that was used to show that the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) corresponds to a generic structure based on a. Convincing process embedded within a ...
International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2005
http://www.jaist.ac.jp/iskss/
Priority Pointing Within the Systems Development Life Cycle Cathal M. Brugha School of Business, University College Dublin, Ireland
Abstract This paper builds on previous work about Nomology, a decision science approach to structuring qualitative decisions, that was used to show that the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) corresponds to a generic structure based on a Convincing process embedded within a Committing process. The key decision issue in the SDLC is that of ownership of the process by the decision-maker. Consequently the decision when to move from one stage of development to the next should be determined ‘subjectively’ by the decision-maker or organisation. However, the SDLC is best implemented ‘objectively’ as an Adjusting process, also derived from Nomology, in which balance should be retained with regard to answers to three questions, what should be done, where should it be done, and which way should it be done. The paper describes how the Priority Pointing Procedure synthesises answers to open questions about how to progress a project so as to identify what adjustments would help to progress systems projects at any stage of the SDLC. Keywords: Decision Science, Nomology, Systems, Development, Adjustment, Epistemology
1. Introduction Many of us who work in the fields of knowledge and systems science come from technical backgrounds such as mathematics, science and engineering. So we have conceptual difficulties when we venture into territories where the physical sciences can at best provide us with a few metaphors to help understand the deeper issues of human behaviour. As people who live in the real world and who have a very good analytical training we are not exactly unequipped for this kind of study. But should we become experts in philosophy? The word comes from the Greek words Philos and Sophos, i.e. friend of wisdom. Wisdom suggests something to do with being sensible and supportive in one’s dealings with others. Traditional philosophy does not offer enough of the knowledge we require to understand the frameworks that underlie people’s decision processes. We need a deeper and more analytical insight into decision-making processes in general. This was the concern of philosophers in the nineteenth century who sought to discover the general rules that appear to govern human behaviour and development. Although it is in the background of many research endeavours, very few people study it specifically as a field. Its formal title is Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind.
Although credited to the Scottish philosopher William Hamilton (1877) the field derives from 1844 or earlier. Henry Tappan (1855, pp. 70-85) described there being two “General Conceptions”, the first “Substance, endowed with faculties or functions, and causes or forces” and the second “Laws, or that which determines and regulates the manifestations and movements of the first”. Philosophy in relation to the first had been known as Metaphysics after the Greek words Meta and Physika, i.e. beyond the physical. Tappan called philosophy in relation to the second Nomology after the Greek words Nomos and Logos, i.e. the doctrine of law. It is now understood to mean “Covering Laws” or “Regularities” in the patterns or structures of thinking. Frequently it is used to form “Nomological Maps” or “Nets” that help to locate where one is in a decision process. Our interest is in how these regularities apply to decision-making in general, and can help to improve management practice. Nomology is based on the premise that intelligent beings’ choices tend to follow a common set of simple decision rules. It uses formal principles and axioms to extend the understanding of systems, the most foundational of which (Principle 1 “Simplicity”: Brugha, 1998a) is that “decision making processes, in general, are invariant and more likely to be simple than
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
26
insights into the dialectic indicate there are three stages or levels in a parallel convincing process. One first resolves technical issues, then relates the problem to its context, and finally deals with it within its situation. Although committing and convincing are independent dimensions they frequently combine where a decision-maker or group wish explicitly to be convinced before they move from one phase of committing to the next. The Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) is a process that follows such a structure (Table 1, Brugha, 2001a).
