Thinking About Systems Design Problems Using the T.O.P2 Framework Mathew Hillier School of Accounting and Information Systems, University of South Australia 47-55 North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia Tel: 61 08 83020912 Fax: 61 08 83020992
[email protected] Abstract This paper presents research in progress on the development of a framework labelled T.O.P2 (pronounced ‘top squared’). The purpose of this framework is to act as a thinking tool for system analysts and designers in thinking about systems design problems. The intention being to simply encourage a holistic view on a complex problem by prompting questions in the analyst’s head, with the hope that it will raise issues that might have been forgotten. The author draws evidence from the multiple perspectives and systems design literature to explain the basis of the T.O.P2 framework. The T.O.P2 framework takes particular inspiration from Linstone’s (1984, 1999) Multiple Perspective methodology, which uses the T.O.P. (Technical, Organisational and Personal) and Brunswik’s (1952) Lens model of people’s perception of objective reality. An example of a website development problem is given to show how this ‘thinking tool’ can be used in practice. Keywords: framework, thinking tool, systems analysis, soft systems, human problem solving, multiple perspectives, web design, top squared, top two, top2, top
Introduction The biggest problem with thinking about problems is the person doing the thinking. This is because people approach a given problem situation with their own unique perspective (Haynes, 2000). This personal (un-assisted) perspective limits the range of possible problem statements and therefore the number of possible solutions that that person could envisage. However, multiple perspectives theory in its many forms, as espoused by Allison (1969, 1971), Steinbruner (1974), Anderson (1977), Churchman (1971) and Checkland (1981), offers for a way forward. Multiple perspectives provides for the ability to consider alternative viewpoints and techniques, as demonstrated in Hirschheim & Klein (1989) and Gross & Walzer (1977). This is of considerable value in developing a range of problem statements, and therefore multiple possible solutions. This ‘lateral thinking’ is nothing new, certainly in the systems literature a range work has been done; including Linstone’s T.O.P (Linstone 1984, 1999, Mitroff & Linstone 1993), Wuli-Shili-Renli (Zhu 1997, 2000, Gu & Zhao 1996) and MMD – multi-modal Systems Design (de Raadt 2001). Taking inspiration from Linstone’s Multiple Perspective methodology the author seeks to build upon his T.O.P. (Technical, Organisational and Personal) framework. The T.O.P2 framework introduced in this paper does not attempt to be a holistic solution or systems development methodology. Neither is it a direct match with Lintsone’s perspectives, but instead represents the author’s own
955
interpretation. The aim of T.O.P2 is that it be used as a thinking device. System analysts and designers can add T.O.P2 to their existing toolbox of techniques. The ability for systems designers to consider a range of perspectives is particularly important in the light of global ecommerce efforts where the good fortune of a business is dependant upon the successful interaction with a multitude of audiences via electronic means.
The Nature of Problems All types of problems involve humans. If a problem is to exist at all, someone must perceive one. As such, a problem is a gap between what is, and what is desired to be (Argyris 1996b). If the current state of affairs were as desired, there would be no action required, and thus no problem that needed solving. Unbounded Systems Thinking (UST) argues that everything is interrelated (Checkland 1981, Checkland and Scholes 1999). As such, the more branches of enquiry that we use to examine problems, the more paradigms and perspectives we will have to inform us (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). Doing so increases the chance we have of understanding what the problem is and the possible array of solutions. As an example, we will assume that there exists a state of dissatisfaction regarding the distance between the wall of the author’s house and the boundary of his property. Initially this seems like a simple problem that could be solved by obtaining a tape measure and then measuring the distance. However, as any trained as a land surveyor will know, the very act of measuring requires a number of preparations. These include: the unit of measurement, the measuring instrument, that is, the tape measure and its calibration, as they stretch, shrink and become distorted. The measurer themselves is probably the largest source of errors, because if anything is true about humans, it is that they make mistakes (Norman 1990). People perceive things in different ways (Matumoto 1994), even visual perception is impacted by psychological matters (LeRoux 1994), they might misread the measure, transpose figures, have poor eye sight, have to estimate the distance between the lines on the tape, and have to position the tape at either end. All this can introduce errors and needs to be ‘known’ if we want to correct for it. Social and political matters may also arise, for example, Who is doing the measuring? - Your neighbour, yourself, a local government official, a paid contractor. What mood are they in? Enthusiastic, bored, worried. What motivations might they have? Why does the measurement need to be made? - to build something, to assess land value, to settle a boundary dispute. What other groups are involved? - Local government who assess planning approvals and assess capital value of land, neighbours who might dispute boundaries or appose the construction of a carport too close to their boundary. Such things might lead people to bias in terms of over estimation or underestimation, or even falsified information, as was witnessed by Walsham & Sahay (1999). Compromise may be required. As a result of all this, a simple matter of measuring can involve many branches of enquiry. Thus to understand the wholeness of the problem, we must acknowledge the interconnected nature of its parts and its place in the wider world (Checkland 1981). To understand it better we need to look at it from multiple perspectives (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). These could include psychological, social, political, and scientific dimensions. System design problems are very much more complex than that of measuring a distance. A complex problem has more than one possible solution and multiple parts, some of which are probably un-recognised. The complex nature of system design problems means that finding a successful solution to the problem is not a simple matter, as the high number of project failures attest (Ulfelder 2001).
