Analysis and Evaluation of Soft Systems Methodology and ETHICS Methodologies - Term Paper Example

The Writer’s Name] [The Professor’s Name] [The Course Title] [Date] SSM and ETHICS Methodologies Introduction Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (e.g. Checkland 1990) unequivocally engages users in system development. His illustrations purposely evade investigative methods, considering and perceiving human perspectives of the problem. SSM may not be termed as a progressive approach, although it has been integrated into the Multiview method by Avison in 1990. According to Multiview method, it pays creditable awareness to attaining viewpoints from various stakeholders before building system models. SSM puts stress on ‘participative design’ based on Enid Mumford’s pioneering ETHICS method (Mumford 1985, 1996), not only connecting users but also highlighting their needs. Mumford’s work is always humane, quite aloof from the traditional focal point on technology. SSM has affectively changed the approaches on many other methods. Information systems development methodologies have been the subject of much attention over the years. A substantial body of research has focused on the need to develop methodologies that support viewing information systems as social constructs, and information systems development (ISD) as a social process. But if development is a social process, what principles/ideals should inform it? Recent research has called for "emancipatory" ideals to be included. This debate can be expanded to explore not only what emancipatory principles might be applied in information systems development, but also how. Existing ISD methodologies only partially embrace emancipatory principles. ETHICS ETHICS methodology was innovated by Enid Mumford at Manchester University and may be termed as a ‘socio-technical’ view of system analysis and creation. Mumford (1983) narrates this view as “the interaction of technology and people”. It pioneers viewing and analysing at system designs and problems in a different way to other methodologies. As the acronym for this methodology would connote, ETHICS tries to take an ethical stand on systems by involving users and appreciating their working conditions and job satisfaction. The main idea behind this approach is that by utilising users of the current system and obtaining their knowledge of its possible faults or areas of improvement, it can enhance the output from a design team and increase the likeliness of end users using a new system without resistance as they played a part in its construction. ETHICS--seems the most likely candidate to be extended or "reformulated " to achieve emancipatory ideals more comprehensively. Organizations using this reformulated version of ETHICS should make some progress advancing emancipation while at the same time confronting limited resources and the presence of power and authority. In order to encourage participation and overcome practical obstacles to its implementation, ETHICS notes four key aspects of participation: structure, content, process, and obstacles. The structure of participation is concerned with different forms of its realization, from political institutionalization via pressure groups to enlightened management policy. Both direct and indirect forms of participation need to be considered in complex organizations. The issue of “token-participation” or its misuse for manipulative purposes along with a number of typical obstacles is also recognized (Mumford, 1984). The content of participation involves the consideration of the decision boundaries for participation, i.e. what subjects are to be decided participatively. This includes the complete systems development life cycle (SDLC) from initiation and problem formulation to the evaluation of a working system. Under the process of participation, integrity issues are considered. One of these involves knowledge acquisition and learning "so that decisions are taken from an informed position" (Mumford, 1983, p. 26). The other issue is power. ETHICS calls for power equalization to prevent bias by one-sided influence. This recognizes one of the key issues in rational discourse. On the whole, we can say that ETHICS, through participation, strives to realize the so- called "ideal speech situation" (Habermas, 1984) that is a necessary condition for emancipatory discourse and can easily be strengthened to encompass the missing concerns. Among the obstacles to participation are lack of trust, conflicts of interest, time pressures and stress, low morale, effects of authority, and communication gaps (Mumford, 1983, p. 31). ETHICS uses the role of the facilitator to help overcome these obstacles by ensuring that everyone contributes and is listened to. If the features of ETHICS are analysed with these concepts in mind, it is possible to see how they are embedded within the methodology. Hence, our framework provides a new lens through which to view the body of knowledge coded into the ETHICS methodology. This also serves as a theoretical safeguard for misapplying ETHICS in manipulative ways, as has been criticized by Ehn and Sandberg (1979). The same questions can also be applied to any methodology. For example, if they were applied to structured analysis, they would reveal that its emancipatory features are much less pronounced than those of ETHICS. This could become the starting point for its further development. Hence, the point of our contribution is that the theoretical basis that we apply to ETHICS is independent of any particular methodology. Here, ETHICS is restated in terms of this theoretical basis, thereby changing its character. Insofar as participation is strongly related to emancipation, the following necessarily contributes to the extensive discussion on