complex. Brugha (1998a, b, c) has used Nomology to synthesise research from management, psychology and other fields into a unified framework. This built on work by Hamilton (1877) who credited Kant (1987) with having formulated ideas corresponding to knowing, feeling and willing, which operate as levels which Hamilton called somatic, psychic and pneumatic. Brugha showed that this corresponds to three phases or levels of a committing process, a systems development example of which is Analysis, Design and Implementation. Brugha (1998c) also showed how Kant’s (1985) Table 1. Systems development life cycle activities. Committing Phases Analysis Design Implementation
Technical Survey project scope and feasibility Select a feasible solution from candidate solutions Construct the new system
Convincing Stages Contextual Study the current system Design the new system Deliver the new system
Situational Define the end-user's requirements Acquire computer hardware and software Maintain and improve the system
deconstructing, reconstructing and completing them in the context of the generic system (Principle 5 “Deconstructing, Reconstructing and Completing”: Brugha, 1998a). Finally it meant describing the constructs using natural language (Principle 2 “Natural Language”) and words that are similar to each other, with the differences in the words specific to the differences in the concept” (Principle 3 “Similar Words, Specific Differences”: Brugha, 1998a).
Two other systems that fit this structure are Jung’s (1971) introverted and extroverted orientations in psychology and Maslow’s (1987) hierarchy of needs. Brugha used the next four principles from Nomology to extend their systems to cover all three-by-three or nine aspects (Tables 2 and 3, Brugha, 1998c). Doing this first involved seeing them in the context of the generic system (Principle 4 “Evaluating and Interpreting”: Brugha, 1998b). Then it required
Table 2. Hierarchy of needs, preferences and values. Introverted Development Committing Phases Somatic – Needs Psychic – Preferences Pneumatic – Values
Extroverted Development - Convincing Stages Technical - Self Contextual - Others Situational - Business Physical Political Economic Social Cultural Emotional Artistic Religious Mystical
Table 3. Types of thinking. Committing Phases Somatic –Having Psychic – Doing Pneumatic – Being
Technical -Involving Intuiting Sensing Experiencing
Convincing Stages Contextual - Protecting Recognizing Learning Understanding
Situational - Observing Believing Trusting Realizing
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
A wide variety of systems use this structure. The cells in Tables 1 to 3 correspond to coherent clusters of activities that should be seen as facets of the underlying two-level dynamic. The more experience and practice that one can draw on that use this structure the deeper one’s understanding of the processes. For example, trust could be described as a psychological state that relates to some situation; it operates on the emotional level of behaviour and is particularly relevant at the acquisition stage of the SDLC. Nomology mainly sets out to describe the structures people use. It is not rigidly prescriptive in the sense of pre-determining what decision structures anyone should use. However it is somewhat normative in that it suggests that the stages in a process should normally be respected. It is based on the premise that decision structures are important, that they should be used to form “Nomological Maps” to identify where one is and, consequently, what should be the next step. We formalise this as a principle. Principle 6 “Nomological Change”: Nomological change is most effectively achieved when directed at the appropriate level and stage within a nomological map.
2. The Systems Development Life Cycle in Practice The SDLC has most commonly been used as a process for developing individual projects, especially in Information Systems (IS). It suited early IS developments where projects were usually ‘stand alone’. Nowadays IS organisations typically have many projects at different stages, that may also be interacting with each other, making it more difficult to reap the benefits of understanding the SDLC process. Initial users of the SDLC treated it as a rigid set of steps, possibly because they were technical people, or they were over-awed by its importance. Inflexible implementations and a growing awareness of the need to take account of “soft” issues led to an unfortunate decline in its popularity because the SDLC is a highly flexible meta-methodology. When used as a tool to help project managers decide if they are sufficiently convinced to be able to commit the project to the next phase it does not prejudge how these processes are implemented. The focus of this paper is to consider how this can be done in practice. People who have developed projects are acutely aware of the above rigidity issue, i.e. that there is always a tension between doing the nine stages strictly in a linear sequence and allowing some overlapping of stages within the cycle. Often stages interact, such as
27