956
Defining Problems A possible way to understand a complex problem is to model it. However, models are inherently flawed, as they are only one perspective (a mathematical one) of the problem situation. “Frequently what is omitted from the problem statement or model is more important than what is included” (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). The person making the model is restricted in their view of the world by their limited set of experiences (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). As Mitroff & Linstone (1993) stated in one of guidelines for people modelling problems, “the most limiting constraints in building a model or representation of a problem are usually imposed not by the problem itself but by the mindset of the problem solver”. To remedy this situation, it is desirable to find out as much about the problem situation as possible. As applied in Soft Systems (Checkland 1981), various models of the problem are developed based in a range of perspectives. The more perspectives we can gather, the more informed we can be about the ‘true nature’ of the problem. True nature in this context does not equate to a single truth, but rather a heightened awareness of the problem in all its dimensions. Lens Model and Thinking Taking inspiration from Brunswik’s (1952) Lens Model we can develop a concept of how people perceive objective reality, this reality may be the world at large, other people, organisations or specific objects. We also need to distinguish between the lens that someone views the world through – an ‘internal lens’ (coved in the following paragraphs), and the lens we can selectively apply – an ‘external lens’ (which equates to an intellectual frame, perspective or view - covered later in this paper). In thinking about the world, people do so based on their own perceptions, experiences and understanding of it (relating to Brunswik’s model), this is supported by soft systems and multiple perspectives (Churchman 1971, Checkland 1981 and Linstone 1984). The unique internal lens of the individual leads this person to think about problems in certain ways (Matsumoto 1994), seek solutions in certain ways (Chan 1999) and even communicate in certain ways (Straub 1994). Your internal lens is fixed, in that your outlook on the world is permanently coloured by it. Just as you are unable to remove your internal lens, you are not able to give it to someone else, nor are other people able to look at the world through your lens. As such, it is impossible to fully appreciate the world from another person’s unique perspective. This internal lens affects not only the way you view the world at large (physical things, relationships and people), but also how you view yourself (See Figure 1).
The world at large
Lens
Person doing the viewing
Figure 1 A person views and experiences the world through an internal lens that cannot be removed. There are two caveats to the ‘fixed’ nature of this internal lens. The first being that at anytime in the future a person may add to this internal lens or alter it via new experiences or information, for example, gaining religion, learning about psychology or being in a
957
automobile accident. Secondly, it is possible to ‘imagine’ what the world might be like through someone else’s lens. Although it would be expected that this ‘imagining’ is only approximate, never certain and also coloured by your own internal lens. Each person is unique, but often members of a group have shared sets of perceptions, experiences and understandings of the world. As people may belong to many different groups, they too can share a part of each group’s common perceptions. Groups can include: cultural group, professional group, age group and education background (See Figure 2).
