MODELING COMMUNICATIVE ACTS IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS by ...

MODELING COMMUNICATIVE ACTS IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS by * Goran Goldkuhl

Abstract: An analysis is made on the concept of communicative action as described in speech act theory and universalpragmatic theory. The need to consider communicative action in information system modeling and information requirements analysis is investigated. Following the purpose of having organisationally effective information systems, an interdependence is identified between intersubjective understanding of information system rules and a rational communication through an information system. A basic claim, in the paper, is that communicative acts modeling must be an important part of informatTon requirements analysis. Different aspects of communicative acts (in relation to information systems) are analysed: Prepositional contents, performative functions, communicative effects, communicative agents, conversation structure, activity context. A small example with modeling techniques are presented for illustrative purpose. Paper for the TIMS XXVI International Meeting, Copenhagen, June 17-21, 1984. Session: Values and users in information systems development. This work is part of a research project financically supported by The National Swedish Board for Technical Development.

*

Human-Infological Research Group, Department of information processing, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Gateborg, Sweden.

1 Introduction During the information systems development process (ISD) one must model different aspects of the information system (IS) and its context. There can be many different aspects to mode1.A limited number of aspects are usually modelled during an ISD process. All possible aspects cannot be modelled due to resource restrictions; which is a general critera for efficiency in ISD processes. The aspects modelled are chosen according to some perspective and vdues. The perspective gives priority to certain aspects. The purpose of this paper is to study the concept of communicative action and its relation to information systems. I shall investigate communicative action and if this concept is useful when modelling information systems. I will treat the following issues (in the noted order):

- What

is a communicative act? - Why model communicative acts in information systems? - What aspects of communicative acts to model in ISD? - How to model communicative in information systems? 2 What is a communicatfve act?

When I talk about communication here, I mean human communlr=.at&on using language as a medium. I am taking the following situation as a paradigm for my discussion: One person saying something to another person (fig. 2.1)

Figure 2.1

Communication involves always a sender/speaker and a receiver/hearer. ) Communication consists of two human processes: A sender expressing something (a message) and a receiver interpreting the message. The sender performs a communicative act. The receiver interpretes the linguistic expression, i.e. he reconstructs the intended message. A communicative act consists of different components:

Syntactical, propositional, performative and intentional. I am here following speech act theory of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969, 1979) and universal-pragmatic theory of Habermas (1979) (also described in McCarthy, 1979). I have made some minor conceptual and terminological changes. The difference between the propositional and performative (illocutionary) levels is very important and this is one of the main ideas of the theories (mentioned above). These two aspects make the double nature of human speech (Habermas, 1979) When one says something: 1) one expresses a cognitive content, i.e. one refer and predicate (propositional level) and 2) one performs something i.e. establishing an interpersonal relationship (performative level). The double nature of human speech means a cognitive and interactive use of language. The propositional content and the performative force can vary independently of each other. One example:

.

"Sam . writes the program. I1 "Write the program, Sarn!'! 111 "Does Sam write the program?" IV Sam: "I shall write the program". I

1) One person saying something to hiinself is a (very)

special case of communication.

All four utterances h a w the same propositional.content (reference = "Sam"; predication = "writes the program"). There are, however, different performative functions: Assertive (I), directive (11), question (111) and comissive (IV). This means that what is talked about is the same in all four utterances, but different types of interpersonal relationships are established between sender and receiver through the communicative act. One of the main thesis in speech act theory is this distinction between the propositional and the illocutionary (performative) level. Anot3er main thesis in this theory is the difference between the illocutionary and perlocutionary levels, A speech act may have different (perlocutionary) effects as e g convincing, persuading the hearer. The distinction between illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect of a speech act is a very important contribution since it clarifies the pragmatic dimension of language and communication. The illocutionary level builds on linguistic rules ) (of pragmatic character) but the perlocutionary builds on extra-linguistic aspects. This means a division of the pragmatic-linguistic dimension into universal ( = illocutionary/performative functions) vs empirical-contingent ( = perlocutionary effects) aspects (Habermas, 1979). Although I find this distinction clarifying, I conceive it in one respect obscure.How does the intentionality of human action fit into this schema? Different interpretions are possible. Is intentionality mainly connected with the illocutionary or the perlocutionary level? Following social action theory (eg Schutz, 7 9 7 0 ) I define intention (=in-order-to-motive) as the effects aimed at when performing the act. This means that I define the perlocutionary level as the intention of

