The Traditional Approach Regarding the System Development - Coursework Example

Question set Doherty and King (2005) write that conventional approaches to systems design are considered to be techno-centric. Using their articleas your initial point of reference, develop an argument to support or refute this claim regarding conventional approaches. Name Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introdution 3 Reasons of transformation 3 Contemporary transformation 5 Conclusion 5 Bibliography 6 Table of Contents 8 Introduction 9 Social aspects in system development 9 Relationship of social aspects and IT 10 Conclusion 11 Bibliography 12 Introdution Accoding to Doherty and King (2005), the conventional approaches regarding the systems design are considered to be techno-centric. ZAVE (1984) outlined that the conventional technique to software development is being challenged by new ideas, a lot of which can be controlled into a substitute decision structure acknowledged as the "operational" approach. The traditional approach regarding the system development and system designing phase are techno-centric that establishes the internal arrangement of the software system, normally like a decomposition into modules of code. That is harder to manage and handle. At the start we need to assess the similarity to the lot of calls for awareness of organizational issues in information system development. However, extensive awareness of these matters has actually not influenced performance. The traditional approach regarding the system development is techno-centric where we need to build a system that offer less complexity in implementation and have incorporated recommendations, like that people oriented factors. This essay is aimed at discussing the main problems with traditional approach of system development and new facilities we have in the contemporary system development methodologies. Reasons of transformation Lyytinen & Robey (1999) have outlined that traditional practice of ISD or information systems development (ISD) has experienced several fundamental transformations all through the previous decade. However, the emergence of modern and up-to-date technologies have encouraged relocation away from the customary, life cycle techniques of development in the direction of additional dynamic and reliable methods that engross the reusable components and are assembled into operational systems in a completely shorter time (Clarke, 2000). The traditional system designing and development was based on simply the technological aspects. The current areas of the information systems development entail the more human factors in the overall development of the system information system structures (Lyytinen & Robey, 1999). McLeod, MacDonell, & Doolin (2007) describe that at the present time there are a small number of technical causes for organizations to experience the holdups and backlogs that inundated systems development 20 years ago. Though, information systems development turns out to be a high- risk proposition. Information systems projects carry on failing at an frightening rate, as well as the difficulty of `runaway development projects has by no means been additional serious (McLeod, MacDonell, & Doolin, 2007). Doherty & King (1998) have outlined that traditional approaches regarding the system development are usually extensive and expensive; they usually are carried out by knowledgeable specialists or system analysts. Traditional systems development necessitates system users to be familiar with the planned system strategy by looking at detailed reports, detailed diagrams and the requirement of planned new system (Doherty & King, 1998). Ramdani & Kawalek (2007) describe about the traditional system development and designing approach, according to their research, these system are planned and built before anybody gets to test it or make use of it. Since each phase of information system development is finished, users sign off on the recommendations that are presented to them by the system analyst, representing their reception. A lot of organizations have misplaced faith in the customary approach to computer system development for several systems projects. At the start, utilization of this technique takes too long to design, analyze, and implement new requirements that were not fraction of the real plan. Next, the system developed frequently turns out to be the incorrect one (Ramdani & Kawalek, 2007). Contemporary transformation According to McLeod, MacDonell, & Doolin (2007), the contribution of users in system development has been a significant focus of interest inside the system development at the present time. Presenlty system development is better managed by the perceived ‘user relations problem’ that direct to calls to improved articulate user needs or develop user concerns, influence by means of democratising system development, as well as efforts to support the technical and social features of system development (McLeod, MacDonell, & Doolin, 2007). Presenlty we have elvolution in the socio-technical techniques to system development, like that effective technical and human design of computer-based systems, ethics, and Multiview. These techniques make certain the user involvement and incorporate it as a significant fraction of design. In addition, various development techniques appeared that highlighted user involvement, encompassing prototyping, information engineering, JAD or joint application design (McLeod, MacDonell, & Doolin, 2007). Conclusion In this reserch I have presented a detailed analysis of the main technology based systems development and transformations in the overall dvelopment structure of the system. In this essay I have outlined the old and traditonal system development methodlogy that is techno-centric. This essay has outlined some main transformations in the technology development structures that have made to incorporate socio-technical and more human orderned system development. This reserch has elaborated the main difficulties with the traditional system development approach and also presneted the overview of the technologies in the field for the enhnaced system development. Bibliography 1. Clarke, R., 2000. The Conventional System Life-Cycle . Available at : http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/SLC.html [Accessed 16 November 2009]. 2. Doherty, N., & King, M., 1998. The importance of orga- nisational issues in systems development. Information Technology and People, 11 (2), , 104-123. 3. Lyytinen, K., & Robey, D., 1999. Learning failure in information systems development. Available at: http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:ujaonFGWstsJ:www.cs.uta.fi/tjsum/Lyytinen%20and%20Robey.pdf+conventional+approaches+to+systems+design+by+Doherty+and+King&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk [Accessed 16 November 2009]. 4. McLeod, L., MacDonell, S. G., & Doolin, B., 2007. User Participation in Contemporary IS Development: An IS Management Perspective. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 15(1), pp. 113-136. 5. Ramdani, B., & Kawalek, P. 2007., Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, pp. 47-70. 6. Zave, P., 1984. The Operational versus the Conventional Approach to Software Development. Communications of the ACM , pp. 104-118. Question set 2: Explain the term ‘design in use’ and discuss its relationship to a social construction of technology theoretical perspective and its relevance to the gendering of IT work. Name Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introdution 3 Reasons of transformation 3 Contemporary transformation 5 Conclusion 5 Bibliography 6 Table of Contents 8 Introduction 9 Social aspects in system development 9 Relationship of social aspects and IT 10 Conclusion 11 Bibliography 12 Introduction Warne & Hart (1996) have outlined that information systems study has long been linked with features that result failure or success in systems development projects. These aspects or factors like that user involvement, top management support and utilization of efficient development methodologies have frequently been acknowledged as the fundamental to the success of system (Warne & Hart, 1996). Lin & Silva (2005) state about the differnet factors in the information systems development. They say that acceptance of information systems has been a long-standing theme in information systems research. It has been accepted that users draw on specific cognitive strategy to formulate sense of a novel system as well as that these cognitive policies are vital in determining and formulating users insights of the simplicity of use as well as value of the technology. The research of Lin & Silva (2005) outlines that extent to which stakeholders attitudes as well as perceptions all through the acceptance of information systems are subjective through political and social procedures (Lin & Silva, 2005). This essay will outline the term ‘design in use’ and describe its relationship to a social construction of technology theoretical perspective as well as its relevance to the gendering of IT work. Social aspects in system development Mitev (1996) stated that in areas of life (private or public) the social and political factors always remain a main reason of conflict. Few years ago these aspects were not taken into consideration regarding the information system development. An instance of contentious social matters is the present managerial environment in the public sector, that has transformed radically over the previous ten years as management discourses and practices from the private divisions have been exported to public region organizations (Mitev, 1996). Lin & Silva (2005) outlined that with the passge of time, the management of information systems and implementation of the political and social procedure in which stakeholders frame as well as reframe their views about an information system are emerging. Three diverse ideas: social phenomena, technological frames and implementation of information sys­tems are combined by means of a theoretical study and robust empirical study. Here it is outlined that social pheno­mena like that symbolic power, language and commu­nication procedures are crucial for understanding how technological understandings are framed for the development of any information system (Lin & Silva, 2005). Relationship of social aspects and IT Hirschheim & Klein (1989) have outlined the ‘design in use’ and also elaborated the link to a social construction of technology theoretical perspective and its relevance to the development of IT work. In any information system development for IT technology system development the system developers have to perform inquiry as fraction of systems design as well as have to get in the way into the social world like fraction of information systems implementation. It is supposed that it is natural to differentiate among two kinds of connected assumptions: those connected through the means in which system developers obtain knowledge required to design the system this supposition is acknowledged as epistemological assumptions, and those that link to their vision of the social and technical areas are acknowledged as the ontological assumptions. The objectivist handles the social world like if it were the normal world (Hirschheim & Klein, 1989). Lin & Silva (2005) argued about social aspects and ITsystem as a functionalist paradigm that is linked with by offering explanations of the social order, status quo, consensus, social integration, rational selection and requirements satisfaction (Lin & Silva, 2005). Lin & Silva (2005) outlined that social relativist paradigm looks for justification inside the area of individual awareness as well as subjectivity, also inside the structure of reference of the social player like opposite to the witness of the action. As of such a viewpoint “social roles as well as institutions remain like an appearance of the implications that men attach to their world (Lin & Silva, 2005). The fundamental structuralism pattern highlights require conquering or surpassing the confines placed on obtainable social as well as business measures. It spotlights mainly on the arrangement and analysis of economic power associations. The neo-humanist arrangement looks for fundamental transformation, emancipation, as well as potentiality. This as well pressures the function that diverse social as well as organizational forces cooperate in sympathetic transformation. It spotlights on all structures of barriers to unrestraint- in particular, power, ideology (distorted communication) and psychological coercions and social restrictions and looks for means to overcome them (Lin & Silva, 2005). Conclusion The research of the Lin & Silva (2005) has outlined the main link among the social aspects and information system development. This essay has discussed the main ideas of the Lin & Silva (2005) and presenetd a detailed analysis of the contribution of the social aspects to the better system development and implimentataion. The implimentation of the social aspects to the information system development offers a greater facility to development of an enhanced system and offers the user a better working structre and handling capability. Bibliography Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K., 1989. Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), pp. 1199-1216. Lin, A., & Silva, L. 2005. The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), pp. 49-59. Mitev, N. N. 1996. More than a failure? The computerized reservation systems at French Railways. Information Technology and People, 9(4), pp. 8-19. Warne, L., & Hart, D. 1996. The Impact of Organizational Politics on Information Systems Project Failure: A Case Study. 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Volume 4: Organizational Systems and Technology (p.191). Maui, Hawaii : IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA . Read More