Technology choice as a first step in design: the interplay of procedural and sensemaking processes
Authors: 
Mark Bergman, Gloria MarkAuthors Info & Claims
Mark Bergman, Gloria MarkAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 224 - 234
Abstract
Project design involves an initial selection of technologies, which has strong consequences for later stages of design. In this paper we describe an ethnographic-based field work study of a complex organization, and how it addressed the issue of front-end project and technology selection. Formal procedures were designed for the organization to perform repeatable, definable, and measurable actions. Yet, formal procedures obscured much about the processes actually being applied in selecting technologies and projects. In actuality, the formal procedures were interwoven with sensemaking activities so that technologies could be understood, compared, and a decision consensus could be reached. We expect that the insights from this study can benefit design teams in complex organizations facing similar selection and requirements issues.
References
[1]
NPG 7120.5A; NASA Procedures and Guidelines: NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements, (http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/Library/Directives/NASA-WIDE/MSWord_Docs/N_PG_7120_005A_.doc), NASA, 1998.]]
[2]
America, P. and Wijgerden, J. Requirements Modeling for Families of Complex Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1951. 199--209.]]
[3]
Axelrod, R. M. and Cohen, M. D. Harnessing complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. Free Press, New York, 1999.]]
[4]
Belk, R. W., Sherry, J. E. and Wallendorf, M. A Naturalistic Inquiry to Buyer and Seller Behavior at a Swap Meet. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March). 449--470.]]
[5]
Bellotti, V. and Smith, I. Informing the design of an information management system with iterative fieldwork. In Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems, (2000), ACM Press, 227--237.]]
[6]
Bergman, M., King, J. L. and Lyytinen, K. Large Scale Requirements Analysis as Heterogeneous Engineering. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. (2002, In Press).]]
[7]
Boehm, B. Requirements that Handle IKIWISI, COTS, and Rapid Change. IEEE Computer, 33 (7).]]
[8]
Bowers, J., Button, G. and Sharrock, W. Workflow form within and without: Technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor. In ECSCW'95, (Stockholm, Sweden, 1995), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 51--66.]]
[9]
Brooks, F. P. The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1995.]]
[10]
Butler, J., Morrice, D. J. and Mullarkey, P. W. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to ranking and selection. Management Science, 47 (6). 800--816.]]
[11]
Carroll, J. M. Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2000.]]
[12]
Cass, A. G., Lerner, B. S., Sutton, S. M., McCall, E. K., Wise, A. and Osterweil, L. J. Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter. In 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, (Limerick, Ireland, 2000), ACM Press, 754--757.]]
[13]
Cook, W. D. and Green, R. H. Project Prioritization: A resource-constrained data envelopment analysis approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34. 85--99.]]
[14]
Curtis, B., Krasner, H. and Iscoe, N. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM, 31 (11). 1268--1287.]]
[15]
Davenport, T. H. Process innovation : reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1993.]]
[16]
DiBona, C., Ockman, S. and Stone, M. Open sources: voices from the open source revolution. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA, 1999.]]
[17]
Fairholm, G. W. Organizational power politics: tactics in organizational leadership. Praeger, Westport, Conn., 1993.]]
[18]
Felli, J. C., Kochevar, R. E. and Gritton, B. R. Rethinking Project Selection at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Interfaces, 30 (6). 49--63.]]
[19]
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Harper Business, New York, NY, 1993.]]
[20]
Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T. and Andersen, H. Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design. In CSCW, (Chapel Hill, NC, 1994), ACM Press, 429--439.]]
[21]
Hughes, J. A., O'Brien, J., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M. and Blythin, S. Designing with ethnography: a presentation framework for design. In DIS, (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997), ACM Press, 147--158.]]
[22]
Humphrey, W. S. Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1990.]]
[23]
Jiang, J. J. and Klein, G. Information system project-selection criteria variations within strategic classes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46 (2). 171--176.]]
[24]
Kammer, P. J., Bolcer, G. A., Taylor, R. N., Hitomi, A. S. and Bergman, M. Techniques for Supporting Dynamic and Adaptive Workflow. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9 (3/4). 269--292.]]