1 ) Communicative action is rule-governed behavior, where

the rules are of different kinds (syntactical, propositional, illocutionary)

.

the communicative act l ) . Sometimes in discussions about speech act theory the illucutionary force is made equal to the intention of the speech act. I do think this is an erroneous characterization. The intention of a communicative act is accomplished through the propositional content and the illocutionary force. The proposition and the illocution are instrumental in relation to the intention of the act. I think that the confusion about the speech act intentions partly depends on that in some kind of speech acts (of certain illocutionary types) the intentions are very clear and obvious. When putting a question the intention is that the hearer should respond. When making a command the intention is that the hearer should perform the act predicated (in the proposition of the speech act). In these types of speech acts the sentence mood (interrogative and imperative) clearly shows the type of intention. In other types of speech acts, as eg constatives (assertives) the intention is not inherent in the illocutionary force. Some types of utterances have in their linguistic structure been restricted concerning their intended effects (eg questions, directives). Other types (as eg constatives) are open in their intentions. The intentions do not appear from the linguistic structure of the utterance. This kind of speech acts is often performed in an argumentative discourse. Both kinds of speech acts (directives vs constatives) have a communicative purpose. The intentions of directives are reflected in the linguistic rules (both on syntactical and illocutionary levels), which is not the case with constatives. In commands, requests, questions and some other types of speech acts the desired effects have been linguistically conventionalized and codified in sentence structures. I believe this is the main reason for the illocutionary/intentional confusion of speech acts.

l) When talking about (perlocutionary) effects of an act it is of course necessary to distinguish between intended, estimated,actual and un-intended effects. This is, however, not properly made in speech act theory.

I summarize this discussion: Every speech act has a communicative purpose which is the intention of the act. Through speech acts different kinds of interpersonal relationships are established between sender and receiver. This is made through the illocutionary force of the speech act. In some type of speech acts the intentions are clear from the illocutionary force (i.e. clearly expressed in the utterance) but in other cases they are not. The purpose of this section was to investigate the concept of communicative act. This analysis will serve as a basis for the succeeding sections where I will investigate if this concept is important and useful in modeling information systems.

3 Why model communicative acts in information systems?

I will start this discussion with putting up some main objectives behind using (computer-based) information systems for management and administration in organisations. The purpose of an IS is to support effective organisational action. An IS should (through produced messages) influence some actors (IS-users) and their action. The IS-messages should through interpretation and understanding processes enable or improve some action. The produced messages are a function of the input messages and the IS rules. These are the results of two different kinds of formulation processes: 1) The continuous formulation of input messages and 2) the specification of the information system requirements. These requirements are rules for what kind of messages are allowed in the system and the kind of processing activities (inferencing). During the determination of information requirements some people are creating prerequisites for an effective IS use.

The contents, structure and function of an IS should be determined with regard to the desired action effects. In figure 3.1 I have depicted a principal structure of an information system.

Figure 3.1

Information system and primary context.

The discussion above implies an identification of three types of information system actors: Input users, output users, IS action responsible (the information system "owners"). These are three types of roles, and in some situations these roles can coincide in one person.

-

One of my main thesis here is that: There must be a sufficient degree of intersubjectivity between the different IS actors on the rule-governed IS action. The action inside and outside the information system must be congruent. A condition for an effective and rational information system is an intersubjectivity on the IS concerning what is talked about and what commitments are made.

There is a sometimes implicit validity claim of IS that we, as users, should make intelligible expressions and adequate interpretations, This is presupposed in every rational use of IS. Based on the discussion a b o w I am now prepared to present another main thesis: Predefining information systems (during information requirements analysis) should involve model'ligg of communicative acts, The communicative act modelling s'nould increase the possibility of an effective communication in information systems. An effective communication consists of comprensible,thruthful and appropriate expressing ) and adequate interpretations of propositions, illocutions and intentions. Information systems can be defined as rule-governed inferencing and communicative action, 2' These rules can be said to represent a social contract (Ciborra, 1984) on IS between different interest parties. The process of information requirements analysis (IRQA) is to determine the rules for this inferencing and communicative action. IRQA is a metacommunication process with one aim to establish an intersubjectivity on IS rules, which then represents a social contract. This process involves also a development of communicative competence (Habermas, 1979) of IS users. Developing communicative competence means reconstructing and improving rules for communicative action (Goldkuhl & Lyytinen, 7984).

l) Confer Habermas (1979, p. 2ff) about validity claims in communication. 2) In this paper I am not using the concept 'formal professional languageL. This is, however, a central concept in the language action theory on information systems. Confer Goldkuhl & Eyytinen (?g82 a, '1'984)

.