between the design of the new system and the acquisition of hardware and software. A meta-view of the broader processes that are taking place can help to resolve problems and conflicts. The study phase, for example, emphasises the somatic, i.e. tangible and measurable aspects that exist in the current system; it also focuses on the end-users. The SDLC should be viewed as a generic structure that is not limited to IS. If people understood its broader context they might begin to use it more flexibly, i.e. they might apply the spirit and not the letter of the rule. 2.1 Implementing the SDLC The essence of the SDLC is the committing and convincing processes. These are both subjective, which means that those responsible decide when they feel enough time or effort has been given to any activity or stage. The next question is to determine the processes that apply within each stage? Generally people appear to use objective norms when deciding how to manage each stage. There is a “correct way” to survey the project, to do a study, and so on. There are many issues to take into account, things to do or avoid. Many of these are about keeping a balance, where there are tensions between somewhat conflicting concerns: for example do the job thoroughly, but not waste too much time on any one task, and so on. This is described as the Professional Work Practice (PWP) approach in reviews of empirical practice in information systems development (ISD) (Andersen et al., 1990). The PWP approach emerged from research into what systems practitioners actually do in practice. It is a descriptive system that relies on field studies and action research. It has been influenced by organisational learning theory and led to the usage of maps for diagnosing problem situations and metaphors for generating visions to help guide practitioners. PWP includes the use of twenty-four principles that are controlled via numerous dualities such as performance versus management, and planning versus evaluation. These dualities are mutually dependent and must be addressed together. Iivari et al. (1998, p.171) criticised the PWP approach for its lack of an underlying philosophical framework and its failure to see the importance of methods as “intellectual frameworks with which the experience can be compared and reflected upon”. Brugha (2001a) proposed that nomological adjustment processes (Brugha, 1998b) provide such a framework, and should be used for implementing stages of the SDLC.
3.Adjusting Processes One of the ideas central to Nomology is that there are a
28
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
limited number of different kinds of decision structure, and that all decision practice should fit into these structures. Brugha (1998a, b, c) carried out extensive trawls of qualitative structures that emerged from either established systems or empirical evidence. This indicated that systems that did not fit into the above dialectical structures of committing and convincing appeared to be based on balances between opposites or contrasts, i.e. adjusting. The apparent comprehensiveness of this result seemed extraordinary. It raised the question could such a limited set of decision structures be due to the habits of western culture, or might this be “natural” to human thinking in some generic way? It would seem very strange were some cultures to use important fundamental processes and others not. This led to a search for fields of decision-making that were different and unconnected to western systems practice. The search went as far as China, but with a second purpose also. The Chinese traditional usage of Yin and Yang suggested that they had knowledge of balanced systems that was lacking in the West. The fruit of the first search was the system wuli-shili-renli (WSR: Gu and Zhu, 1995; Gu and Tang, 2000; Zhu, 2000). There appeared to be parallels between adjusting and wuli, which in both systems were described as objective, and also between convincing and shili, and committing and renli, which in both systems were described as subjective (Brugha, 2001b). Both Nomology and WSR are claimed to comprehensively account for the activities of systems. With WSR “Wu (objective existence), Shi (subjective modelling), and Ren (human relations) constitute a differentiated whole that conditions systems projects”. Interestingly, and indeed realistically, the differences between each corresponding pair illustrate very strikingly the different understandings of these processes between China and the West. The search into adjusting structures revealed many in both East and West (Brugha, 1998a, b). These ranged from management (Peters and Waterman, 1982) to culture (Hofstede, 1980) in the West, and an example in the East the eight Trigrams or archetypes of the I Ching from the Yin-Yang–based system of Ancient China (Brugha, 2001a). Another source of evidence was applications of the Priority-Pointing Procedure (PPP: Brugha, 2000). PPP clusters responses by managers to open-ended questions about how to achieve defined development objectives. Clusters always fit the same pattern. The highest clustering differentiates between the need for more planning and for more putting plans into effect. At the next level the issue relates to whether or not the problem concerns mainly the people involved in the process. At the third level the issue is always about the best approach to use; whether it be inter-personal or not. Despite this structural stability each case was so different that it required its own set of
descriptors and names for the individual clusters. At a generic level there were no readily recognisable names such as on the development side (Tables 2 and 3). To emphasise this generic aspect Brugha (1998a, b) used the initial letter “p” for these terms. From analysis of many such surveys it became clear that decision-makers were addressing the problem with the same approach based on asking questions that had dichotomous answers. The first question they addressed was “what kind of problem was it?” was it more or less uncertain? The second question was “where was the focus of the problem?” was it more or less concerned with the people involved? The third question was “which way should be used to solve the problem?” should it be more or less a personal approach? Combining the answers to these dichotomies led to the formalisation of eight principal adjustment activities (Figure 1 Brugha, 1998b). It was described as an adjustment system because remedying the imbalances in the three dichotomies acted as a mechanism for reducing excessive emphasis on particular approaches to solving problems in organisations.