Figure 2 People from various groups may share some parts of their internal lens People can tackle this ‘fixed internal lens’ problem by trying to think laterally about the world. They make attempts to understand the world from other points of view. They might use a technique whereby they imagine being in someone else’s shoes. For example, a system designer might try to imagine what it would be like for a novice user to have to use the system. They can do this by observing novice users, trying to remember what it was like to be a novice user themselves, or asking novice users their opinions. However, such lateral thinking is limited by the experience of the person doing the thinking (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 People can imagine what it might be like to look through another person’s lens External Lenses The information systems literature has given rise to a number of more formal techniques and methodologies for applying the concept of lateral thinking to large and complex problems, as one would expect to find in information systems design ISD (Liu & Gupta 1997). One such example is multiple perspectives, which allows people to add one or more ‘external’ lenses (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). These external lenses equate to the intellectual frame (the word ‘perspective’ is also used) that you are applying to the examination of an object or situation. Firstly, the ‘object’, which roughly equates to ‘objective reality’ in Brunswik’s model, is the subject under examination, that is, the thing you are looking at; and secondly, the external lens is your intellectual frame, perspective or view, in other words, the way in which you are looking at it. See Figure 4.
958
Lens
Object
Figure 4 People can apply an external lens to examine an object (Adapted from Metcalfe 2002) To use a simple example, we may look an object such as a chair through the lens of chemistry, and therefore describe it in terms of molecules, chemical bonding etc; or art, considering the aesthetic appearance, style and colours of the chair. In practice many types of lenses could be applied to the chair.
Lens
Lens
We must still acknowledge that one’s internal lens is all the while ‘colouring’ the use of any external lenses we might choose to apply (see Figure 5). Thus each person will use the external lens in a slightly different way. This provides a proliferation of perspectives on perspectives (this point becomes significant later in the paper).
Object
Figure 5 People can apply an external lens to examine an object but do so though their own internal lens.
Introducing The T.O.P2 framework T.O.P2 as a Thinking Tool The T.O.P2 framework is intended to be a thinking tool. The aim of the framework is to provide a pre-set selection of ‘external lenses’ or perspectives that a systems analyst or designer can apply to problem situation. It can be applied in many of the same situations as Linstone’s T.O.P framework (Mitroff & Linstone 1993), for example, stakeholder analysis (Metcalfe 2002) and project definition (Metcalfe & Lynch 2001), but in a more ready to use format. The framework provides sufficient guidance as to its use, while remaining general enough to be flexible. Thus the framework provides actionable knowledge (Argyris 1993, 1996a) for looking at a problem situation. Origins of T.O.P2 To understand the differences between T.O.P and T.O.P2, an explanation of the parts of Linstone’s T.O.P. is in order. •
The T equates to the ‘technical’ perspective. This includes anything scientific as well as technical things of a technical nature (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). For example: the metal of an airplane wing and the stress factors of that metal.
•
The O perspective equates to ‘Organisational’ or societal perspective. This looks at the relationships between organisations or parts of a system (Mitroff & Linstone 1993). Organisations may be formal or informal (Jenkins 2002). When using this perspective we are using an interpretive or subjective methodology. 959
•
The P perspective or individual perspective applies to ‘people’. Again a subjective or interpretive methodology is used to explain the actions, desires or needs of people in the system or problem context (Mitroff & Linstone 1993).
