Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development Anne Pirinen, Samuli Pekkola University of Jyväskylä
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract. An effective learning process has been identified critical to the success of information systems development process (ISD). Unfortunately, often there is a failure in the learning process itself thus making the learning of experiences impossible. Therefore it is important to study learning from different perspectives in ISD context. In this paper, we present a survey of 16 articles discussing learning in ISD context. We seek answers to the following questions: 1) Who learns?, 2) How do they learn?, 3) When do they learn?, 4) What do they learn? 5) Why one cannot learn?. Based on the literature survey, it can be concluded that learning in ISD has not been comprehensively addressed. Some issues have been more emphasized than others and some important perspectives have been consequently neglected. More comprehensive view on learning in ISD should be taken and the obstacles of learning should be more carefully identified.
Introduction An effective learning process has been identified critical to the success of information systems development process (ISD) (c.f. Lyytinen 1987; Wastell 1999; Lyytinen & Robey 1999; Zhong & Majchrzak 2004). According to Lyytinen and Robey (1999), many of the failures in ISD could have been avoided by learning from previous experiences. Unfortunately, often there is a failure in the learning process itself thus making the learning of experiences impossible (c.f. Stein and Vandenbosch 1996; Lyytinen and Robey 1999; Wastell 1999). This is because of the nature of ISD: the attitudes of the developers (as avoiding failures and risks) (Wastell 1999) and the overall context of several interacting actors (e.g.
1
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
developers’ attitudes towards the users (Isomäki 2002) or towards technologies or other parts of the organization), among others, do not provide a fruitful basis for learning. However, although there has been several studies addressing the issue, have we, as a discipline, learned anything from them? Let us first examine the concept of learning. For that, we adapt Huber’s (1991) definition: “An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behavior is changed.” There the entity can refer to a human being, a group, an organization or in a wider perspective an industry or a society. Information processing includes all means of acquiring, distributing or interpreting information. This view also involves some sub-processes e.g. experiential learning, unlearning and cognitive maps, that are important for our study. Huber’s quite wide definition of learning functions in this article as a selection guideline for those articles discussing learning in the context of ISD. Therefore learning is here considered to cover various kinds of activities like information processing, experiential learning and model-building learning. Merely acquiring or sharing knowledge that does not lead to changes in one’s knowledge, skills or mental models is not considered as learning in this study. In this paper we address the following research question: “How learning in the context of ISD has been studied before and what have been the main issues raised in these studies?”. In this paper, we present a survey on articles discussing learning in ISD context where we investigate how learning in the context of ISD has been studied before and what have been the main perspectives. For this we adopt Huysman’s (2000) set of questions as a basis for our framework. We use following categories: levels of learning (who learns?); means of learning (how one learns?); point of learning (when does learning occurs?); result of learning (what has been learned?); and obstacles of learning (why one cannot learn?). In our view, learning in ISD has not been comprehensively addressed. The result of this study indicates that in previous studies of learning in the ISD context, some issues have been more emphasized than others and some important perspectives have been consequently neglected. To be able to learn from our previous experiences and actions, we should take more comprehensive view on learning in ISD and especially identify the obstacles of learning that are preventing effective learning. The paper is organized as follows. First related studies on learning and ISD are reviewed. Second, the framework is showed. Third, research methods and 16 included papers are presented. This is followed by discussion and concluding chapters.
