|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
This paper addresses the design problem of providing IT support for emerging knowledge processes (EKPs). EKPs are organizational activity patterns that exhibit three characteristics in combination: an emergent process of deliberations with no best structure or sequence; requirements for knowledge that are complex (both general and situational), distributed across people, and evolving dynamically; and an actor set that is unpredictable in terms of job roles or prior knowledge. Examples of EKPs include basic research, new product development, strategic business planning, and organization design. EKPs differ qualitatively from semi-structured decision making processes; therefore, they have unique requirements that are not all thoroughly supported by familiar classes of systems, such as executive information systems, expert systems, electronic communication systems, organizational memory systems, or repositories. Further, the development literature on familiar classes of systems does not provide adequate guidance on how to build systems that support EKPs. Consequently, EKPs require a new IS design theory, as explicated by Walls et al. (1992).
We created such a theory while designing and deploying a system for the EKP of organization design. The system was demonstrated through subsequent empirical analysis to be successful in supporting the process. Abstracting from the experience of building this system, we developed an IS design theory for EKP support systems. This new IS design theory is an important theoretical contribution, because it both provides guidance to developers and sets an agenda for academic research. EKP design theory makes the development process more tractable for developers by restricting the range of effective features (or rules for selecting features) and the range of effective development practices to a more manageable set. EKP design theory also sets an agenda for academic research by articulating theory-based principles that are subject to empirical, as well as practical, validation.
Keywords: IS design theory, IS development, emergent knowledge process, knowledge management
ISRL Categories: AH05, AC04, FA, HA, HD
Introduction
A perennially interesting research topic in the IS field is how to effectively develop new systems. The topic is interesting because, as IT develops and technical knowledge grows, IT is applied to new application areas that were not previously believed amenable to IT support. In the process, new kinds of systems and new development methods are also created.
For example, when IT was first applied to clerical record keeping, the waterfall development method emerged to handle the challenges of building good transaction processing systems (TPS). In the late 1960s, when IT was increasingly applied to managerial reporting and decision making, a new class of systems (decision support systems or DSS) and a new development approach (iterative development) were devised (Keen and Scott Morton 1978). Subsequently, as packaged individual productivity tools became popular, a new development strategy evolved (Cusumano and Selby 1995; Grudin 1991a, 1991 b). Similarly, the emergence of executive information systems (EIS) as a distinct class of applications warranted the creation of a new development approach (Watson et al. 1997).
Walls et al. (1992) used the name "IS design theories" to refer to an integrated prescription consisting of a particular class of user requirements, a type of system solution (with distinctive features), and a set of effective development practices. Thus, there are design theories for familiar system types, like DSS, TPS, EIS, etc. The benefit of an IS design theory, according to Walls et al., is to articulate the boundaries within which particular design assumptions apply. IS design theories make the design process more tractable for developers by focusing their attention and restricting their options, thereby improving development outcomes. In addition, IS design theories inform researchers by suggesting testable research hypotheses.
For example, DSS design theory is a contribution to the IS field because it signals system developers to do things differently than they would with TPS. In contrast to the advice given to TPS developers, DSS design theory tells developers not to specify decision-making problems as procedural processes and not to try to specify all user requirements in advance of starting system development. In so doing, DSS design theory makes the DSS design problem more manageable for developers, and it gives researchers a basis for making predictions about DSS use patterns and impacts. Similarly, software package design theory (Cusumano and Selby 1995; Grudin 1991a, 1991b) helps developers cope with a situation in which they do not have access to users for determining requirements, as they would if they were developing an in-house TPS.