Fig. 1. Principal adjustment activities. The major implication for IS practice from Brugha (2001a) is that each of the stages in the SDLC should
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
be implemented using the rules of adjustment decision-making. The principal requirement is that there should be balance in the usage of alternative managerial approaches. This is an “objective” requirement. For instance a manager could cause harm by bringing to the job a particular bias in favour of planning as against putting plans into effect. Having an awareness of such potential imbalances can offset such a bias. Another benefit is that the model can be used to match the needs of an IS task with the management styles of the existing members of an IS task force when recruiting new members. The combination of alternatives on each of the three dichotomies produce eight activities that can be viewed as coherent “activity tools” and be used independently or as part of a cycle that is applied within each SDLC stage. They reflect an unfolding process that could go through the whole cycle or just the first few steps around the “adjusting wheel” described in Figure 2. For example, someone simply proposing a workable solution might deal with the requirements of an SDLC stage very easily. Typically those who are in place in the organisation, who have control over the resources, usually will first try some solution that does not involve too many other people. The combination of a proposition activity that is done using one's position (i.e. the control one has over resources, people or influence) is described as pounce, a sudden shift in direction of resources or emphasis that has not been widely discussed or agreed. The other extreme on the dimension of which way to solve a problem is by focus on the person instead of on one's position. If a pounce solution is inadequate then go "in person" to those who are in place in the organisation and see how the problem affects the work that they do. So, a proposition activity that is centred on the activities of each person involved would be directed at improving the procedure whereby the problem is usually solved.
Fig. 2. Adjusting wheel with scores.
29
If following the usual procedure to sort out the problems has not succeeded in dealing with a situation it, will be necessary to develop a better perception of what should happen in that stage. The initial preference is to use some objective measure of what people think, such as "what would people be prepared to pay for this activity?" The combination of a perception activity that is found through examining one's position (i.e. in some competition for resources) is described as the price that people are willing to pay. The other extreme within the perception activity is to focus on the person instead of on one's position. Each person can be asked to make proposals and, through some group process, a combined view can be formulated. Thus, a perception activity that encapsulates the wisdom of each person involved could lead to the development of a new policy. The formation of policy is the summit of the planning activities. Once the policy for dealing with the problem has been decided upon then the balance moves from planning to putting plans into effect. The next step entails the first of the putting activities. As with policy this is aimed at people and uses a personal approach, so the demands of the change are not excessive. Having developed the policy and got it agreed, now it is necessary to pull the people into line. Initially the focus is on the person instead of on one's position. Each person needs to be persuaded individually, or as part of a team, to implement the policy. Thus, a pull activity that emphasises primarily the involvement of each individual person corresponds to promotion. If the benefits of using promotion begin to diminish, the focus changes to using an objective measure of the contribution to the agreed goal. A pull activity that is evaluated using one's position (i.e. in some competition for resources) corresponds to the productivity of the people or departments in the organisation. The kinds of questions that are asked under productivity are similar to those asked under price. “How does this or that contribution improve our position?” The nature of the putting activity then changes from a pull to a push activity aimed at the structures and practices of the organisation that require changing. If the pull activities, with all their emphasis on getting people to work for the common goal, have shown up some faults or weaknesses in the institutional structures and methods, it then becomes opportune to impose or push through appropriate changes. So, the first focus is on the person instead of on one’s position. Through examining each person’s informal relationships within the organisation it may be possible to define a better formal structure that reflects the new directions and targets. Correspondingly, a push activity that re-orientates the place to correspond to the needs of each person involved is dependent on the pliability of the organisation and its structures. A lack of pliability can be a significant stumbling block to progress
30
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