2
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Related research User participation in ISD and its role to system success have been core topics of ISD research since the 1960s (Markus & Mao 2004). There have been numerous studies on user involvement (or participation) in ISD, and its relationship to system outcomes (Ives & Olson 1984; Barki & Hartwick 1989; Cavaye 1995; Butler & Fitzgerald 1997; Lynch & Gregor 2004; Markus & Mao 2004). Majchrzak and Beath (2000) argued that user participation must trigger negotiating and collaborative learning in order to achieve positive outcomes. Also Curtis et al. (1988) recommended development of large software systems to be treated, at least in part, as a learning, communication, and negotiation process. One intensively studied aspect of user participation is the communication between the developers and the users. Gallivan and Keil (2003) stated that problems in user-developer communication might eventually lead to project failure. According to Krasner et al. (1987) and Tan (1994), the factors influencing communication breakdowns include different cognitive and communicative abilities of individuals, different representational formats, different work context, local jargon and cultural norms. Effective communication activities are an essential part of the successful information system development (e.g. Salaway 1987; Curtis et al. 1988) but the communication activities alone will not lead to learning (Zhong & Majchrzak 2004). Curtis et al. (1988) pointed out that any software development environment must become a medium for communication to integrate people, tools, and information. Collaborating participants are able to learn if they succeed to establish certain collaborative activities like argumentation, explanation or mutual regulation and these activities in turn trigger some learning mechanisms like knowledge elicitation. (Watkins & Marsick 1993). Many studies (e.g. Curtis et al. 1988; Heiskanen & Similä 1992; Mathiassen & Pedersen 2005) have emphasized the need for developers to create and share knowledge about the application domain and technologies. Also to share and refine this knowledge during development process is stressed. Knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration are central activities that make it possible to learn necessary knowledge (Walz et al. 1993). Many researchers (e.g. Lyytinen 1987; Curtis et al. 1988; Newman & Noble 1990) have described ISD as a learning process. In his survey on research of information system problems and solutions, Lyytinen (1987) classified three classes of process models: engineering, learning and dialogue, that are the main characteristics of ISD process. Learning process model type -class considers ISD both as an individual and collective learning. Newman and Noble (1990) view user
3
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
participation as a learning process where one-way or mutual learning between developers and users can happen. Gallivan and Keil (2003) and Zhong and Majchrzak (2004) argue for the importance of communicating and learning during ISD because diverse stakeholders with different knowledge, concepts, assumptions, relationships, approaches, interests, and goals are involved in the process. Although other factors bear also on outcomes, an effective learning process of different stakeholders is critical to the success of ISD (Wastell 1999; Lyytinen & Robey 1998; Zhong & Majchrzak 2004; Majchrzak et al. 2005; Mathiassen & Pedersen 2005). Learning of developers and also clients provides a potential bridge to organizational productivity (Kraus & Fussell 1990). Information system development can also be viewed from organizational learning perspective (e.g. Salaway 1987; Lyytinen & Robey 1999; Huysman 2000). The literature on organizational learning tends to be theoretically fragmented, drawing on analogies to individual learning theory or simply using organizational learning as an umbrella concept for many different kinds of organizational change (Pentland 1995). Learning takes place in complex and collective learning levels in organizations and beside individuals, learning occurs in groups or teams, in larger business units and also in the organization itself and its network of customers and suppliers (Watkins & Marsick 1993). Organizational learning occurs through the shared insights, knowledge, and mental models of members of the organization but it also builds on past knowledge and experience (Marquardt 1996). The line between individual and social processes of learning is blurring (Häkkinen et al. 2004) and therefore learning processes connecting individual, group and organization levels have been identified (Crossan et al. 1999).
Research Framework Several frameworks for organizational learning have been presented (e.g. Senge 1990; Huber 1991; March 1991; Marquardt 1996; Crossan et al. 1999). Huysman (2000) argues that theories on organizational learning should provide answers (or at least suggest ideas) to following questions: ‘who learns?’, ‘how do they learn?’, ‘when do they learn?’ and ‘why do they learn?’ As we want to investigate the instantiations of learning in ISD literature, we adapt the argumentation and the three first questions for the basis of our framework. These questions are considered to be greatly important while clarifying learning in ISD context as a comprehensive phenomenon. Yet these questions do not provide a complete framework. They are derived from an organizational context thus individuals and their motives are underemphasized. Hence, we add one more column to the framework and reverse Huysman’s (2000) last question. These changes are “what do they learn?” and “why they do not learn?” It is significant to know what is learnt in order to support this learning more efficiently. Last question of Huysman
4
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
is reversed because it is considered more crucial to identify obstacles of learning in general than specific motives why an entity learns. “Who learns?” – Levels of learning. Crossan et al. (1999, 523) argued that many earlier frameworks have not considered multilevel learning in organizations, or the connections between these levels. Often, the most common solution (e.g. Marguardt 1996, Crossan et al. 1999) has been the division of organization in three levels: individual, group, and organization. As this is a practical and common division, we adopt it as well. “How do they learn?” – Means of learning. Although it has long been recognized that the client/user learning is an important factor in successful IS development, there is less clarity about its facilitation (Majchrzak et al. 2005). Collaborating participants (clients and developers) learn if only they can establish a common ground (i.e. mutual understanding about argumentation, explanation and regulation) (c.f. Clark 1996). This common ground may in turn trigger some learning mechanisms (e.g. knowledge elicitation). Therefore, the research should focus on understanding the interaction itself and its contribution to learning (Watkins & Marsick 1993). This leads us to examine the means of learning. “When do they learn?” – Point of leaning. Newman and Noble (1990) conclude a certain learning model is the most suitable at the early stages of systems design. Curtis et al. (1988) followed this argument and stated that much of the early activities on ISD are about learning the application domain and the technologies. Yet the learning is not limited only on the early phases of ISD. As people learn also at the other phases, it is reasonable to see whether learning takes place throughout the process or only at some specific phase of ISD. “What do they learn?” – Results of learning. Similarly to the point of learning, one can reasonable ask the results of learning process. For example, in ISD an obvious result is new knowledge gained from some specific domain or technique. It is important to identify the results of learning to be able to facilitate that kind of learning more efficiently during the ISD process. “Why one cannot learn?” – Obstacles of learning. Huysman (2000) asked why people learn. In other words, he tried to find the motives and motivations for learning. However, when studying learning as an outsider from the distance, it is more important to understand potential obstacles rather than case specific motives as this provides a basis for learning from previous studies.