There seems to be some confusion as to what Linstone intended by his ‘perspectives’, that is, the type of thing or the way of looking at it or a mixture of both. An example of this confusion can be found in Ash, Gorman, Lavelle and Lyman (2000). This confusion is evident in the different focus Linstone has in his explanations. Take the O perspective as an example, Mitroff & Linstone (1993) label the O perspective as: “the organisational or societal perspective”. Then, in explaining the O perspective they provide the following examples: group or organisation (both formal and informal), families, global network, local government, transnational corporation, research team and world religion. In the very next sentence Mitroff & Linstone (1993 p99) state that: “the differences in perspectives forces us to distinguish how we are looking from what we are looking at.” In Linstone (1999) the discussion indicates that one should be looking at the problem situation holistically from the various perspectives of T, O and P. In this case, an example is given of the O perspective, which states that, the O “perspective sees the world …from the point of view of affected and affecting organisations” (Linstone 1999). Then he goes on to provide examples of external lens use (see Mitroff & Linstone 1993 and Linstone 1999 for further details). From these examples we see that Linstone’s T.O.P. is one-dimensional, despite acknowledging the separation of object and lens, he still rolls these two components into the one perspective, that is, T, O or P. Therefore, he provides only one way of looking at each type of object within the system, in effect, rolling the object and lens into a single construct. When we put Linstone’s T.O.P in terms of object and lens, his framework would be written as: T (objective), O & P (subjective), see Table 1. Object Types
T O P
External Lens Type Objective Subjective Subjective
Table 1 Linstone’s T.O.P in terms of object and external lens This limits the framework in its primary aim of seeking multiple perspectives on the problem domain. It might be suggested that this ‘two in one’ construct is difficult to conceptualise in a meaningful and relevant manner. The author suggests that by separating the object and lens, we can develop are more ‘user friendly’ framework. The structure of T.O.P2 The T.O.P2 framework extends Linstone’s framework by allowing each object type to be examined with each type of external lens (see Table 2). The T.O.P2 framework utilizes the division between objects and lenses. The lenses equate to the perspectives one takes on the objects. The objects appear as rows on the grid and the lenses appear as columns. External Lenses T O Objects (things)
T O P
Table 2 The T.O.P2 framework
960
P
In discussing the various parts of the framework we shall use the following notation: •
Objects: Technical objects (TO), Organisational objects (OO) and People (PO).
•
Lenses: Technical lens (TL), Organisational lens (OL) and Personal lens (PL).
These will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs. It should be noted that while the T.O.P2 framework allows you to ‘fill all the boxes’, it is not always a desirable, sensible or useful thing to do. Whilst on the point of distinguishing between the two frameworks, the following statement needs to be made: it is sufficient to say that inspiration was taken from Linstone’s framework, however, it is not intended that direct connections be drawn between each object and lens type across the two frameworks (although the similarities are evident). The three lenses equate to a pre-set selection (but not exhaustive) of ways to look at the problem situation, thus they act as external lens for the viewer. The problem situation is both the whole situation and the aggregate of all of the objects. See Figure 6.
Lens
T O P Figure 6 The T.O.P2 framework allows for multiple perspectives of the problem situation. Object Types Technical objects (TO) are those objects in system or problem that are ‘physical’ in nature (i.e technical/physical/logical things). Examples include: building, factory, chair, Web server, computer code, and football. Organisational objects (OO) consist of things that are organisational in nature (organisations, groups, clusters, collectives of people). Examples include: company, work team, government, software supplier, and sports club. People objects (PO) are individual people in the system or problem. Examples are: customer, employee, chief executive officer, manager, computer user, programmer and football player. Choosing Objects For any given problem situation, many objects will be present in the problem domain. Any one object may be broken down into smaller component objects or many smaller objects grouped together. The very act of defining objects at different levels of granularity will lead the thinker to consider them differently. Thus we introduce more possible perspectives. The aim should be to identify varying levels of granularity that the user of the framework considers to be significant. In considering the people involved in the problem domain we might identify the following objects: the problem environment as a whole, this leads to a holistic level of thinking (perhaps in terms of common social norms). Dividing it into component parts might suggest major stakeholder organisations, sponsors, financiers, regulatory bodies, and community groups. Dividing it further may give rise to collectives, work teams, departments, alliances and social groups. Further still we might see political
961
