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.

Paper Title: Understanding the design of information technologies for knowledge management in organizations: a pragmatic perspective

Authors: Tom Butler & Ciaran Murphy

Summary of  Content of Paper

The paper discusses the design of information technologies for effecting knowledge management systems based on a pragmatic perspective.  The paper conveys the positions of different authors on the existential relevance of different approaches to the design, implementation and application of knowledge base systems.  The authors argue that the functionalist approach to the design of information systems poses a limitation to the understanding of the various components of an information system geared towards achieving a pragmatic design to knowledge management systems.  The assertions of Butler and Murphy (2007) are in line with the position of Bhatt (2001), who had earlier postulated that knowledge management systems are primarily designed to support the construction, sharing, and application of knowledge in organisations.  While Butler and Murphy (2007) had argued for a paradigm shift from a functionalist approach to alternative perspectives to knowledge design and application, which embrace issues in ontology and epistemology in order to fully understand the relevance of information technology artefacts in knowledge management systems, McDermott (1999) posit that information technology may have inspired the vision of knowledge management but disagrees with its ability to realise this vision. This disagreement may be considered to be in line with the assertions of Butler and Murphy (2007) in claiming that information technology artefacts considered as components of knowledge management systems do not help in the systematic capture and dissemination of explicit and tacit experiential knowledge of the transactions of organisations.

A: Quality of the Research

Is the research question or objective clearly stated?

The research clearly highlighted the questions that needed answers in the paper using a reductionist/analytical dialectic based on a “present-at-hand” phenomenon.  The approach to answering the questions raised in the research was based on the deconstruction of the hermeneutic “whole” into its component parts.  Furthermore, the objective of the research was defined to help provide answers to the questions raised.  In doing so, practical and academic approaches were used to further assess the philosophy of technology in the achievement of the research’s objectives.

Is the research question interesting and important?

The research question is pertinent in the context of the research, and focuses on a dialogue of question and answer with questions raised for anticipated answers.  Questions are raised to be answered around categories, which depict the component parts of the knowledge assets.

Is the work original?

The contents of the research paper have high originality index with available in-text references as well as a comprehensive reference list.  All ideas around the research topic are coined from a combination of situated practical theory and philosophy from the academia.

Is the background research clear and relevant?

The research background portrays the design and development of knowledge management (KM) tools for the creation, storage, retrieval, transfer, and application of knowledge in organisations through the use of knowledge management technologies (Butler and Murphy, 2007, pp. 143 – 144).  Knowledge and knowledge management as discussed in Alavi and Leidner (2001) are deemed complex and multidimensional.  Consequently, the deconstruction and reconstitution of the various component parts of the situated practical theory and philosophy of knowledge, comprising knowledge asset categories as expatiated in this research is a clear and relevant discourse in the context of today’s knowledge management systems.  These knowledge management systems constitute the core of organisational processes and practice including the knowledge interests of certain communities-of-practice with cross functional groupings.

Are there any ethical problems?

The research presented ethical issues in the practical development of a knowledge management system including the promotion of knowledge sharing among 1600 knowledge workers of United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) using an Open Source Software Knowledge Management Tool called the Portable Knowledge Asset Development System (pKADS) as a testbed.   These ethical issues were, however, properly addressed in the work.

B: The Research Method

Summarise the research method:

The research method is based on a participative action research study that emphasised the development of pKADS.  This research method highlighted the collaboration of researchers with practitioners of knowledge management systems in a bid to deriving the required solutions for practical problems as well as propagating scientific knowledge.  Action research as mentioned in Baskerville and Myers (2004) involves, firstly, a cooperative inquiry of the social circumstances by the researcher and the themes of the research. This helps the researcher to articulate concepts are around the research domain. Subsequently, the satisfying stage comprises collaborative change, which allows changes to be introduced and the impact of such changes studied in the context of the research.

Does the research method seem appropriate for the research question?

The participative action research is deemed appropriate for the research question raised.  This is due to the fact that the design and development of the knowledge management tool – pKADS, discussed in Butler and Murphy (2007) was based on the combination of practical theory and the philosophy of technology.  The action research study has helped to significantly improve the pKADS tool beyond the level of a pilot prototype knowledge management tool.

Are the methods adequately described?

The research method used in the paper was sufficiently described in consonance with the design perspectives highlighted.  Emphasis was laid on the collaborative analysis of the social situation identified in the research to proffer solution to the design objectives in relation to the questions raised.

Were the analyses done correctly?