5
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Literature Review To study how the concept of learning has been approached in ISD literature, we reviewed articles published in different IS journals and conferences. To identify them, we used Google Scholar and different electronic journal archives like MIS Quarterly and ACM digital library to map the spectrum of the learning and ISD. Keywords used included different combinations of terms learning, information systems, information systems development, information systems design, knowledge transfer, knowledge acquisition, information processing and IT. Then we checked the lists of references from already idenfied articles to see whether we had missed any other. Altogether, we had 28 articles. Next we started to reduce the number of papers to more manageable set. We used following criteria. First, the paper had to have a context of ISD. Second, it had to involve a learning perspective. Third, we excluded the papers focusing on pedagogical issues, e.g. the papers discussing how the students could learn the ISD process or how one could learn by using an information system. Also, as we wanted to focus only on full research papers, preliminary findings were excluded. We came up with a representative set of 16 papers. Main contributions of these articles are presented in the following. In the end of this chapter the answers to the five questions of the framework are summarized in Table 1. Salaway 1987. Information generated from communications between users and analysts functions as a basis for ISD and it is therefore a major determinant of success. Effectiveness of the user/analyst interactions is being investigated and for that purpose detailed interaction methodology tailored to ISD was created. Behind this methodology are the theories of Argyris and Schön (1978) and especially their model 1 and Model 2. In their model 1 there are four governing values (achieving goals, maximizing wins or minimizing losses, minimizing expression of negative feelings, and being rational) that result in individual action strategies focused on obtaining control over tasks and unilateral protection of oneself and this kind of behavior eventually inhibits overall learning. In their model 2, set of governing values (valid information; free and informed choice; and internal commitment). These model 2 values are used to facilitate learning because they help to decrease defensiveness, leads individuals to intentionally generate information that might disconfirm the theories-in-use, and increases overall learning. The research of Argyris and Schön implied that the current systems development process is immersed in Model 1 –verbal communications are error-prone and inhibit learning. The research of Salaway confirms these implications and indicates that a major source for errors in systems development is due to ineffective personal interactions between users and analysts.
6
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Curtis, Krasner & Iscoe 1988. Development of large information systems should be treated, at least in part, as a learning, communication, and negotiation process. Early phases of a project involved learning about the application and domain, as well as new hardware, new development tools and languages, and other evolving technologies. Developers had to learn and integrate knowledge about diverse areas and significant time was needed to learn the application domain. Besides learning of developers, also customers underwent a learning process while the project team explained the implications of their requirements. Software development environment should be considered as a medium of communication to integrate people, tools, and information. Three capabilities that must be supported are the following: knowledge sharing and integration, change facilitation, and broad communication and coordination. Newman & Noble 1990. Four process models of user involvement have been abstracted from the literature and these process models are compared with each other in the light of a case study. One of these process models is learning. Simplest variant of this learning model sees user involvement as an opportunity to educate users about the system and therefore learning is largely one-sided in this model. In contrast to this more traditional view of learning, Boland (1978) developed a model for mutual learning, in which both users and specialists recognize each other’s distinctive capabilities and views. In this model users and specialists work in cooperation in order to solve a common problem. In this mutual learning model users lack knowledge of systems and specialists lack knowledge of users’ work. Learning model is most closely suitable for early stages of system design and it can be seen as a way to reduce a semantic cap between designers and users. Authors state that exclusive reliance on a learning model overlooks the possibility of conflicting goals and interests. Walz, Elam & Curtis 1993. Knowledge functions as a raw material for design teams. Knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration are essential activities that makes it possible for the software design team to learn necessary knowledge. In order to share relevant knowledge about the system, team members need to be speaking the same language. Group meetings are discovered to be an important environment for learning because they allow team members to share information and gain new knowledge about other domains relevant to their work. Three general topics of discussion in design meetings were discovered: 1) technical and application knowledge, 2) system requirements, and 3) design approaches. It should be noted that knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge integration are significant but time-consuming activities. The total time spend to learning depends on the breadth and depth of knowledge the team members bring along to the project. According to the authors it is important to facilitate the expression and exchange of ideas across relevant domains.