[25]
Karlsson, J. and Ryan, K. A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements. IEEE Software, 14 (5). 67--74.]]
[26]
Kreifelts, T., Hinrichs, E. and Woetzel, G. Sharing To-Do Lists with a Distributed Task Manager. In ECSCW, (Milano, Italy, 1993), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 31--44.]]
[27]
Lamsweerde, A. v., Darimont, R. and Letier, E. Managing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24 (11). 908--926.]]
[28]
Maier, M. and Rechtin, E. The Art of Systems Architecting. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2000.]]
[29]
March, J. G. and Heath, C. A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. Free Press, New York, 1994.]]
[30]
Markus, M. L. Power, Politics and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26. 430--444.]]
[31]
Millen, D. R. Rapid Ethnography: Time Deepening Strategies for HCI Field Research. In Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems, (2000), ACM Press, 280--286.]]
[32]
Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Liao, S., Wang, H. and Yu, E. Exploring Alternatives during Requirements Analysis. IEEE Software, 18 (1). 92--96.]]
[33]
Nardi, B. A. and Engeström, Y. A Web on the Wind: The Structure of Invisible Work. JCSCW, 8 (1/2). 1--8.]]
[34]
Orr, J. E. Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. ILR Press, Ithaca, N. Y., 1996.]]
[35]
Osterweil, L. J. Software Processes are Software Too. In International Conference on Software Engineering, (Monterey, CA, 1987), ACM Press, 2--13.]]
[36]
Osterweil, L. J. Software processes are software too, revisited. In ICSE '97, (Boston, Mass., 1997), ACM Press, 540--548.]]
[37]
Pankoke-Babatz, U., Mark, G. and Klöckner, K. Design in the PoliTeam-project: evaluating user needs in real work practice. In DIS, (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997), ACM Press, 277--287.]]
[38]
Parnell, G. S., Conley, H. W., Jackson, J. A., Lehmkuhl, L. J. and Andrew, J. M. Foundations 2025: A Value Model for Evaluating Future Air and Space Forces. Management Science, 44 (10). 1336--1350.]]
[39]
Paulk, M. C. The capability maturity model : guidelines for improving the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1995.]]
[40]
Pfeffer, J. Managing with power: politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1992.]]
[41]
Scholz-Reiter, B. and Stickel, E. Business Process Modelling. Springer, Berlin, 1996.]]
[42]
Star, S. L. and Strauss, A. Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work. JCSCW, 8 (1/2). 9--30.]]
[43]
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1998.]]
[44]
Suchman, L. Making Work Visible. Communications of the ACM, 38 (9). 56--64.]]
[45]
Taylor, F. W. The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1911.]]
[46]
Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1995.]]
Index Terms
- Technology choice as a first step in design: the interplay of procedural and sensemaking processes
Recommendations
Sensible AI: Re-imagining Interpretability and Explainability using Sensemaking Theory
FAccT '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and TransparencyUnderstanding how ML models work is a prerequisite for responsibly designing, deploying, and using ML-based systems. With interpretability approaches, ML can now offer explanations for its outputs to aid human understanding. Though these approaches rely ...
Drivers of information technology choice by individuals
Highlights- Individuals engage in selection of a technology from alternatives to complete tasks.
AbstractTechnology acceptance has spawned considerable research in technology adoption, technology use, and technology switching. However, technology choice—i.e., an individual’s selection of a technology from a set of technologies that ...
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
<P>This paper develops a new theoretical model with which to examine the interaction between technology and organizations. Early research studies assumed technology to be an objective, external force that would have deterministic impacts on ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2002
413 pages
ISBN:1581135157
DOI:10.1145/778712
- Conference Chairs:
- Bill Verplank,
- Alistair Sutcliffe,
- Program Chairs:
- Wendy Mackay,
- Jonathan Amowitz,
- William Gaver
Copyright © 2002 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 25 June 2002
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Conference
DIS02
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
DIS '02 Paper Acceptance Rate 44 of 139 submissions, 32%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,158 of 4,684 submissions, 25%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 738Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)5
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in