In the spirit of Walls et al., this paper proposes a new IS design theory for a class of user requirements we call emergent knowledge processes (EKPs). Emergent knowledge processes are organizational activity patterns that exhibit three characteristics in combination: "deliberations" with no best structure or sequence; highly unpredictable potential users and work contexts; and information requirements that include general, specific, and tacit knowledge distributed across experts and non-experts. Examples include basic research, new product development, strategic business planning, and organization design. We argue that our design theory is a contribution to the IS literature because EKPs represent an important class of design situations that have not yet been adequately served by existing types of systems and their associated design theories.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In the theoretical background section, we discuss IS design theory and theorizing, describe a theoretically based conceptualization of emergent knowledge processes, and explain why a new IS design theory is needed. Next, we provide background about the development effort that served as the stimulus for our design theory, and we present the design theory as a set of principles that offer guidance to developers. We then explain why EKP design theory represents a contribution to the IS literature, and we discuss its generalizability. Finally, we present an agenda for future research and discuss implications for practitioners.
Theoretical Background
In this section, we first discuss IS design theory and design theorizing. Next, we describe a theoretically based conceptualization of emergent knowledge processes. Finally, we explain why a new IS design theory for EKPs is needed.
Introduction to Design Theorizing
Although "IS design theory" is a term that could refer to general systems theory and the relationship between developers, clients, and users (Churchman 1979) in the abstract, Walls et al. (1992) used the term in a very particular way to refer to solutions for specialized classes of IS design problems, usually given such labels as TPS, DSS, EIS, etc. According to Walls et al., an IS design theory is a package of three interrelated elements: a set of user requirements, a set of system features (or principles for selecting system features), and a set of principles deemed effective for guiding the process of development. By addressing all three elements in conjunction, an IS design theory can be thought of as a complete package of guidance for designers facing particular sets of circumstances.
An IS design theory, as explicated by Walls et al., has two distinctive characteristics: it is based in theory, and it provides guidance to practitioners. The theory underlying an IS design theory (referred to as "kernel theory") may be an academic theory (e.g., organizational psychology) or a practitioner theory-in-use (Sarker and Lee 2002). Kernel theory enables formulation of empirically testable predictions relating the design theory to outcomes like system-requirements fit. For example, it should be possible to establish empirically that the application of DSS design theory to a particular set of requirements produces better results than applying TPS design theory to the same requirements.
At the same time, IS design theories are normative theories. That is, they are prescriptive and evaluative, rather than solely descriptive, explanatory, or predictive. Because IS design theories are intended to give guidance to developers, they must not only pass scientific tests of explanatory or predictive power, they must also pass the tests of practice: Does the system work? Does the system do what it was supposed to do? Is the system elegant and aesthetically appealing? (Florman 1994).
It should be emphasized that the IS design theory approach of Walls et al. is not a radical departure from established IS practice and theorizing. Its primary contribution is to formalize, justify, and extend the traditional IS practice of labeling system types (e.g., TPS, DSS, GSS, ESS, EIS), describing their characteristic features, and prescribing an effective development approach. The value of an IS design theory is to reduce developers' uncertainty by restricting the range of allowable system features and development activities to a more manageable set, thereby increasing the reliability of development and the likelihood of success, and to stimulate research.
This paper outlines a design theory for systems that support EKP. As mentioned above, a IS design theory in the Walls et al. sense consists of three interrelated elements: (1) a set of user requirements derived from kernel theory, (2) principles governing the development process, and (3) principles governing the design of a system (i.e., specifying and implementing its features). In the next section, we present our kernel theory.
Emergent Knowledge Processes
Work that is to be supported by information technology is generally described in terms of the characteristics of the process by which work is performed (Keen and Scott Morton 1978), the characteristics of users and their work context (e.g., Markus and Keil 1994), and users' information requirements (e.g., related to their critical success factors, cf., Rockart 1984). An IS design theory must address all three characteristics.
The first characteristic, process, has traditionally been described in terms of the concept of structure. For example, Keen and Scott Morton described three degrees of structure: highly structured, semi-structured, and unstructured. They labeled as "semi-structured" processes like brand management, cash management, and management exception monitoring and distinguished them from "unstructured" processes, such as basic research and the concept definition phase of new product development.