7
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Sonnenwald 1995. Communication in design is characterized as “contested collaboration”, in which different stakeholders come to design situations with “pre-existing individual and group patterns of work activities, social groups, and personal beliefs”. This diversity makes their participation in design situations meaningful. Participants must collaborate and mutually explore one another’s lifeworld and specialized knowledge so that they can achieve a mutual understanding. However, it is often difficult for participants to collaborate due to their different backgrounds. Members of the group often specialize and this specialization may force to have an unique language, expectations, and beliefs. This may make negotiation of differences and mutual creation of knowledge more difficult. Stein & Vandenbosch 1996. Five critical success factors that favor learning during advanced system development have been identified. First success factor is the organizational and managerial (vs. technical) orientation of the developer. Second success factor is development focus which should rather be on the process than on the product. Third success factor is the paradigm which is considered to be the foundation of ISD. This paradigm should emphasize more learning and less engineering perspective. Fourth success factor is the view of expertise held by the developers. Developers who perceive expertise in its organizational context are more likely to be open to higher-order learning than those who view expertise in isolation. The fifth critical success factor is the type of interaction that occurs between the different stakeholders involved in ISD. Developers who embrace the assumptions of Model 2 by Argyris and Schön (1978) are more likely to help their organizations to achieve a higher-order learning than those who do not. Nelson & Cooprider 1996. Different participants in information system development must develop an appreciation and understanding of the other’s environment. Simply communicating the facts is not enough because a deeper level of knowledge need be shared to achieve mutual understanding. This deeper level of knowledge is often described as organizational knowledge. This shared knowledge must be expressed in words or symbols that are common to the both groups. Use of shared language can facilitate the knowledge transfer and also create a positive social influence process. Through this shared knowledge, barriers to understanding and acceptance between differents stakeholders are removed and ability to work toward a common goal is increased. Ang, Thong & Yap 1997. Based on the work of Robey et al. (1995), a model for IT implementation within the context of organizational learning is proposed. IT implementation can be viewed as an episode of organizational learning because during the stages of IT implementation, there are processes that arouse the metaphor of learning. Single-loop learning occurs when IT implementation encodes existing routines, rules, and assumptions into computer systems without
8
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
questioning or changing the governing variables. Double-loop learning occurs during the process of IT implementation when the underlying assumptions are surfaced, questioned, tested and eventually these altered assumptions etc. are encoded. It is concluded that technical knowledge and know-how learning in IT implementation plays a central role. Besides technical knowledge and expertise, an organization must understand how IT will impact its business processes in order to be able to prepare for the change. Lyytinen & Robey 1999. The role of external knowledge plays a great role in ISD contexts but because external learning is originated from the experiences of others, it is not automatically transferable to other organizations. Internal knowledge is strategically more important and relevant to the organization because it is generated from its own experiences. Internal learning can take place various ways including informal communications, formal analyses of experience and objective audits of development projects. Organizations involved in ISD may fail to learn by discarding the sources of both external and internal knowledge. Organizations can also learn to fail by sticking to old and ineffective practices without even considering new and more effective options. Learning failures in ISD projects cause delays, cost exceedings, cancellations and even delivery of systems that will not work or be used. Four barriers to organizational learning in ISD are identified: limits on organizational intelligence, discentives for learning, organizational design and educational barriers. Major conclusion is that ISD organizations fail to learn from their own experiences and learning from experience is not valued. Advanced development tools or methodologies cannot by themselves produce learning. Wastell 1999. The problematic nature of ISD from a learning perspective is discussed. Learning in IS development is disrupted because of high levels of stress and anxiety that are fundamentally present in ISD. High stress levels and anxiety cause “defense-avoidance behavior patterns” at team level. Two concepts are presented to be central: the social defence and the transitional space. Social defence is argued to be antithesis of true organizational learning because at that case groups focus primarily to reduce anxiety rather than engage themselves in genuine reflection process with the task at hand. The operation of these social defenses can disable the learning processes that are important to effective ISD. ISD should be fullfilled with trust and confidence and therefore offer a “supportive psychological climate” for learning. Transitional space refers to the area of change where learning occurs. ISD should be reframed as a transitional space, which involves a mutual learning of both the IS professionals and designers. This learning process can be supported by relevant transitional objects like models, techniques or human agents in order to break through the defenses and to release the learning processes.