participation. It also adds to the debate on the importance of different design perspectives, e.g., technical-economic, strategic, participatory or emancipatory, or conflict vs. harmony (Mumford, 1984; Nygaard and Sorgaard, 1987; Wiseman, 1988). SSM Checkland’s action research program led him to appreciate the goal seeking character of mechanistic and biological based systemic thinking, in terms of framework, methodology and action area. Systems engineers for example consider that the world comprises many systems. Systems engineers designed methods to identify a system, name the system's objectives, and identify resources that are necessary to achieve the system's objectives in an optimal way. This is often referred to as a means-ends approach. Checkland, however, found little relevance in the systems engineer's means-ends thinking for his tasks at ICI, and subsequently in his consultancy work undertaken from Lancaster University. He concluded for a means-ends approach that both means and ends are problematical. It is a matter of interpretation how we appreciate the world systemically, what is considered to be the most desirable ends, and what might be the most suitable means of achieving them. A new angle on framework of thought, methodology and action area was worked out through action research. The result is congruent with an interpretive-based systemic theory. Emerging from this reconceptualization were principles for action in ill-structured problem contexts. The principles became known as soft systems methodology (SSM). SSM is not a method that can be laid out in a set of steps to follow systematically. Checkland was fully aware of this difficulty when he formulated a 'seven stage' diagram to act as a pedagogical tool to put forward SSM principles. Considerable effort was made to explain the diagram as a continuous process of learning with which action researchers begin anywhere and move in any direction. The figure must be understood as a learning cycle, even when it is explained, as below, within the limitations of linear prose. Merger of Two Methodologies i.e. SSM and ETHICS Many questions concerning metaphors and their meaning to analysts and users remain. One central question is what will happen if analysts consciously choose a metaphor that is opposite the one found in the organization (e.g., if they find a zoo metaphor and use a traditional SDLC approach to develop a system). Will it spell failure from the outset? Conversely, if the analyst matches the methodology to the users’ metaphor, such as ETHICS to a family metaphor, wills the probability of IS success being increased? Or does this mean that particular systems are best developed with a particular metaphor? This also brings about the question of whether analysts should attempt to change the metaphor of the organization. Although this remains to be researched, at this point we do not believe analysts know enough or have it within their expertise to change the users' metaphor by introducing an alien metaphor into the organizational setting. Perhaps this is the work of organizational developers or other types of organizational interventionists but not an appropriate role for systems analysts to play. The methodologies chosen for analyses are popular, widely used, and offer a variety of approaches to developing systems. The processes mapped out by methods are shaped by the metaphors that inform them. Metaphors in methodologies influence the way that analysts interact, spelling out how they should interact, how they should proceed, and how they should document and diagram their interactions. Metaphors in methodologies tell analysts how to think about an organizational situation, how to characterize it, and how to act on those assessments. Thus, we assert that the metaphors embodied in methodologies are important and of genuine interest because they guide the analyst about appropriate ways to interact and behave. For example, an analyst using the ETHICS methodology, which manifests the family metaphor, would place value on spending time with users because within this metaphor each member is unique and contributes something to the group. By contrast, an analyst using a CASE tool approach, such as Excelerator, enacts a machine metaphor that features roles for the analyst and programer as designers of the machine. The analyst fulfilling a role in the CASE tool approach behaves differently toward users, requiring only limited participation from them at the beginning and end of the project. Metaphors present in methodologies paradoxically present opportunities for action, as well as constrain the analyst from seeing and enacting certain possibilities. For instance, an analyst using a prototyping methodology (which we have found enacts the journey metaphor) will seize chances to interact with users whenever possible, together plotting the course to reach their destination. However, the analyst using the journey metaphor in prototyping would not be able to capitalize on the efficiencies present in the machine metaphor of CASE tools, which emphasizes standardization, downplaying interaction with users, human uniqueness, and analyst subjectivity. We suggest, therefore, that the choice of a development methodology makes a difference. It means choosing the metaphor from which an analyst will approach the organization, understand the organization, and, in turn, be understood. Why then is there such a proliferation of systems development methodologies? One reason is that analysts believe in them; another is that we need a diversity of ways to cope with a diversity of situations. We hypothesize that different methodologies embody different metaphors and that by using an appropriate methodological metaphor in concert with the organization, chances for systems success may be enhanced. ETHICS 3 STAGES 1. Why change? 