Demo or Practice Critical Analysis of the Language

DemoorPractice:CriticalAnalysisoftheLanguage/ActionPerspectiveMarkDumayDepartmentofInformationSystems&SoftwareEngineering,DelftUniversityofTechnology,Delft,TheNetherlands.AbstractDespiteofferingseveralpromisingconcepts,theLanguage/ActionPerspective(LAP)isstillnotinthemainstreamofInformationSystemsDevelopment(ISD).SinceatpresentthereisonlyalimitedunderstandingofLAPtheoryandpractice,itremainsunclearwhetherthelackofLAP’simpactisduetoshortcomingsinLAPtheoryitself.OneclassicproblemwithinISDisthedichotomybetweensocialperspectivesandtechnicalperspectives.LAPclaimsitoffersasolutiontothisproblem.ThispaperinvestigatesthisclaimasameanstoreviewLAPtheory.ToprovideastructuretoacriticalanalysisofDEMO–anexamplemethodologythatbelongstotheLAPresearchcommunity–thispaperutilizesaparadigmaticframework.ThisframeworkisaugmentedbytheopinionofseveralDEMOpractitionersbymeansofanexpertdiscussion.WithuseofacomparativeevaluationofLAPtheoryandDEMOtheory,theimplicationofDEMO’sreflectionuponLAPisdetermined.ThepaperconcludesbyoutlininganagendaforfurtherresearchifLAPistoimproveitsfootprintinthefield.Keywords:Language/ActionPerspective(LAP),Design&EngineeringMethodologyforOrganizations(DEMO),CriticalAnalysis,InformationSystemsDevelopment(ISD),ParadigmaticAnalysis,Multi-methodology1IntroductionThispaperfocusesonaclassicalprobleminInformationSystemsDevelopment,beingtheapparentdichotomybetweensocialperspectivesandtechnicalperspectives.TheLanguage/ActionPerspectiveisanapproachthatisbaseduponanalysisofcommunicationasabasisforthedesignofInformationSystems.Thispaperinvestigatesifthisapproachcanunifythedichotomy.Thissectionelaboratesonthesetupofresearchthatsupportsthisinvestigation.1.1ResearchBackgroundSinceitsfirstapplicationintheearly1950sand1960s,InformationTechnologyhashadanincreasingimpactonorganizations(Daft1998).Thenotionofvirtualorganization–aformoforganizationthatisnolongerboundtophysicalpresencebyvirtueofcommunicationstechnology–isjustoneexampleofhowsuchtechnologycanchangethefoundationofmodernorganization(Jaffee2001:201-6).TostressthattheapplicationofInformationTechnologyatanorganizationalscopehasaprofoundimpactonitscontext,suchapplicationiscommonlyknownasanInformationSystem.AclassicdichotomyinthedisciplineofInformationSystemsDevelopment(ISD)istoviewsuchsystemsfromeitheratechnicalperspectiveorfromasocialperspective(GoldkuhlandLyytinen1982).Nevertheless,InformationSystemsDevelopmenthastodealwithbothsocialandtechnicalaspects(Hirschheim,Kleinetal.1995).TheinherentcontradictionofperspectivesisanimportantcauseofthefailureofmanyInformationSystems(cf.RiesewijkandWarmerdam1988;NuseibehandEasterbrook2000).MostpractitionerswithinthefieldofISDareguidedbythephilosophicalassumptionsoffunctionalism(GolesandHirschheim2000).ISDresearchhasasimilarbias,althoughmostnotablytheworkofGoles,Hirschheim,Iivari,KleinandLyytinen(Hirschheim,Kleinetal.M.J.Dumay/DemoorPractice:CriticalAnalysisoftheLanguage/ActionPerspective21995;Iivari,Hirschheimetal.1998;GolesandHirschheim2000;Iivari,Hirschheimetal.2000)hasalsobroughtattentiontootherorientations.ParticularlytheparadigmaticframeworkofIivari,Hirschheimetal.(1998;2000)isananalyticalinstrumentthatenablesaconvenientarrangementofISDmethodologiesintoseveralISDapproaches.OneoftheseapproachesistheLanguage/ActionPerspective(LAP),whichfocusesontheuseoflanguagetoachieveagreementandmutualunderstanding(Weigand2003).TheLAPapproachheavilydrawsuponthespeech-acttheoryofAustinandSearle,anduponthecommunicativetheoryofHabermas.Withinboththesetheories,socialbeingsachievechangesinthe(object)worldbymeansofcommunication.LAPthereforeclaimsthatitoffersasolutionforthemismatchbetweensocialperspectivesandtechnicalperspectiveswithinISD.SeveralresearchprogramsincorporateLAP,ofwhichtheDEMOmethodology1isanexample.ThismethodologyhasitsrootsintheSMARTIEproject2(Dietz1990a;1990b;1991)andwasfirstpresentedin1992(Dietz1992a;1992b).Althoughthemethodologyhasbeenappliedsuccessfullywithinvariouspracticalsettings(e.g.VanderRijstandDietz1993;VanReijswoud,Mulderetal.1999),neitherDEMOnorLAPareinthemainstreamofInformationSystemsDevelopment(Lyytinen2004).ItisunclearifthislimitedpresenceisduetoshortcomingsinLAPtheoryitself.AsISDisanappliedscience,acriticalanalysisfrombothatheoreticalpointofviewandapractitioner’spointofviewisrequired.AlthoughsomecommentsabouttheapplicabilityofLAPforISDareavailable(DeMichelisandGrasso1994;Suchman1994;Winograd1994;Bannon,Agreetal.1995;LjungbergandHolm1996),astructuredevaluationisnot.Asofyet,researchthatdrawsupontheexperiencesofthevariousmethodologiesincorporatingLAPisveryrare(KethersandSchoop2000beinganotableexception).Therefore,therelationshipbetweenLAPtheoryandpracticeremainsunclear.1.2ResearchQuestionsThispaperaimstodeviseseveralrecommendationsonhowtheLanguage/ActionPerspective(LAP)canimproveitsfootprintinthecommunityofISDpractice.TounderstandLAPitself,acriticalanalysisofLAP’sconceptsisnecessary.Tostructurethisanalysis,primaryfocusresidesontheclaimthatLAPcanunifytheapparentincompatiblesocialandtechnicalperspectivespresentinInformation