9
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Huysman 2000. Theories on organizational learning should provide answers to or at least suggest ideas to the following related questions: ‘Who learns?’, ‘How do they learn?’, ‘When do they learn?’ and ‘Why do they learn?’ By analyzing ways previous research answers to these questions, four biases of organizational learning researchers have been identified. These biases are the following: individual action bias, active agency learning bias, purposeful learning bias and improvement bias. Case story provides empirical support of the learning of old and new routines used by information systems designers and therefore challenges four identified biases of organizational learning literature. First of all, the case analysis illustrates organizational learning rather as a collective than an individual activity. Secondly, individuals are not free choosing how, when and what to learn because there are various deterministic forces that influence the learning. Thirdly, the case story did not support a purposeful learning bias and it showed that learning is not necessarily a planned or aware action. Approaching learning as a process rather than an achievement can challenge the improvement bias. The case story demonstrates several inefficiencies as an outcome of learning and therefore learning does not always lead to improvents. Majchrzak & Beath 2000. Participation must trigger negotiation, collaborative learning, and cognitive elaboration, in order for positive outcomes to ensue. Therefore developers and users must communicate with and learn from each other. Cognitive elaboration is critical in facilitating learning because of the selfelaborations that it causes. The user of cognitive elaboration triggers the explainers to reconceptualize their prior knowledge frameworks to incorporate divergent views. This leads to model-building learning. Authors state that simply communicating facts is not enough for model building. He 2004. User participation can be considered to be a team’s learning behaviour that effectively extends team’s knowledge pool by merging the knowledge of users upon their participation. In order to ensure effective user participation, a knowledge perspective is proposed and users’ knowledge participation is conceptualized as “the knowledge activities that users or their representatives perform during ISD process”. Two types of knowledge interactions between users and developers are identified: knowledge aqcuisition and knowledge exploitation. These are the main processes mediating the relationships between users’ knowledge participation and team success. Also team cognition (transactive memory systems and shared mental models) shapes the effects of knowledge interactions between users and developers and thereby indirectly effects on the performance of ISD team. User participation may not be efficient if participants cannot provide knowledge to the ISD process or their knowledge cannot be successfully acquired or utilized by the development team.
10
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Zhong & Majchrzak 2004. Learning is necessary part of ISD projects because diverse stakeholders possess different project knowledge. Therefore stakeholders must not only learn knowledge of others, but they must also adapt their own knowledge to the specific context of the particular ISD project. Followed by the theory of Vandenbosch and Higgins (1996) two different forms of learning have been brought out: model maintenance and model building. Model maintenance type of learning is less important in ISD if efficient and effective mutual insight is required. Model building is perceived here as clients and developers creating “a new domain view”. This new view involves the synthesis and restructuring of each stakeholder’s insights on goals, interests, beliefs, assumptions, business, and technical knowledge. It should be noted that communication activities alone will not lead to learning. It is suggested that the use of cognitive elaboration can facilitate model-building in ISD processes because stakeholders can be triggered to identify and resolve cognitive differences and divergent view. This will eventually lead to reconceptualizing their prior knowledge frameworks and thereby lead to model-building learning. Majchrzak, Beath, Lim & Chin 2005. Model-building learning should be facilitated during an ISD process. Elaboration as a stimulant for model-building learning may provide a strategy for facilitating client learning. Collaborative elaboration broadens this notion of elaboration to propose that is not likely for the learner to find inconsistencies of assumptions by herself. By exploring these inconsistencies, the learner's understanding of the domain is changed. To make sure that discussions between team members produce genuine learning, learners will have to apply their initial understanding of the domain to their own experiences, explain their assumptions about target, recognize alternative assumption and explain the concept using various ways. Teams using more collaborative elaboration will produce more client learning and teams with more client learning will achieve better outcomes as a result of IS design-phase. Therefore theories about collaborative elaboration may have significant potential for efficiently facilitating client learning early in the design process. Mathiassen & Pedersen 2005. The management of systems development projects can benefit from insights from organizational learning because of the high level of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing required in ISD. The analysis of the case study suggests that the theory about exploitation and exploration is as well applicable to systems development research than on organizational learning research. Especially situated knowledge created during ISD (Brown & Duguid 1991) plays an important role. The development techniques rely on simplified notions of knowledge creation and sharing and in addition to that they do not match the actual needs and challenges of systems
11
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
development practice. Above all, these techniques disregard the complicated dynamics involved in knowledge creation and sharing.
