a problem that has not been studied more clearly, and as such is relevant in the context of use to give an insight into the proper perspective of information systems and systems thinking for organisational processes.

Does the research method seem appropriate for the research question?

The research method is appropriate since there have been a lot of conflicting postulations on the semantic interpretation of information in information systems theory.  The author attempted to unite information systems and systems thinking through the notion of a “system”, and examined the fundamentals of systems thinking as understood by early researchers.

Are the methods adequately described?

The methods used in describing the author’s position were described adequately in accordance with good investigative research provisions.

Were the analyses done correctly?

The author attempted to give descriptions of the meaning of information in order to fully describe and analyse the information systems theory and systems thinking.  More emphasis was placed on the misconception of information in definition and context, and the relevance of a clear and defined attribution of meaning to the understanding of information in an information system.  This was achieved through a critical analysis of the subject matter.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

All conclusions are derived from the data presented by the researcher in his paper, and as such fit for purpose.

C: Quality of Presentation

Is the work well presented?

The research paper follows a rational flow of thoughts from the formation of the main research theme to the analysis and conclusions given in relation to uniting the chaotic and hybrid fields of information systems and system thinking in the context of an organisation. The appearance of the work is sequential in connection with the research questions, research objectives, and analysis.

Is the paper well structured?

The structure of the paper is suitable, and sited around an eloquent analysis of the research focus.  The author was able to give a vivid perspective of the existing disparity in the attribution of meaning to information, and the notion of a “system” in understanding the theory of information systems and systems thinking.

Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?

The use of symbols, terms and concepts in the paper were clearly defined in tandem with the meaning intended.  The paper is based on simplified information systems concepts, which are predominantly used in the public domain.  This makes it easy to derive meaning from sentences and statements in interpreting the ideas presented.

Would additional tables, figures help to clarify the work?

A well-structured architectural diagram or model including the use of tables would have gone a long way to improve the quality of the paper.  This notwithstanding, the author was able to present a precise and concise layout of his ideas with a few figures showing his in-depth understanding of the subject matter.

D: Additional Notes

Information systems are generally composed of people and machines that rely on data for the attribution of meaning to information.  This information as opined by Daft and Griffin (1986), is a relevant tool for reducing uncertainty in the interpretation of an organisation’s decisions and transactions.  For an information system to thrive, information technology devices and tools must be commonplace.  To this effect, McDermott (1999) suggests that knowledge is different from information, and as such processes around information creation, documentation and sharing should be well-defined within an organisation.  This follows that systems thinking and information systems must be interwoven in providing an insight into the semantic interpretation of relevance in the context of conceptualising information for exploring perceived reality (Forrester, 1994; Chekland, 1999; Sterman, 2000)

 

References

McDermott, R., 1999. Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California management review, 41(4), pp.103-117.

Checkland, P.B., 1988. Information systems and systems thinking: time to unite?. International Journal of Information Management, 8(4), pp.239-248.

Checkland, P. and Holwell, S., 1997. Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field.

Checkland, P., 1999. Systems thinking. Rethinking management information systems, pp.45-56.

Sterman, J.D.J.D., 2000. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (No. HD30. 2 S7835 2000).

Forrester, J.W., 1994. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System dynamics review, 10(2‐3), pp.245-256.

Daft, R. and Griffin, R., 1986. Organizations as Information Processing Systems. TEXAS A AND M UNIV COLLEGE STATION DEPT OF MANAGEMENT.

Stigler, J.W., Gonzales, P., Kwanaka, T., Knoll, S. and Serrano, A., 1999. The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-Grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. A Research and Development Report.

• Uncategorized