Pava (1983) subsequently pointed out that it is not accurate to say that some processes merely lack structure. After all, as Keen and Scott Morton explained, the degree of structure in processes like cash management can increase over time as more becomes known about them. However, for the managerial decision-making processes of interest to Pava, increased structure is neither possible nor desirable, because it might introduce rigid, stereotyped responses where creativity and flexibility are needed. Such unstructurable processes have been referred to in terms of human sense-making: building knowledge in a recursive, participatory, and evolutionary manner (Boland and Tenkasi 1995). Because the term unstructured suggests that structuring is possible and desirable, whereas the term emergent does not, we believe that emergent is a better label for many knowledge processes.
An example of an emergent process is new product development, which has been described as a series of trial-and-error experiences in which the developer iterates recursively between problem-finding and solution evaluation (Bhattacharya et al. 1998; lansiti 1992). Similarly, strategy-making has been described as assemblages of deliberations, with unpredictable triggers and fluid courses, evolving organically as the situation changes (Pava 1983). Finally, the process of organization design has been characterized as one of identifying solutions through analyses of the contingencies, limits, and tradeoffs of alternative organizational patterns and then adapting these patterns when circumstances change (Litterer and Jelinek 1983).
In short, we find the term unstructured insufficient to characterize the processes of new product development, strategy-making, and organization design. Instead, we refer to them as emergent processes, in which problem interpretations, deliberations, and actions unfold unpredictably.
The second factor addressed by system designers is the user. Most in-house IS development processes (such as for DSS and ES) assume that the user type is known in advance (Grudin 1991a, 1991b; Poltrock and Grudin 1994), permitting systematic requirements analysis. The unpredictability of emergent processes means that it is nearly impossible for a system developer to know in advance the kinds of people who will be called into a deliberation, when they will be called in, or why. In addition, because emergent processes often involve high-level professional and technical personnel, the actors have a high degree of autonomy in how they do their work. They can resist the imposition of standard routines and new technologies (Davenport et al. 1998; Frenkel et al. 1999). Therefore, designers of systems to support emergent processes do not have the luxury of systematic requirements analysis; they must plan for very infrequent use of support tools (maybe once only) and they cannot even assume that the intended users wil l want, or can be required, to use their support systems.
An example of "unknown users" arises in strategic planning. For example, Mintzberg (1994) describes strategic planning as "big strategies growing from little ideas" in strange places at unexpected times. Thus, almost anyone in an organization (e.g., line managers, strategic planners, IS specialists) could initiate the process of strategic planning, and almost anyone is a candidate user of a strategic planning support tool. Further, the strategy formulator could work alone or in collaboration with others in the organization. Similarly, in the concept definition phase of new product development, it is often impossible to specify in advance what kinds of experts will be needed to solve a problem. At the same time, it would be counterproductive to limit involvement to the initial members of a new product development team (Clark and Fujimoto 1991). To address these issues, new product development teams routinely pull in experts of many types on an as-needed basis. Finally, in the case of organization design, many different events can trigger the process (Litterer and Jelinek 1983). Some of these triggers are quite rare. As a result, many different kinds of actors can be involved--manufacturing engineers, product development engineers, managers, HR specialists, shop floor workers, external consultants--but no one group would always be involved, and most people would participate in organization design very infrequently. Further, the different types of potential process participants have considerable autonomy in deciding how to approach the task (such as whether to use experts or even a support tool).
In short, emergent processes are characterized by highly unpredictable user types and work contexts. The unpredictability extends to when and why the process is performed and whether support tools will be used.
A third factor considered by system developers is users' information requirements. The information requirements of knowledge-intensive emergent processes are quite different from those of semi-structured business processes. First, in many semi-structured business processes, such as brand management, users require systems that analyze numeric data presented in tables and graphs. By contrast, in emergent processes, users must often search for the information they need from documents that are poorly indexed and stored. (See Blair [1984] on the different storage and...
|