The analysis was based on interpretive (phenomenological) data analysis techniques (Thorne, 2016; Hair et al, 1998), which has been identified to be helpful in the improvement of qualitative analysis.  The research, which focussed on the design of an information technology artefact, provided an insight into the qualitative assessment of the artefact design in application and usage in tandem with best practices defined around the efforts of researchers and practitioners in knowledge management systems.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Yes, the conclusions given in the paper are derived and supported by the data used for the research.

C: Quality of Presentation

Is the work well presented?

The work follows a logical flow of ideas from the conception of the main research theme to the design and implementation of the knowledge management (KM) tool.  The presentation of the work is chronological in connection with the research questions, design objectives, and discussion of findings.

Is the paper well structured?

The structure of the paper is satisfactory, and positioned around a descriptive analysis of the research focus.  Emphasis is laid on the outcome derived from the marriage of situated practical theory and the philosophy of technology in achieving the development of a core knowledge management tool for knowledge management systems.

Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?

All symbols, terms, and concepts used are well defined. However, the research discusses ideas around complex ontological and epistemological concepts based on phenomenology and hermeneutics posing a rhetoric description of intended concepts, which may not be easily understood.

Would additional tables, figures help to clarify the work?

The research paper provides only one figure with no tables, and a lot of descriptions.  The use of more tables and figures would have been a good way to present the ideas in the research work.  Comparative analysis, and findings presented using tables and figures have always been a more structured way to clarify ideas around a chosen research focus (Patton, 2005). The research paper, therefore, would have conveyed better understanding with most of the ideas presented as tables and figures in the description of the major research themes.

D: Additional Notes

The paper is in line with the assertions of McDermott (1999), who has identified the limitations of information technology in realising a robust knowledge management system.  Similarly, Banville and Landry (1989) and Checkland  (1988) posit that the monistic view of information systems as science is inappropriate, and has an effect in the realisation of knowledge management systems from a functionalist approach. This notwithstanding, knowledge management tools and systems are indispensable in the context of today’s information systems for organisational processes and practices.  The collaborative efforts of researchers and industry practitioners in this respect is very relevant, and an added advantage for the next generation of KM tools.

 

References

Butler, T. and Murphy, C., 2007. Understanding the design of information technologies for knowledge management in organizations: a pragmatic perspective. Information Systems Journal, 17(2), pp.143-163.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E., 2001. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, pp.107-136.

Bhatt, G.D., 2001. Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of knowledge management, 5(1), pp.68-75.

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

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L., 1998. Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.

Walsham, G., 1995. Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of information systems, 4(2), p.74.

Thorne, S., 2016. Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice (Vol. 2). Routledge.

Patton, M.Q., 2005. Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Banville, C. and Landry, M., 1989. Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?. Communications of the ACM, 32(1), pp.48-60.

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

Baskerville, R. & Myers, M.D. 2004. Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28, 329–335.

Building knowledge management systems has become a major concern for organisations globally.  The question of knowledge management tools been pragmatic enough to support the expanding landscape of organisational processes and practice is increasingly becoming the focus of today’s researchers and proponents of situated practical theory.  Organisations must therefore embrace, not only a functionalist, but a pragmatic and epistemological approach to knowledge management in driving efficiency in processes and practice. Organisations process and manage knowledge for all categories of transactions using knowledge management systems and tools.  The drive for the efficient creation, representation, storage and processing of knowledge is an integral part of every organization, and as such using a practical approach to building knowledge management systems is key to the success of this process.  Knowledge assets in oragnaisations require a navigation tool such as a knowledge map to search and graphically explore the knowledge necessary for the transfer and application of knowledge.  Data mining and learning tools, repositories of knowledge, electronic bulletin boards, electronic mail, collaboration tools, directories of knowledge, and several other tools such as expert systems and decision support tools give credence to the usage scenarios of knowledge management systems in organisations.

The era of information technology, and the fast pace of development witnessed in this direction has also affected the way knowledge is coded and used in the context of the processes and practice of organisations.  For organisations to succeed in the management of knowledge, efforts in the direction of searchable knowledge repositories must be driven beyond the capture and sharing of the organisation’s document knowledge.  However, the question of the capture and sharing of experiential knowledge will always arise as more knowledge is captured, coded and shared.  This question requires answers, and these answers must be based on not just the explicitly documented knowledge of organisations but the knowledge of subject matter experts represented in a manner that can be easily stored, retrieved and distributed.  To achieve this and help organisations develop more intelligent systems and processes, collaboration among the academia and practitioners must be a consideration at all times.