particularly in large organisations. Fitting the structures to the current needs leads to greater focus and a clarification of any difficulties with putting plans into effect. Once the structures are in place it is important to not continue adapting them. At the other extreme on the position / person axis, the combination of a push activity that is done using one's position is described as practice, the ongoing administration of the work of the organisation in a regular way. The emphasis is on using one's position to complete the process. The choice between pairs of dichotomies (Figure 1) are determined “on balance” in the mind of the decision-makers. The same applies also to the convincing and committing dimensions. Consequently, not to use some or more of a set of activities such as the above would indicate an excessive imbalance, indeed a distortion. One would not expect this to emerge from large-scale surveys of opinion or management practice. We can formalise this as a new principle in Nomology. (Earlier principles and axioms are in published papers referred to above.) Principle 7 “Empirical Data”: Valid nomological systems based on large amounts of empirical data are likely to cover most of the aspects of the relevant generic system. On the other hand, small imbalances can be very revealing. The PPP identifies evidence of any imbalances in management by using open questions. The answers are allocated to the principal adjusting activities by interpreting where they fall in terms of each of the three dichotomies. The adjusting wheel with scores (Figure 2: from an application of the PPP, Brugha and Burke, 2002) illustrates an example of a small imbalance. This pointed to a desire from a group of respondents to give priority to using a procedure to solve the problem. This meant that there was concern to do some planning in place in a personal way.
Our understanding and experience of Nomology indicates that decisions generally involve structure, weights of importance of issues, and scores of alternative proposals. (In the adjusting case procedure was given a higher weight than the others. There were no actual proposals being scored.) Structure is the most important. Weights and scores are embedded within the structure. We saw above (PWP: Andersen et al., 1990) that there was evidence of dichotomies within implementations of the SDLC. This sign of the presence of an underlying adjusting dynamic is in line with our common-sense understanding and experience of implementing the SDLC that there is an objectively ‘proper’ way to implement each stage. Generalising this argument leads to an extension of Principle 7. Principle 8 “Generic Structures”: Consistent and extensive evidence of a pattern of relationships in a nomological system, whether from settled practice or surveys of empirical data, are a sufficient indication of the presence of an underlying generic structure.
4. Priority Pointing Priority Pointing (Brugha, 2000) is generally used to help companies and organisations to make strategic decisions about where should be their next focus. It starts with a definition of what the company needs to know. It cannot be too vague, not over exact. Six questions are defined around the major question. Half are ‘punch’ questions, seeking to identify what should be done. Half are ‘prevention’ questions, seeking to identify what is the barrier preventing progress. Two are general questions, and there is one from each of the four sectors: proposition, perception, pull and push.
Table 4. PPP questions. General ‘punch’ General ‘prevention’ ‘Prevention’ question in ‘proposition’ sector ‘Punch’ question in the ‘perception’ sector ‘Prevention’ question in the ‘pull’ sector ‘Punch’ question in the ‘push’ sector
What should be the priority … ? What in general is preventing … ? What is preventing some first steps … ? What should be done to increase understanding of … ? What is holding us back from working together … ? What major change might help significantly … ?
The most difficult part of the procedure is the allocation of the answers to open questions to the eight activities on the adjusting wheel. It helps to consider the dichotomies in turn to divide the space of possible answers. PPP software (Brugha and Burke, 2002) is
designed to facilitate this, such as with the use of “sliders” (Figure 3) that record how certain one is about the allocation. We propose here, for the first time, that the PPP can be used resolve difficulties within each stage of the
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
SDLC. This requires that the focus of the problem definition be only one thing: what is required to progress the current stage of the SDLC, for example “what should be done to properly complete the process of acquiring the computer hardware and software?” All the questions in Table 4 are variations on just one question. That said, these are open questions. While the manager and most of the team might be working on this stage, one of its members might respond by describing difficulties with an earlier stage, for example “we cannot decide properly about the software because the study the current system was inadequate”. The refusal to answer the question within the stage that the team is currently engaged with adds strength to the procedure. It underlines the fact that the three dynamics: committing at level one, convincing at level 2, and adjusting at level 3 are independent decision processes. They become embedded only because the decision-makers choose it.