My claim here is that communicative action is an important and basic aspect to consider when modeliflg; information systems. I do not claim that it is the only aspect to model. There are of course many other aspects to consider.

4 Some aspects of communicative acts to consider when modeling information systems Following theories on communicative action I suggest the following aspects for information system modeling during IRQA (regarding communicative acts) :

-

Propositional contents (message structure, vocabulary) Performative functions - Intended communication effects - Communication partners - Relations between different communicative acts (conversations) Communicative action context

-

I will go through this six aspects below. In section 5 I will present some ways for describing these aspects (modeling

techniques)

.

Propositional contents of communicative acts in IS are usually described in many methods/approaches to information requirements analysis and information modeling. ' ) This is often done in terms of entities and relationships (eg Chen, 1976; Kent, 1977). Many approaches uses mathematical (eg Codd, 1970) or logical frameworks (eg Bubenko, 1981) for describing propostitional contents. These frameworks are, however, not especially congruent with the language action theory on IS developed in this and other papers (Goldkuhl & Lyytinen, 1982 a, b, 1984). Instead I propose a linguistically based framework described in Lyytinen (1982) and

1) For an overview confer e g Kerschberg et a1 (1'976)and Lindencrona-Ohlin (1979)

.

Goldkuhl & Lyytinen (1982b). The propositional contents is described as predicative structures (message structures). Messages are divided into two parts: One talked about (theme/reference) and one part as a comment (rheme/ predication) l ) The propositions uses a vocabulary of the IS. A propositional analysis must involve on analysis of this vocabulary i e terminology and concepts. Definition of concepts can be done with regard to intension and extension (ibid.)

.

.

Propositional contents are, as mentioned above, often treated in many methods; anyhow not in a proper linguistically way. The other five aspects (of communicative acts) are, however, more seldom considered in many methods. While,usually, the propositional contents of IS communicative acts are described explicitly,the performative functions are treated &plicitly, or not at all. Input/output information can sometimes be characterized as "question order", "report on etc. The performative function is in this way only mentioned or understood implicitly, but not explicitly desck5bd.d.1'0,ne way of treating

"...*.

...,.",

....",

the performative aspect of communicative acts is to characterize the illocutions according to some scheme. In speech act theory there exists some taxonomies of illocutions; a preliminary one in Austin (1962) and a more elaborated one in Searle ( 1 979).2) Searle identifies five basic illocutionary types into which, he claims, all illocutions can be grouped: - Assertives (state, believe, claim, predict, etc.) - Comissives (promise, intend, obligate, etc.) - Directives (command, request, question, etc.) - Declaratives (appoint, sentence, declare, etc.) - Expressives (thank, welcome, apologize, etc.) 1) It is also possible to characterize the message types according to different basic predicative schemes (Lyytinen, 1982). 2) Confer also Habermas (1979) and WetterstriSm (1977).

I t h i n k t h a t t h i s list i,s-.nkibher e x h a u s t i v e -.nor:. s u f f i c i e n t l y

d e t a i l e d f o r c h a r a c t e r i z : a t i . o n of , i n f o r m a t i o n system a c t s . I p r e s e n t a more comprehensive l i s t , which should be u s e f u l a t l e a s t i n t h e I S a r e a , My taxonomy buFlds on S e a r l e t s . I n p a r e n t h e s i s I have e x p r e s s e d " p r o t o t y p e i l l u c o t i o n s R . Reports - certaln unc,ertain

(f state~claim)

-

Predictians e Comissives ]Tingle7 -

. .