2. System boundaries 3. Description of existing systems (to help design groups to define systems) SSM 3 STAGES 1. Problem situation: unstructured about identifying the problem can be structured according to CATWOE criteria (is perceived is a historical context) 2. Problem situation: expressed issues to look for structure of the organization: those factors that do not change easily (e.g. buildings, locations, environment) processes or transformations which are carried out within the system: many of these are changing constantly issues that are expressed or felt by organizational members (complaints, criticisms, suggestions, endorsements) expressed through rich picture typically shows conflicts between departments, absences of communication lines, shortages of supply, etc. helps communication between users and designers. (http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:5jzYCES-4PkJ:www.cc.jyu.fi/~samuli/ISD2006/lecture6.ppt+SSM+ETHICS+METHODOLOGIES&hl=en&gl=pk&ct=clnk&cd=1) 3. Root definitions of relevant systems imagining and naming relevant systems e.g. problem = conflicts between two departments; relevant systems = systems for redefining departmental boundaries several relevant systems are explored the selection of which one to choose is not important, but debate is root definition for a relevant system is developed using e.g. CATWOE e.g. “to provide a service which gives the best possible care to the patients and which balances the need to avoid long waiting lists with that to avoid excessive government spending”, or “a system to generate long waiting lists to illustrate the high status of doctors”, or “a system to encourage the use of private health facilities” (http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:5jzYCES-4PkJ:www.cc.jyu.fi/~samuli/ISD2006/lecture6.ppt+SSM+ETHICS+METHODOLOGIES&hl=en&gl=pk&ct=clnk&cd=1) Stage 1 suggests that a problem situation might arise that a number of people feel uncomfortable with. They wish to explore the situation with a view to making some improvement. The problem situation is expressed with stage 2, attempting to avoid structuring the problem situation that would close down original thinking and hence learning. Use of systems archetypes here would, in Checkland's view, put in structure to thought before learning had had a chance to unfold in a creative fashion. Rich pictures are advocated as one suitable means of expression. They are cartoon type representations that allow people to express their experiences and, as is the case with cartoons, accentuate points that stand out in their minds. Stage 3 recommends systemic thinking about the real world. The transition to stage 3 is made by naming possible human activity systems that may offer insight into the problem situation, and may generate debate leading to action to improve the problem situation. A human activity system is a systemic model of the activities people need to undertake in order to pursue a particular purpose. Stage 3 develops root definitions of relevant systems. Root definitions are built around the world-view that states the constitutive meaning underpinning the purpose of a human activity system. Each organization has its own knowledge system. Knowledge as an object accumulating over time forms massive and complex systems in each independent discipline; knowledge as organizational means to realize each organization's end shapes the organization-specific knowledge system; a human being as part of an organization owns personal knowledge. It is worth noting that personal knowledge cannot be naturally included in organizational knowledge if knowledge is viewed as an important asset that can generate fortune (Gao, Li and Nakamori, 2002). Knowledge management is generally viewed as a systematic process for creating, acquiring, disseminating, leveraging and using knowledge to retain competitive advantage and to achieve organizational objectives (Nicolas, 2004). The reasons why companies invest in KM are that it either gives them a temporal effectiveness or efficiency advantage over their competitors, or they do it to try to negate the competitive advantages of others (Lyles and Schwenk, 1992; Huber, 1990). A system is a way of looking at the world. It is an individual's mental model of the whole, for which it is possible to establish a set of interrelated parts which make up the perceived whole. In order to learn about the system we live in, the systemic perspective shows that for every serious challenge to develop improved mental models to guide personal and public actions (Jambekar, 1995). Systemic thinking in a systems dynamics context offers a range of tools for generating deeper insights into problems - causal loop diagrams, systems archetypes, computer-based simulation, and more complex designed learning environments called "microworlds". Training and knowledge of some of these tools is critical. However, the personal quality framework can complement the arsenal of systems thinking tools by helping us relate the systemic thinking concepts at a very personal level. It generates the data over time. Understanding the trends and the patterns in data collected, an individual can identify systemic structures at play. All this can be done very privately. Once an appropriate framework is prepared, the time required to collect data each day is very short. Soft System Mythology was developed by Checkland in the late 1960s with the general objective of complementing HSM and guiding intervention or change in human organizations. According to Checkland, it was felt at that time that HSM, typified by the systems approach of Jenkins, relied too heavily on the availability of a clear and specific objective, and also on a clear problem