Table I. Different instantiations of learning in ISD. Article
Levels of learning Organization
Means of learning user-analyst interactions
Curtis et al. 1988
Individual Group Organization
Collaboration, communication, knowledge sharing and integration, learning through experience
Newman & Noble 1990
Individual Group
Early phases of ISD
Walz, Elam & Curtis 1993
Individual Group
Education, negotiation, information exchange, problemsolving, oneway learning, mutual learning Group meetings, discussions, conflicts, knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration
Sonnenwald 1995
Individual Group
collaboration, negotiation, development of expertise
IS design phase
Stein & Vandenbosc h 1996
Organization
Single-loop learning, double-loop learning, conflicts
IS Project as a whole
Higher-order organizational learning: adopting new principles, assumptions, paradigms
Nelson & Cooprider 1996
Group
Information sharing
Not considered
Deeper level knowledge, organizational
Salaway 1987
Point of learning Not considered (IS Project as a whole) IS design phase
Early phases of ISD
Result of learning Deeper level of knowledge, domain knowledge Shared undestanding, shared mental models, deeper level of knowledge, domain knowledge, knowledge of technologies and tools Deeper level of knowledge, domain knowledge, system knowledge, mutual agreement
Obstacles of learning Ineffective user-analyst interaction
Technical and application knowledge, system requirements, design approaches, shared models deeper level of knowledge, domain knowledge, mutual understanding
Time limitations, pressures for visible achievements
Not considered
Not considered
Uniqueness of each participants life-world (differences in language, motivation, expectations) Technical orientation, Product focus, Engineering paradigm, view of expertise in isolation, codification and/or singleloop learning Not considered
12
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Ang, Thong & Yap 1997
Individual Organization
Lyytinen & Robey 1999
Organization
Wastell 1999
knowledge mutual understanding Technical knowledge, tacit knowledge, knowhow learning, changes in mental models and causal maps
Single-loop learning, double-loop learning, learning-byusing, learningby-doing, feedback Informal communication, formal analyses of experience, objective audits, consulting, aqcuiring reports of new technology
IS Project as a whole
IS Project as a whole
External and internal knowledge
Organization Group
Reflection on experience, by acquiring new techniques.
IS Project as a whole
Project-specific learning
Huysman 2000
Individual, Group, Organization
Interaction, sharing experiences, sharing artifacts
IS Project as a whole
Existing and new occupational routines, new organizational knowledge
Majchrzak & Beath 2000
Individual, Group
Not considered (IS Project as a whole)
Deeper level of knowledge, domain knowledge, new mental models
Zhong & Majchrzak 2004
Individual Group
Clientdeveloper meeting, negotiation, collaborative learning, and cognitive elaboration, model-building learning Cognitive elaboration, communication, client-developer interactions
Not considered (IS Project as a whole)
He 2004
Group
Knowledge acquisition and exploitation
Majchrzak et al. 2005
Group
Dialogue, cooperative learning,
Not considered (IS Project as a whole) IS design phase
New mental models, deeper level of knowledge, domain knowledge Domain knowledge, team cognition, shared mental models Shared knowledge, domain
Not considered
Limits on organizational intelligence, discentives for learning, organizational design and educational barriers, myths in-use High level of stress and anxiety, defensive anti-learning processes Working individual instead of groups, lack of communicatio n, strong organizational culture, dominant coalitions, institutional forces Not considered
Not considered
Not considered
Not considered
13
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Mathiassen & Pedersen 2005
Individual, Group
collaborative elaboration Knowledge creation (exploration) and sharing (exploitation)
knowledge IS analysis and design phases
Situated knowledge, shared knowledge
Limited exploitation of knowledge, lack of informal knowledge, lack of support for learning
Discussion In a previous chapter we reviewed 16 articles discussing learning in ISD context. As a result of this review process, distinctive perspectives on learning were identified in each category of the framework. Major variations were discovered especially in the ‘means of learning’ and in the ‘obstacles of learning’. Findings on each category are next being analyzed in more details. “Who learns?” – Levels of learning. There is clearly a variation of levels of learning in the reviewed articles. Some articles examines the information system development purely through the lenses of organizational learning (Salaway 1987; Stein & Vandenbosch 1996; Lyytinen & Robey 1999) and some articles clearly take a group learning point of view (He 2004; Majchrzak et al. 2005). But in most cases the division is not that obvious between diffent levels of learning. It is especially difficult to draw the line whether learning takes place at individual or group level. In many cases collaborative activities in a group led to learning at individual level or vice versa. Häkkinen et al. (2004) argued that the line between individual and social processes of learning is blurring. This study provides support for that argument. While it is easy to state that boundaries between different levels of learning are obscure, it is not that apparent how these levels are connected to each other. What are the processes that combines different levels of learning to each other in the context of ISD and can organizational literature provide useful theories for that (c.f. Crossan et al. 1999)? “How do they learn?” – Means of learning. This category lists different processes or activities that aid or lead to learning in ISD. The variation of these activities or processes is considerable including basic communication and collaboration activities, different aspects of knowledge sharing and acquisition and various learning approaches. It was interesting to notice that in quite many studies concepts from organizational literature were adopted. For example, articles used theories of single-loop (one-way) and double-loop (two-way/mutual) learning by Argyris and Schön (1978) and notions of exploration (acquisition) and exploitation (utilizing) by March (1991). In some studies more cognitive approach