Fig. 3. Allocating answers to the adjusting wheel. 4.1 Implications for knowledge and systems science The SDLC is a powerful three-layered generic structure that combines both objective and subjective problem solving processes. Objective processes should be employed within each step of the SDLC and should be implemented using adjustment decision-making to addresses imbalances between dichotomies, an approach that is not well understood in the West. Many people in the International Society for Knowledge and Systems Sciences work with English as an international language for publishing research. But English is not their native language, nor is it the working language where they carry out their empirical research. Nomology supersedes language. It shows the decision structures that are common to all decision-making. The approach proposed here would be best implemented in the local language of the decision-makers. In time I hope that experiences of implementations
31
in different cultures, particularly in both the East and the West, could lead to a mutual growth of understanding.
References [1] N. Andersen, F. Kensing, J. Lundin, L. Mathiassen, A. Munk-Madsen, M. Rasbech, P. Sorgaard, Professional Systems Development: Experience, Ideas and Action, Prentice-Hall: Hemel Hempstead, 1992. [2] C. Brugha, “The structure of qualitative decision-making”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 46-62, 1998a. [3] C. Brugha, “The structure of adjustment decision making”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 63-76, 1998b. [4] C. Brugha, “The structure of development decision making”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 77-92, 1998c. [5] C. Brugha, “A decision-science based discussion of the systems development life cycle in information systems”, Information Systems Frontiers, Special Issue on Philosophical Reasoning in Information Systems Research, Vol. 3.1, pp. 91-105, 2001a. [6] C. Brugha, “Systemic thinking in China: A meta-decision-making bridge to western concepts”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 339-360, 2001b. [7] C. Brugha, “An introduction to the priority pointing procedure”, J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal., Vol. 9, pp. 227-242, 2000. [8] C. Brugha, A. Burke, Software for Direct-Interactive Structured-Criteria (DISC) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, and for the Priority Pointing Procedure (PPP): http://mis.ucd.ie/RESEARCH/mcdm/ppp/, 2002. [9] J. Gu, Z. Zhu, “The Wuli Shili Renli approach: An Oriental systems methodology”, in Gerald Midgley & Jennifer Wilby (Eds.), Systems Methodology: Possibilities for Cross-Cultural Learning and Integration, England: Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, pp. 29-38, 1995. [10] J. Gu, X. Tang, “Designing a water resource management decision support system: An application of the WSR approach”, Syst. Pract. Act. Res., Vol. 13, pp. 59-70, 2000. [11] W. Hamilton, “Lectures on metaphysics, Vols. 1 & 2”, 6th Ed., in Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1877. [12] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, London: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980.
32
Brugha / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 2(2): 25-32, 2005
[13] J. Iivari, R. Hirscheim, H.K. Klein, “A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 164-193, 1998. [14] C. Jung, “Psychological Types”, in The Collected Works of C. J. Jung Volume 6, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971. [15] I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, (Translated by Norman Kemp Smith) McMillan, (First published in 1929), 1985. [16] I. Kant, Critique of Judgment, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1987. [17] A. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & Row, 1987. [18] T. Peters, R. Waterman, In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper & Row, 1982. [19] H.P. Tappan, Elements of Logic; Together with an Introductory View of Philosophy in General and a Preliminary View of the Reason, New York: D. Appleton and Company (first published 1844: New York and London: Wiley & Putnam), 1855. [20] Z. Zhu, “WSR: A systems approach for information systems development”, Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 183-203, 2000.