‘factions’, system users, informal collectives, individuals with gatekeeper roles (Argyris 1993), individuals of lesser influence, individuals with key skills, customers, suppliers, managers and individual project team members. In choosing objects, their level of abstraction and in applying lenses, the user of the framework will experience an iterative process. This is a process whereby objects identified and lenses applied may in turn suggest further objects or levels of abstraction, or even a different interpretation of a lens. The interactive process should lead the user to question the boundaries of objects and interpretation of lenses. As a result of this process, we are able to build upon the collection of perspectives and so increase the level of knowledge about the problem domain. External Lenses The Technical lens (TL) is looking through scientific eyes. This involves measurement of attributes, counting and reducing things to a single truth. This includes: physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology (biology in this case means the parts biologists can explain, but excludes teleology or purposiveness (Checkland 1981)– which in this framework belong under PL. The Organisational lens (OL) is looking through sociological eyes. Sociology is the study of human societies and of the relationships between groups in these societies (Wilkes & Krebs 1991). This involves consideration of the interactions and relationships between groups of people, or between people and things. This also includes interactions between individual people. Culture is included here in the sense that it involves interactions between members of a society that lead to learned and shared behaviours, although the actual beliefs themselves reside in people’s heads and therefore belong in PL. In looking through an O lens we will examine relationships, interactions, co-operation, affiliations and linkages. The Personal lens (PL) is looking through psychological or cognitive eyes. Psychology is the scientific study of the human mind and the reasons for people’s behaviour. The ability to understand the way people think and feel… (Wilkes & Krebs 1991). The psychology of a particular person, type of person or group is the kind of mind that they have, which causes them to think or behave in the way that they do (Wilkes & Krebs 1991). Qualities, effects; that are connected with a person’s mind or thoughts…(Wilkes & Krebs 1991). Although the dictionary definition is somewhat scientific in nature, the intention here in the layman’s use of the word, that being to represent ‘all things in people’s heads’, for example, beliefs, feelings, desires and needs. This includes culturally influenced beliefs. It also includes the motivations that give rise to ‘politics’ as well as a person’s ‘internal lens’ on the world. Also in relation to cognitive processes, which means the process of learning, understanding and representing knowledge. Cognition is the mental process of knowing, learning and understanding things (Wilkes & Krebs 1991). So in layman’s terms this applies to ideas, thinking and learning. As we can see, the boundaries between the three perspectives (lenses) are not definitive. This reflects the integrated nature of all systems, including this framework. When considering the lenses in detail, we see an interactive and sometimes symbiotic effect where each is related and impacts the others (see Figure 7). For example, as anyone who has ever worked in an organisation will know, the role of politics is a significant element in the making of decisions and the direction that projects take (Markus 1983). Politics is driven by individual needs, desires and beliefs (Davies 1980), yet requires groups in which to flourish. Through the O and P perspectives these political considerations are brought into the open. For the purposes of clear thinking, it would be advised that in the early stages of using the framework, that the user treat the various object types and lenses as separate.
962
T
P
O
Figure 7 Interactive and symbiotic effects mean each element of the framework is related to, and impacts the others Perspectives on Perspectives As each user of the framework interprets the framework differently (internal lens), we can compare across the various analyses done (see Figure 8). The various sets of analyses can be combined into the one set or we can layer them to see the priorities or perspectives from which each analyst is coming. For example, we would expect a computer programmer to have many items in the T lens and a human resources officer to have more in the O and P lenses. T
O
P
T O P Technological Analyst (T) Sociological Analyst (O) Psychological Analyst (P)
Figure 8 Comparing the analyses of different observers Applying T.O.P2 The structure of the framework does not specify exactly how each object type and lens combination should be thought about. By providing examples of its use we may guide users of the framework in their perspective seeking. Remembering that the aim of the T.O.P2 framework is to provide a set of thinking ‘training wheels’ for those seeking a diverse range of perspectives. The intention is that each user of the framework will bring their own interpretations (via their own internal lens) of the object types and lenses to bear on the framework. Indeed by having multiple individuals or groups utilize the framework, a broader array of perspectives can be gathered on the problem situation. For example, we may use metaphors of organisations (Morgan 1986) to assist with filling the boxes in the O row. •
as a ‘goal-seeking machine’ with interchangeable parts (T lens)
•
as ‘being’ that has a set values and beliefs (P lens)
•
as ‘social being’ concerned with conflict and power - achieved via interactions with others (O lens)
These examples are by no means exhaustive. The T.O.P2 framework can be used in a pre-emptive manner (in problem investigation and definition) as well as retrospectively (in systems failure diagnosis). In effect it can be applied at any stage, to any complex problem. It is hoped that in applying it in a pre-emptive manner, the success rate of systems development efforts can be increased. Particularly since a great
963
many systems developments fail (Jiang, Klein & Discenza 2001) due to unforeseen factors (Checkland 2000). Retrospective Analysis In website development, the solutions that are already in place will be of interest to those that come later, especially if we need to add to an already existing system. In doing so, we need to understand the assumptions and perspectives of those who designed the website before us (Roesnfield & Morville 1998). We may also need to analyse the success or failure of existing systems to ensure the same mistakes are not made again and that good parts are not forgotten in the new version. It is possible to apply the T.O.P2 framework retrospectively in an attempt to better understand the perspectives that led to the current state of affairs, as well as identify elements that were missed. If we have the results of various individuals’ analysis regarding the same problem, we can use the T.O.P2 framework to compare and contrast these analyses. In cases where the conclusions of analysts differ regarding the outcome of a system, for example, in the original market analysis of potential customers of office supplies carried out by two different consultancies, we can use the T.O.P2 framework to reveal their respective perspectives.