14
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
was also introduced and there theories of model maintenance and model building learning by Vandenbosch and Higgins (1996) were exploited. As a central activity assisting or leading to learning was subprocesses involved with knowledge transfer and exploitation. It seems that Huber’s (1991) definition of organizational learning can also be utilized in the context of ISD at least from some parts. Reviewed studies support the view of information processing as one way of learning which can occur at any level. It still essential to take a closer look of individual and collaborative learning theories to be able to facilitate learning of individuals during ISD. “When do they learn?” – Point of learning. Based on the review of these articles, there is a clear division of two alternatives when learning takes place during the ISD. Some articles do not specify at all the actual point of learning and or commonly refer to the IS projects or to the whole context of ISD. However some articles (e.g. Curtis et al. 1988; Newman & Noble 1990 Walz, Elam & Curtis 1993, Sonnenwald 1995; Mathiassen & Pedersen 2005) clearly specify that learning takes most likely place in the early phases of ISD like during gathering of requirements or analysis phase. In some cases the actual point of learning is not mentioned, but it can be concluded from the results of learning. If one takes a closer look of the results of learning, in many cases application or domain specific knowledge is mentioned. Therefore a conclusion might be drawn that the main emphasis of learning efforts are in the early phases of ISD where new knowledge and know-how must be acquired through collaborative and communicative actions. It would be still worth of analyzing what kind of learning occurs after the early phases of ISD and what is the significance of that learning. “What do they learn?” – Results of learning. Articles provided comprehensive set of answers to this question. Learning seems to be resulting mainly either to new knowledge, mutual understanding or changes in cognitive level. As a result of learning, the role of application or domain knowledge was emphasized in 10 articles and therefore it seems to be major result of learning in the context of ISD according to this study. It seems that the point of learning and results of learning have a clear connection with each other. Much of the learning occurs in the early phases of ISD resulting to the new knowledge or skills needed in the latter phases of ISD. “Why one cannot learn?” – Obstacles of learning. It is highly important to understand potential obstacles of learning and how to overcome these. However this question received quite few answers from the reviewed articles. In some cases the obstacles of learning were clearly argued and in some articles they had to be read behind the lines. In some articles there was no mention about any possible obstacles. There was a great variance of the identified obstacles of learning. Some
15
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
obstacles were concerned with the problematic features of organizational design or ISD process itself, some with communication or interaction problems and some with limitations of support or time for learning. Lyytinen and Robey (1999) argued that organizations have failed to learn and learnt to fail. Have we as researchers also failed to notice what the obstacles of learning are while we have concentrated finding answers to other questions related to learning in ISD?
Conclusion In this paper, we presented a survey of 16 articles discussing learning in the context of information system development (ISD). We investigated how learning in ISD had been studied before and what have been the main perspectives. For this we adopted Huysman’s (2000) set of questions as a basis for our framework. These questions were originally derived from organizational learning point of view but with some modifications these questions were well applicable to the context of ISD. Two questions suffered from a lack of direct answers. It seems that the point of learning is assumed to automatically be either the early phases of ISD or the ISD as a whole. What kind of learning occurs in each phase of ISD and how it could be most efficiently facilitated? Most serious gap was found on the obstacles of learning because many of the surveyed articles did not commit on this issue at all. From our point it is considered to be crucial to identify the factors that hinders or prevents effective learning during ISD because learning is acknowledged to be a significant success factor in ISD. It does not matter how learning could occur if there exist obstacles for that learning. Based on this literature survey, it can be concluded that learning in ISD has not been comprehensively addressed and especially more attention should be paid to the obstacles of learning.
References Ang, K-T., Thong, J. & Yap, C-S. (1997). “IT Implementation through the lens of organizational learning: A Case Study of Insuror”, Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on Information systems, 331 – 348. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Barki, H. & Hartwick, J. (1989). “Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement”, MIS Quarterly, March 1989, 53-63. Boland, R.J., Jr. (1978). “The Process and Product of System Design”, Management Science, vol. 24, 887-898.