definition. It was also apparent that the capability of HSM to deal with the more ill structured problems in human organizations was rather limited. For example, in the not so well structured problems, the process of choosing an objective can often be influenced or even dictated by powerful interests. Objective can often be influenced or even dictated by powerful interests. By contrast, the SSM approach of Checkland is rounded on a radically different set of theoretical assumptions, and is based broadly on the following characteristics of managerial problems: There are many equally legitimate perceptions of the reality of the problem; Each viewpoint of reality is restrictive or incomplete and can be challenged by alternative viewpoints; Debate and discussion among the interested parties will lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the problem situation; The discussion and debate will also tend to "move" the parties towards some agreed feasible solution that should alleviate the problem situation. For the SSM user, the learning process starts with finding out about the situation itself, including its apparent content, its cultural and its political context; and we must never forget that carrying out the intervention itself becomes a part of the problem situation. This rich finding out leads to identification of worldviews and purposeful activity, which are thought likely to be 'relevant' to doing something about the situation. It stems from the ubiquity of purposeful action in human affairs. After all, being capable of forming intentions and acting purposefully to try to full them is one of the things, which make us human. In the field of HRM/HRD the concern might be to create an HR strategy for an organization, designing an appraisal system or developing a management education and training program. These all entail purposeful action, and hence can be addressed through SSM' s learning cycle. Reformulation of both SSM and ETHICS SSM as it (and its methods root definitions, rich picture, conceptual model) was not used after cautious investigation, there was no requirement for it; the setback was elsewhere philosophy of SSM was availed of in developing common intelligibility about the situation. ETHICS was, also, to some extent, considered improper: technical and social factors were compactly entangled, thus detached teams had to work collectively. This study can be examined from two points of views. One, as the beginning proposes, is the case for the reliability and implementability of emancipatory standards through systems development. Next one, more subtle but also more general, is that this paper constitutes an example of a "critical reformulation" of a methodology that is appropriate not only to emancipation but to other perceptions as well. Critical reformulation proceeds in two steps: (1) assumption analysis, which identifies the basic building blocks of a methodology and reveals the confidence of their validity on the acceptance of underlying philosophical principles; and (2) the proposal of improvements for overcoming the limitations inherent in the statements. This methodology reformulation is vital in two senses. The first sense of critical is that the reformulation creates a connection between concrete principles of action (as captured in the methodology) and an underlying theoretical rationale, which we term "derivation." The origin, and, consequently, the reformulation, can be called decisive insofar as the fundamental philosophical principles have approved the critical scrutiny of the relevant informed community. The next sense of significance is that it repeats us of the name of the social theoretic base upon which we represent in this study: critical social theory (or, more particularly, neohumanism, which is its paradigmatic form). The role of the significant reformulation procedure is that it offers a way of testing whether the knowledge base incarcerated in a methodology is as sufficient and penetrating as possible. We know of no other way to achieve such a testing but by relating the core principles of a methodology to the current state of informed opinion about the factual and normative content with which the methodology deals. This is precisely what we mean by critical reformulation. It is merely throughout critical reformulation that the associates between the procedures of a methodology and its theoretical basis are revealed, thereby becoming the subject of informed criticism. It is only through such criticism that ways and means can be found to defeat the biases and limitations of recent observe. A consequence of this paper is that a significant reformulation contributes to broadening the possibility of current methodologies. These methodologies may excessively control the consideration of all factors that are vital for the success of systems development plans. Insofar as the narrowness and inflexibility of a methodology is a cause for IS failure, critical reformulation redresses one of the reasons for IS failure. Consequently, methodology reformulation not only makes unambiguous the indirect theoretical basis but also may supply to improving the methodology. For instance, many methodologies have developed over time in reaction to practical concerns. These concerns have leaded the methodologies architects. But in addressing these practical concerns the architects frequently disregard or are unaware of the theoretical foundations upon which their statements lie. Certainly, we should not essentially anticipate the architects to bring the load of creating a methodology's theoretical rationale in addition to continually improving its workability. It is our idea that IS researchers can assist with practitioners on such methodology evolution in a successful way. Lastly, this