-

Contracts /mutual c o r n i s s ~ v e ' r Directives commands requests Questions Declarative Regulatives / a i r e c t i v e - d e c l a r a t i v e-7 m Expressives 0 Characterizati.ons Preferences

-

-

[I-b e l i e v e ) (X forecast) (I promi.se) (We agree) ( I command) ( I request) (I ask)

( Z declare) ( X issue/prescribe) ('Ie x p r e s s )

( 3 define) ( I wish/pref e r )

The d i f f e r e n t communicative a c t s of an I S ( i n p u t / o u t p u t messages) can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s taxonomy. The i n t e n d e d communication e f f e c t s of an I S a r e t h e a c t s performed by t h e o u t p u t u s e r s . The a c t s can be d e c i s i o n s , o t h e r communicative a c t s o r m a t e r i a l a c t s . It should be recognized

t h a t I S o u t p u t s a r e v e r y seldom t h e o n l y b a s i s

f o r t h e u s e r ' s action.. They u s e , a l s o , o t h e r informat-&m sources. The communication purpose d e s c r i b e d i n t e r m s of " Tot " .

( t h e i n t e n d e d e f f e c t s ) can be know^,^^.

< something) i n o r d e r t o

I n s e c t i o n 3 above I i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e t y p e s of I S a c t o r s ( I S r o l e s ) . These a r e g r o u p s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e I S . I would add a n o t h e r group: The I S c l i e n t s . What i s done

i n t h e I S and i t s s u r r o u n d i n g s h a s u s u a l l y a p u r p o s e t o s e r v e a n o t h e r g r o u p o u t s i d e . I c a l l t h i s k i n d of g r o u p t h e c l i e n t s o f t h e I S a c t i v i t y . The c l i e n t s c a n b e i n s i d e o r o u t s i d e t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n s . T y p i c a l examples o f o u t s i d e c l i e n t s

are c u s t o m e r s , p a t i e n t s , t a x - p a y e r s . I t h i n k t h a t sometimes o u t p u t u s e r s and c l i e n t s c a n c o i n c i d e . The i n p u t u s e r s c a n sometimes o n l y b e m e d i a t i n g something t h a t h a s a l r e a d y b e s a i d by someone e l s e . T h e r e f o r e it i s important t o i d e n t i f y t h e r e a l formulators of t h e input communicative a c t s , b e s i d e s t h e m e d i a t o r s . I n t h e l a n g u a g e a c t i o n t h e o r y on i n f o r m a t i o n system, such systems a r e d e f i n e d a s r u l e - g o v e r n e d

i n f e r e n c i n g and

communicative a c t i o n . T h i s means t h a t a c t i o n i s performed i n / t h r o u g h a n i n f o r m a t i o n system. These a c t s a r e of c o u r s e human, b u t o n l y r e a l i z e d by means o f t e c h n i c a l a i d s

. Someone

i s ( o r should a t l e a s t be) responsible f o r t h e a c t i o n performed i n a n I S , I t i s n o t s e n s i b l e t o (computers)

a c c u s e computers f o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e I S a c t i o n .

The a c t i o n

r e s p o n s i b l e are t h o s e w i t h power t o f o r m u l a t e and r e f o r m u l a t e the IS rules. Through t h i s a n a l y s i s I h a v e come o u t w i t h an e l a b o r a t e d I S u s e r c o n c e p t . I do n o t t h i n k it i s s u f f i c i e n t t o t a l k a b o u t u s e r s i n a n u n s p e c i f i c way. I p r o p o s e t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e s of IS a c t o r s :

1) T h i s i s t h e problem o f I S r e i f i c a t i o n , i n Goldkuhl & L y y t i n e n (T982a)

.

which i s t r e a t e d

-

IS - IS IS - IS

-

input users (formulators, mediators) output users action responsible clients

Identification and characterization (according to these scheme) of different (groups of) actors should be done during IRQA. The rules for propositional contents and performative functions are rules for single communicative acts. There exist also rules for combinations of communicative acts. Communicative acts of an IS and its surroundings form together-a coherent structure. There are rules for how these communicative acts relate to each other as an institutionalized action pattern. These different communicative acts form together a "conversation". A conversation is constituted not only by rules for each communicative act, but also by rules which interrelate communicative acts. It is not possible to reconstruct and understand the communicative rules of an IS without relating to rules in other activities. The communicative acts of an IS are usually only part of a larger conversation context, Rules for interrelating communicative acts are described as conversation rules:

- Initiations

-

Sequences Alternatives - Conjunctions - Iterations - Terminations

-

When modeling conversations, we are describing parts of IS context. A more exhaustive contextual description has to made also, including different surrounding activities.