16
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1991). “Organizational learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified view of Working, Learning, and Innovation”, Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, 40-57. Butler, T. & Fitzgerald, B. (1997). “A case study of user participation in the information systems development process”, Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on Information systems. Cavaye, A. (1995). “User Participation in System Development Revisited”, Information and Management, vol. 28, 311-323. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press. Curtis B., Krasner H., Iscoe N. (1988). “A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 11, 1268-1287. Galegher, J., Kraut, J.E. & Egido, E. (eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hilsdale, NJ. Gallivan, M.J. & Keil, M. (2003). ”The user-developer communication process: a critical case study”, Information Systems Journal, vol. 13, 37-68. He, J. (2004). “Knowledge Impacts of User Participation: A Cognitive Perspective”, SIGMIS2004, 1-7. Heiskanen A. and Similä J. (1992). ”Gatekeepers in the action structure of software contracting: A case study of the evolution of user–developer relationships”, ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel, vol. 14, no. 1-2, 30–44. Huber, G. (1991). “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and The Literatures”, Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, 88-115. Huysman, M. (2000). “Rethinking the organizational learning: analyzing learning processes of information system designers”, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, vol. 10, 81-99. Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M. & Mäkitalo, K. (2004). ”Prerequisites for CSCL: Research Approaches, Methodological Challenges and Pedagogical Development”, in Littleton, K., Miell, D. & Faulkner, D. (eds.). Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn. Understanding and promoting educationally productive collaborative work. pp. 163-178, Nova Science Publishers, New York. Isomäki, H. (2002). The Prevailing Conceptions of the Human Being in Information Systems Development: Systems Designers' Reflections. University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. Ives, B. & Olson, M.H. (1984). “User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research”, Management Science, vol. 30, no. 5, May 1984, 586-603. Keil, M. & Carmel, E. (1995). “Customer-Developer Links in Sotfware Development”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 38, no. 5, 33-44. Krasner, H., Curtis, B. & Iscoe, N. (1987). “Communication breakdowns and boundary spanning acitivities on large programming projects”, in Olson, G., Shepard, S. & Soloway, E. (eds). Empirical studies of programmers: Second workshop. pp. 47-64, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Kraus, R.M. & Fussell, S.R. (1990). “Mutual knowledge and communications effectiveness”, in Galegher, J., Kraut, J.E. & Egido, E. (eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work., pp. 111-145, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hilsdale, NJ. Littleton, K., Miell, D. & Faulkner, D. (eds.) (2004). Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn. Understanding and promoting educationally productive collaborative work. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York. Lynch, T. & Gregor, S. (2004). “User Participation in decision support systems development: influencing system outcomes”, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 13, 286-301.
17
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Lyytinen, K. (1987). “Different perspectives on Information Systems: Problems and Solutions”, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 19, no. 1, 5-46. Lyytinen, K. & Robey, D. (1999). “Learning Failure in Information System Development”, Information Systems Journal, vol. 9, 85-101. Majchrzak, A. & Beath, C.M. (2000) “Beyond user participation. A Model of Learning and Negotiation During Systems Development”. Workshop on Redefining the Organization Roles of Information Technology in the Information Age. Zmud R.W. (ed.). Norman, OK. Majchrzak, A., Beath, C., Lim, R. & Chin, W. (2005). “Managing client dialogues during information systems design to facilitate client learning”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4, 653672. March, J. (1991). “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”. Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, 71-87. Markus, M.L. & Mao, J. (2004). “Participation in Development and Implementation –Updating An Old, Tired Concepts for Today’s IS Contexts”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 11-12, 514-544. Marquardt, M. (1996). Building the learning organization a systems approach to quantum improvement and global success. McGraw-Hill, New York. Mathiassen, L. & Pedersen, K. (2005). “The Dynamics of Knowledge in Systems Development Practice”, Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Nelson K.M., Cooprider J.G. (1996). “The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance”, MIS Quarterly,vol. 20, no. 4, 409-432. Newman, M. & Noble, F. (1990). “User Involvement as an Interaction Process: A Case Study”, Information Systems Research, vol. 1, 89-113. Pentland, B. (1995). “Information Systems and Organizational Learning: The Social Epistemology of Organizational Knowledge Systems”, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, 1-21. Robey, D., Wishart, A. W. & Rodriguez-Diaz, A. G. (1995). “Merging the Metaphors for Organizational Improvement: Business Process Reengineering as a Component of Organizational Learning”, Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies, vol. 5, no. 1, 23-39. Salaway G. (1987). “An Organizational Learning Approach to Information Systems Development”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 2, 244-264. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency, New York. Sonnenwald D. (1995). “Contested collaboration: A descriptive model of intergroup communication in information system design”, Information Processing and Management, vol. 31, no. 6, 859-877. Stein, E. & Vandenbosch, B. (1996). “Organizational learning during Advanced System Development”, Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 2, 115-136. Vandenbosch, B. & Higgins, C. (1996). “Information acquisition and mental models: An investigation into the relationship between behavior and learning”, Information System Research,vol. 7, no. 2, 198–214. Walz, D., Elam, J. & Curtis, B. (1993). “Inside a software design team; knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 10, 63-77. Wastell, D. (1999). “Learning Dysfunctions in Information Systems Development: Overcoming the Social Defences with Transitional Objects”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 4, 581-600.
18
Pirinen and Pekkola: Different Perspectives on Learning in Information System Development
Wastell, D. & Newman, M. (1993). “The Behavioral Dynamics of Information System Development: A Stress Perspective”, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, 283-300. Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. Lessons in art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers. Zhong, J. & Majchrzak, A. (2004). “An Exploration of Impact of Cognitive Elaboration on Learning in ISD Projects”, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 5, 143-159.
19