paper offers an existing case of methodology reformulation. Its major role lies in the moving of four key features of the ETHICS methodology centre stage and suggestive of a new way of presenting not just this methodology but also any methodology with some emancipatory potential. The four key features discussed in the ETHICS methodology provide a structure for assessing the emancipatory potential of any move toward to ISD. While the ETHICS case accessible in this thesis completely dealt with a reformulation based on neohumanism, in particular significant social theory, the approach followed is much more general. As observed prior, it can be applied to methodologies based on other paradigms. Though, it is our controversy that neohumanist standards are preferable for the significant reformulation of methodologies because they direct attention to what we think to be the key issues in surmounting over simplistic notions of many text methodologies. These comprise: how systems advancement affects the circumstances of user groups, how it fits into the common organizational impression, how to pay sufficient attention to power and politics, how to give credit to implicit information of organizational expertise, how to support rather than restrain organizational sense-making and knowledgeable value preferences, and lastly, above all, how to treat people as ends in themselves rather than merely as means to achieve organizational goals. This is the factual sense of emancipation. Combining Ethics With SSM Today, the majority of the IS specialists in traditional user organizations perform technical tasks such as operations, designing software, coding, and capacity planning. A minority performs work that involves much greater interaction with people, such as requirements analysis, user help, consulting, and vendor management. In general, one would expect user organizations to be much more likely to outsource tasks involving predominantly technical skills than those involving predominantly people skills, for several reasons. First, technical specialists are more likely to prefer the career development opportunities available in vendor organizations to those in user organizations, so user organizations may encounter difficulty attracting and retaining the needed technical specialists. Second, IS people work is more likely than IS technical work to require specific-specific knowledge that cannot be obtained from vendors or that should not be shared with them. Further, in-house IS specialists with strong people skills can easily be redeployed in other managerial or professional jobs. These factors suggest that the in-house IS specialists of the future may require a much less technical skill set and a much stronger grounding in interpersonal aspects of IS work than either today's in-house IS specialists or tomorrow's entry level IT vendor personnel. In participative approaches, the role of all users is stressed, and other stakeholders of the information system may subsume the role of the technologist. If the users are involved in the analysis, design, and implementation of information systems relevant to their own work, particularly if this takes the form of genuine decision-making, these users are likely to give the new information system their full commitment when it is implemented, and thereby increase the likelihood of its success. ETHICS (Mumford, 1995) stresses the participative nature of information systems development, following the socio-technical movement, and embodies a sustainable ethical position. Related approaches, where systems are developed which permit emancipation through rational discourse, are typified by the UTOPIA project (Bodker et al., 1987). A prototype is an approximation of a type that exhibits the essential features of the final version of that type. By implementing a prototype first, the analyst can show the users inputs, intermediary stages, and outputs from the system. These are not diagrammatic approximations, which tend to be looked at as abstract things, or technically oriented documentation, which may not be understood by the user, but the actual representation of the system on the screen with the relevant outputs. Data dictionaries, fourth generation systems, CASE tools, and workbenches of various kinds can all enable prototyping. These have become more and more powerful over the last few years. Rapid application development is an example of a prototyping approach. A methodology, which incorporates formal methods, uses mathematical precision and notation in the specification and design of an information system. Some systems requirements can be expressed mathematically rather than through the use of natural language and this can be translated into computer language. This version of the specification can be tested for correctness. Software engineering approaches, which we have included in the structured school, aim at producing quality software incorporating the rigor of formal methods. Object-oriented information systems development has become the latest 'silver bullet' (Booch, 1991). The approach is more natural than data or process-based alternatives. The basic concepts of the object-oriented approach, of objects and attributes, wholes and parts, and classes and parts, are basic and simple to understand and the approach unifies the information systems development process. Rationale for Evolving New Methodology General systems theory attempts to understand the nature of systems, which are large and complex. Organizations are open systems, and the relationship between the organization and its environment are important. Systems approaches attempt to capture this 'holistic' view, following Aristotle's dictum that 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts'. By simplifying a complex