5 How to model communicative acts in information systems

In section 4 above I have described some aspects of communicative acts to model during IRQA. I will make my presentation here more concrete by giving examples of how to model these aspects. The purpuse of this section is, thus, to illustrate communicative acts modeling. I will do this, by using parts of the information requirements analysis method SIM l) (Goldkuhl, 1983; Goldkuhl & Lyytinen 1982b, 1984)

.

I will use a simple example of order processing. 1 start with a::de.scriptbbn'of the information system in context. This is described in an A-graph2) (Figure 5.1). Besides the order processing system three other activities are described: Stock-keeping, invoicing and sales planning. By this graph we can identify the communicative acts (inputs and outputs) of the IS and also to get an understanding of this IS in relation to its surrounding. From the A-graph it is not possible to elicit the conversation structure. Only the principal relations between the activities are depicted. The detailed relations between the communicative acts are depicted in a conversation diagram (figure 5.2; a legend is found in appendix 2). Different communicative agents are identified in figure 5.3. In figure 5.4 the communicative acts are classified according to the taxonomy presented in section 4. Some acts involve several performative functions as can be seen from the table.

1) SIM stands for Speech act based Information system Methodology. 2) 1 a n using A-graph-technique f ron Lundeberg et a1 ( 1981) , but with a different interpretation o f the symbols, confer appendix t .

Figure 5.1

:A-graph

L-or o r d e r .

-brremai;ng

or

-,

conf irrnation ordef

shipping note

S h o r t a g e n o t e P--

1

l 1

[E

D e l i v e r y c a n c e l l a t i o n {Id e l i v e r y postponment

r

L=

delivery note 4 -

I-L-

and s h i p p i n g s l i p : i

and i n v o i c e b a s i s

l

ly p a y m e n t - n o t e 14-.

L-

or n o p a y m e n t - n o t e

L>r L-

7

invoice claim

or d i s t r a i n t c l a i m

Figure .5.2

Conversati0.n diagram

.' "

11

4

Information svstem: Order ~rocessina

!

j

Input messages

1 1

l

Input users I

l

i

l

I

Orders Changes in stock Payment neglects

i

l i

Customers Stock Invoice dep.

Output messages

,

Output users

i i !

l

Order confirmation Delivery postponement Order rejection Delivery cancellation Shipping note Order statistics

l I

1

Customers Customers Customers Customers Stock Sales planning

Action responsible: Order dep. Clients: Figure 5.3

Customers Information system actors

l

I

1

Communicative acts

Type of performative function

, I

i

Orders i Shipping note Order confirmation Delivery postponement Order rejection Delivery cancellation Order statistics Changes in stock Invoice basis Payment notes Invoice Invoice claim Distraint claim Payment neglects I j Market investigation l 1 Sales plans 1

I

I

I

I

i

1 l

l ; l

1

Request Command Commissipe Non-commissive; Commissiye Non-commissive Non-commissiye Report, certain

I 1

I l

l

l

l

l

1I l

I

l I

'

I

Report, certain Report, certain Report, certain Command Command Request

I

Report, certain

I

Report ,cert.,uncertain; Prediction Commissiue; Request; Prediction

l

Figure 5.4

I

Performative functions

In figure 5.5 some intended effects are explicated concerning the communicative act 'order statistics'. The contributions of some elementary parts of this act are described.

1.

ELEMENTARY COMMUNICATIVE ACTS

-

EFFECT

Quantity sold i n percent

To know t h e s a l e s s h a r e s

(Product, s a l e s u n i t , period

of a product i n order t o

1

move p r o d u c t s - i n - s t o c k

I

j

between sales u n i t s o r where l;

- Sales u n i t

t o have s a l e s campaigns. To know which s a l e s u n i t s

(District)

t h e r e are w i t h i n one d i s t r i c i n o r d e r t o make a d e q u a t e comparisons.

- Total quantity sold

T o know t h e t o t a l q u a n t i t y

(Product, d i s t r i c t , period)

s o l d of a product

(in a

d i s t r i c t ) i n order t o e v a l u a t e and d e c i d e whether it i s worth making a c t i o n s f o r t h e product.

F i g u r e 5.5

Communicative e f f e c t s

I n f i g u r e 5 . 5 t h e e l e m e n t a r y communicative a c t s a r e d e s c r i b e d r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o n t e n t s . The f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n i s u s e d f o r d e s c r i b i n g t h e message s t r u c t u r e (on t y p e l e v e l ) :

-


(< s u b j e c t '>

. . . .)