situation, we may be reductionist, and thereby distort our understanding of the overall system. The best-known approach in the information systems arena to address this issue is Checkland's soft systems methodology (SSM), found in Checkland ( 1981) and Checkland and Scholes (1990). Another development was the coming together, or blending, of a number of themes within one methodology. For example, a methodology based on entity-modelling techniques might have been very powerful for data analysis and database design, but not so comprehensive when it came to specifying functions and designing applications, and might not provide any support for dialogue design. This was not just an expansion of scope as described above, but also more a blending of previously separate philosophies in one methodology. Such blended approaches include Merise (Eva, 1994). The practical world was full of vendors pushing their particular methodologies and the academic world full of papers advocating and comparing methodologies. However, it is probable that even at the peak of the methodology era and at the time of most 'hype' concerning methodologies, many organizations were still not using a specific commercial methodology for developing their information systems. The relatively few empirical studies that have been undertaken to ascertain the adoption of methodologies often tend to indicate that the use of methodologies is by no means universal (Palvia and Nosek, 1993; Fitzgerald, 1996) and that methodology use is less widespread than vendors would have us believe. Vendors suggest that any company that has expressed interest in their methodology, or has bought an evaluation version, is a 'user'. Implementation of New Methodology The era that we term post-methodology is relatively recent, indeed we may only just be entering this period. It is characterized by a serious reappraisal of the concepts and practicalities of the methodologies of the methodology era. As a result some organizations have turned to yet different methodologies and approaches, some have abandoned their use of traditional methodologies completely, whilst others have adopted a more contingent approach. Evaluation of New Combined Methodology Methodologies were often seen as a panacea to the problems of traditional development approaches, and were often chosen and adopted for the wrong reasons. Some organizations simply wanted a standardized approach or a better project control mechanism, others a better way of involving users, still others wanted to inject some rigor or discipline into the process. For many of these organizations, the adoption of a methodology has not always worked or been the success its advocates expected. Indeed, it was very unlikely that methodologies would ever achieve the more overblown claims made by some vendors and consultants. Some organizations have found their chosen methodology not to be successful or appropriate for them and have adopted a different one. For some this second option has been more useful, but others have found the new one not to be successful either. This has led some people to reject methodologies in general. Indeed we have previously described this as a backlash against formalized information systems development methodologies ( Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995). This does not mean that methodologies have not been successful for some. It means that they have not solved all the problems that they were supposed to. Many organizations are using methodologies effectively and successfully and conclude that, although not perfect, they are an improvement on what they were doing previously, and that they could not handle their current systems development load without them. Most methodologies are designed for situations, which follow a stated or unstated 'ideal type'. The methodology provides a step-by-step prescription for addressing this ideal type. However, some argue that situations are all different and there is no such thing as an 'ideal type' in reality. Such thinking suggests a contingency approach to information systems development (as against a prescriptive methodology), where a framework is presented but tools and techniques are expected to be used or not (or used and adapted), depending on the situation. Conclusions It is our controversy that this study gives to the intellectual discourse on information systems development in three main ways: First, it eloquent the idea and importance of emancipation. Second, it illustrates how IS research could address emancipatory standards throughout methodology reformulation. In this layer the study also makes a modest involvement to the philosophy of neohumanism, which is well built on utopian vision but short on principles for completion, i.e., it lacks the idea of incrementalism. The study proposes an incremental approach to address emancipatory apprehensions that supplements the utopian critical vision of neohumanism, which is very inspirational but not supportive for dealing with the feasibility, and imperfections of every day work life. Last one, it represents a model of methodology reformulation. Soft Systems Methods have innovated to adapt a general perspective to formless problems, acknowledging as Chesterton did that it is as significant to see the problem, as it is to discover a solution. There are numerous, such as ETHICS, Multiview and SSM. The latter was formed to undertake shapeless troubles through a holistic view based on systems theory, perceiving that systems are rooted in a wider organizational as well as human context. The creative version of SSM is a seven-stage model, although the methodology has been formed into an outline for investigation based on interacting cultural as well as logical segments of analysis. The original model is illustrated here as a sequential process, in spite of Checkland’s observation that “thinking of SSM as a seven stage process is how neophytes regard it. More sophisticated users who have internalised the mosaic of activities tend to use it much more flexibly.” This neophytic author would never lay claim to sophistication. Works Cited Anil B. Jambekar,(1995)," Systems thinking, personal quality, and learning", Executive Development, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 37-40,USA. Avison, D., Kendall, J., and DeGross, J. (eds.) Human, Organizational, and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993. Avison, J. Kendall and J. DeGross (eds.), Human, organizational and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, D. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 263-280. Bernard Marr, Gianni Schiuma and Andy Neely,(2004), "Intellectual capital - defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets" Business Process Management Journal Vol. 10 No. 5,pp. 551-569, UK Bernard Marr, Oliver Gupta, Stephen Pike and Go; Egrave;ran Roos, (2003), "Intellectual capital and knowledge management Effectiveness", management Decision771-781, UK. Bodker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., and Sundblad, Y. "A UTOPIAN Experience: on Design of Powerful Computer-Based Tools for Skilled Graphic Workers," in Computers and Democracy: A Scandivian Challenge, G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (eds.), Avebury, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1987, pp. 251-278. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and organizational Analysis, Heinemann, London, 1979. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, 1990. Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, 1981. Churchman, C.W. (1970), ``Operations research as a profession'', Management Science, Vol. 17 No. 2, Churchman, C.W. (1971), "The Design of Inquiring Systems", Basic Books, New York. Davis, L. "Job Satisfaction Research: The Post-Industrial View, " in Design of Jobs, L. Davis and J. Taylor (eds.), Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, United Kingdom, 1982, pp. 154-176. E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and T. Wood-Harper (eds.) Research Methods in Information Systems, , North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 219-232. Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. "The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design," in Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge, G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (eds.), Avebury, Aldershot, United Kinsdom 1979, pp. 17-57. Fei Gao Meng Li and Yoshiteru Nakamori, (2002), "Systems thinking on knowledge and its management: systems methodology for knowledge management ", Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 6. Number(1) pp. 7 ;17, Japan. Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Vol. II, T. McCarthy (tr.), Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1984. Huber, G.P. (1990), ``A theory of the effects of advanced information technology'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 47-71. James Guthrie, (2001), "The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-41 Australia. Janine Nahpiet, (1997), "Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Creation of Value in Firms", Academy of Management Proceedings, London. Jenkins, C. and Sherman, B. The Collapse of Work, Eyre Methuen Publishers, London, 1994. Jennifer Rowley, (1999), "What is knowledge management?" , Library Management Volume 20. Number 8.pp. 416-419, UK. K.K.J. Ho and D. Sculli, (1994), "Organizational Theory and Soft Systems Methodologies", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 47-58, Hong Kong. Lyles, M.R. and Schwenk, C.R. (1992), ``Top management, strategy and organisational knowledge structures'', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 155-74. Mark Valentine St Leon, (2002), "Intellectual capital Managerial perceptions of organisational knowledge resources", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 149-166, Australia. Moran P. and Ghoshal. S., (1996), "Value creation by firms. In J. B. Keys and L.N. Dosier (Eds). ", Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, London Mumford, E. "Participation: From Aristotle to Today," in Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for organizational Effectiveness, T. Bemelmans (ed.), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 95-1O4. Mumford, E. "Participative Systems Design: Structure and Method," Systems, objectives, Solutions (1:1), January 1981, pp. 5-19. Mumford, E. and MacDonald, B. XSEL's Progress: The Continuing Journey of an Expert System, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, 1995. Mumford, E. Designing Human Systems: The ETHICS Method, Manchester Business School, Manchester, United Kingdom, 1983. Mumford, E. Private communication with authors, May 1993. Nygaard, K. and Sorgaard, P. "The Perspective Concept in Informatics," in Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge, G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (eds.), Avebury, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1987, pp. 371-393. Peter Checkland, (2000), "The relevance of soft systems thinking", Human Resource Development International,Taylor Francis Ltd, UK. pp. 37-53. Rolland Nicolas, (2004), "Knowledge management impacts on decision making process ", journal of knowledge management | vol. 8 NO. 1 pp. 20-31, France. Simon. H. A., (1991), "Organisations and Markets", Journal of Economic Perspective, P. 25-44, London. Suzanne Harrison and Patrick H. Sullivan, ( 2000 ), "Profiting from intellectual capital", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 33-46, USA. Read More