I n f i g u r e 5.6 I show a l e x i c a l t a b l e . The p u r p o s e of t h i s t a b l e i s t o d i s c l o s e d i f f e r e n t meanings ( i n d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s ) of a u s e d word,

'customer'.

The meaning of

t h i s word i s d i f f e r e n t i n t h e f o u r a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s i s due t o t h e d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e s of t h e a c t i v i t i e s ( i n v o l v i n g d i f f e r e n t n e e d s , l a n g u a g e u s e s and c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s ) .

7i

One can say that the word customer is used in different language games (Wittgenstein, 1.958; Apel, T 9 6 7 ) 9 The purpose here is not standardize and enforce one meaning of the word in all activities (which would be an The purpose is, instead, 'enterprise schema approach ') 2, to reconstruct and explicate different meanings used in order to make a rational communication between different actor groups more possible.

.

.

L

P

Organisational activity . . . . . . .

.

.

. ~qord: . . . . .

.

. . .

Invoicing .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . .

Units/persons, which[who order goods from .the.company... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . .

.

,

Places (addresses) to which goods are delivered.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

.

.

Customer

. . . . . . . . . . .

.

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stock

.

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Order .processing . . . .

.

.

. . . . .

.

.

.

. .

.

Juridical'urii.t responsible for payments . . f o rdelivered.goods... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

Sales Units, towards which marketing actions .planning. . . ..aredirected,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L

Figure 5.6 meanings.

Lexical table for disclosure of different

1 ) About the concept of language games in information

systems theory confer Goldkuhl & Lyytinen (1982a, b). 2) Such an approach is critically examined in Goldkuhl & Lyytinen (1982a), Lyytinen (T983) and Kall (1984).

I

The main p u r p o s e of showing t h i s s i m p l e example w i t h d i a g r a m s and t a b l e w a s t o enhance t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of communicative a c t s modeling i n I R Q A . The p u r p o s e w a s n o t t o p r e s e n t and go i n t o d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g d i f f e r e n t f e a t u r e s o f modeling t e c h n i q u e s . .

. .

.

6 Conclusion

T h i s p a p e r s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as an a r g u m e n t a t i o n f o r c o n s i d e r i n g communicative a c t s i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s a n a l y s i s and i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m modeling.

I summarize my

d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a i n of r e a s o n i n g : Organisational effective action through I S 'support I S a c t i o n i n v o l v e s r a t i o n a l and

u n d i s t o r e d communication I n t e r ' s u b j e c t i v e ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g on the I S communi.cation

R e c o n s t r u c t i n g and improving cornrnuni.cative a c t i o n Modeling c o r n k n i c a t i v e a c t s d u r i n g information

reuirements analysis

A communicative a c t i o n a p p r o a c h r e p r e s e n t s a t p r e s e n t a

m i n o r i t y o p i n i o n i n i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s modeling. There a r e , however, a growing i n t e r e s t i n communicative a c t s modeling. B e s i d e s myself and my c o l l e g u e s , Winograd ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Flores

&

Ludlow (T980), B j e r k n e s

Mathiassen

&

&

Kaasb611 (1983) and

Andersen (T983) h a v e p r e s e n t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s

in t h i s direction.

In information system modeling most approaches seem to be either information/data centered or process/flow oriented (Yao et a1 1980; Bubenko, 1983; Lindgren, 1983). It is, however, claimed (ibid) that an integration of these two views are needed. I have here come up with a communicatLve acts approach which immediately does not fit into either the information nor the process approach. Of course it relates through propositional contents to information and the action character in it relates to processing/inferencing. I will expand my argumentation here to that communication is superior to information and in£erencing. ) There is no information without/outside communication. The inferencing should be interpreted as an argumentative background for communication. Communication becomes then an overall perspective that integrates information and process orientations and aspects (figure 6.1).

Cominunication

Inferencing

1

Figure 6 . t Integration of different aspects/orientations in information systems.

1) Confer the argumentation in Winograd (1980) which goes in the same lines.

REFERENCES Apel, K-0. (1967) : Analytic philosophy of language and the geistesswissenschaften, Reidel, Dordrecht. Austin, J.L. (1962): How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. Bemelmans, T. (Ed. 7984): Beyond productivity: Information systems development for orga-nizationaleffectiveness, North-Holland, Amsterdam. B jerknes, G., KaasbB11, 3. (1'983): Profession oriented languages for nurses,in Nurminen. Gaupholm ('1983)

.

Bubenko, J. (1981): On concepts and strategies for requirements and information analysis, SYSLAB rep no 4. Chalmers/University of Gothenburg. Bubenko, J. (1983): Information and data modeling: State of the art and research directions, 2nd Scandinavian Research seminar on Information modeling and data base management, Univ. of Tampere. Ciborra, C.U. (1984): Management information systems: A contractual view, in Bemelmans (1984)

.

Codd, E.F. (1970): A relational model of data for large shared data banks, CACM, v01 13, p 377-387. Flores, F., Ludlow, IT. (7980): Doing and speaking in the office: Fick & Spra'tpe (Eds) Decision support systems: Is'suesand challenges. Pergamon Press. Goldkuhl, G. (7983): Information requirements analysis based on language action view - a methodological outline, in Nurminen & Gaupholm (1983) . Goldkuhl, G., Lyytinen, K. (1982a): A language action view of information systems, 3rd International Conference on information Systems. Ann Arbor 13-15 Dec., 1982. Goldkuhl, G., Lyytinen,K. (1982b): A disposition for an information analysis methodology based on speech act theory, in Goldkuhl & Kall (Eds 1982) Report of the 5th Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering, Chalmers University of Technology/ Univ. of Gotkenburg

.

.

Goldkuhl, G., Lyytinen, K. (1984): Information systems specification as rule reconstruction, in Bemelmans, T. (Ed 1984). Habermas, J. (1979): Communication and the evolution of society. Heinemann, London. Kall, C-0. (1984): Conceptual data modeling as an obstacle for organisational decentralization. Paper for the IFIP Conference 'Human-Computer Interaction', London. Kerschberg, L., Klug, A., Tsichritzis (1976): A taxonomy of data models, in Lockeman, Neuhold (Eds. 1976) Systems for large data bases, North-Holland. Lindencrona-Ohlin, E. (1979): A study of conceptual data modeling. Dep. of computer Sciences, Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Gothenburg. Lindgreen, P. (1983): Symbiosis in systems analysis, in Nurminen, Gaupholm (1 983) . Lund.eberg,M., Goldkuhl, G., Nilsson, A. (1981): Information Systems development - a systematic approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Lyytinen, K. (1982): Predicative analysis of data bases. Scandinavian Research Seminar on Information modeling and data base management, Tampere. Lyytinen, K. (1983): Reality mapping or language development - a tentative analysis of alternative paradigms for information modeling, SYSLAB wp 27, University of Stockholm. Mathiassen, L., Andersen, P.B. (1983): Nurses and semiotics: The impact of EDP-based systems upon professional languages. In Nurminen, Gaupholm (1983). McCarthy, T. (1978): The critical theory of JGrgen Habermas, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Nurminen, M.I., Gaupholm, H.T. (Eds, 1983) : Report of the 6th Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering, Institute for Information Science, University of Bergen. Schutz, A. (1970): On phenomenology and social relations. University of Chicago Press. Searle, J.R. (t969): Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of lan'guage. Cambridge University Press, London.

Searle, J.R. (1979): Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press, London. Wetterstrom, T. (1977): Intention and communication. An essay in the phenomenology of language. Doxa. Lund. Winograd, T. (1980): What does it mean to understand language. Cognitive Science 4, p 209-241. Wittgenstein, L. (1958): Philosophical investigations, Blackwell, London. Yao, S.B., Navathe, S., Weldon, J-L. (1980): An integrated approach to logical database design, in Freeman, Wasserman (Eds, 1980). Tutorial on software design techniques. IEEE, New York.

Appendix 1 : Symbols

Legend for -:A-graphs

-.

Meaning Message used in communication Physical objects A combination of physical objects and messages A communicative act Use/interpretation of communicated messages

Communication

An instrumental act or material consequences of an instrumental action Physical objects used in an activity or physical effects influencing on activity. Activity. A socially institutionalized action pattern.

Appendix 2: Symbol

Legend for conversation diagram Meaning Initiation Sequence Alternative rteration

AND

Conjunction

4

Termination (no succeeding communicative acts) Termination (of conversation)