T.O.P2 and Website Development Having looked at the general features of the T.O.P2 framework, we shall now apply the framework to the example of a website development project being undertaken for medium size hypothetical retailer of office equipment. Unfortunately space does not permit a comprehensive analysis, but the following examples should provide some guidance as to the use of T.O.P2. As an aid to thinking, T.O.P2 is intended simply to encourage a more holistic view on a complex problem by prompting questions in the analyst’s head, with the hope that it will raise issues that might have been forgotten. Applying a Technical Lens So, imagine yourself to be thinking about the technical objects (TO) likely to be involved in the project, such as web server hardware, software running the server and for programming CGI scripts, web pages and graphic design. First, take a technical perspective (TL) that encourages you to think like an engineer, this may prompt you to ask questions about things like server hardware reliability, capacity and processing speed or the efficiency of the web daemon software in terms of stability and error rate, and whether or not the graphics package can process images to an acceptable standard. Maintaining the same technical lens (TL) we can then shift to looking at organisational elements (OO) of the project, such as sales department, stock suppliers, client organisations, the credit card processing company or a shipping department. This may prompt questions about number of employees, lines of command, work-flow processes, formal lines of communication, response times, number of branches, number of years in business; which may suggest customer value, reliability of suppliers and the most efficient way to ‘get things done’. Next this technical or engineers lens can be focused on the people (PO) involved in the project, such as the project sponsor, graphic artist, client organisation liaison person or contract programmer. For the contract programmer we can consider the number of hours available for work, the cost per hour or line of code, what skills they have and speed of coding; this being a Tayloristic view of work.
964
Applying an Organisational Lens Moving to the next column, the T.O.P2 framework suggests that we think about the same technical (TO), organisational (OO) and people (PO) objects but from an organisational perspective (OL). This ‘sociological view’ includes issues of project boundary, relationships, dependencies, group dynamics, power, influence and interconnectivity. Focused on the technical objects (TO) in a web development project might encourage questions about the relationships objects have with each other and with people, in particular, on dependencies and redundancies. For example, a CGI script might have relationships to other applets and be dependant upon certain code libraries in order function to correctly on the server. Moving on to focusing on organisational objects (OO) it may encourage questions about possible interdepartmental politics between sales and shipping, which may impact on who has the most influence in getting their way with the site design; and the power a client organisation has for setting prices or demanding the use of their online ordering system. In regard to stakeholder identification we may see who is inside this project and who can be considered outside, and which stakeholders have influence or are key consumers of the website. Focused on the people box (PL), the organisational view may raise questions about who this person has influence over, the working relationships that exist and contacts this person has established in the industry, what groups they are involved in, hierarchy struggles, the level of inclusiveness and cohesiveness in the project team; this being similar to a Mayonistic view of work. Applying a Personal Lens Moving on to the personal perspective (PL), we can look at the technical (TO), organisational (OO) and people (PO) aspects of the project, which may raise a different set of questions in the mind of the analyst. What is the purpose (purposive and purposefulness – Checkland 1999) of the objects, for example, a technical object (TO) such as a payment sub-system, might need to capture customer details, process a credit card, determine success status, and provide receipts. Looking to the websites owner organisation (OO) we can examine the reasons for being in business, mission, goals and motivation such as reliability of delivery for government agencies and profit for private companies; which can lead to different priorities in the site development. Other psychological questions might be: are the objects popular, current, trendy, interesting or fun to be associated with? What are the needs, desires and motivation of the organisations and people involved? Considering the case of a contract programmer’s (PO) motivations we may look to their loyalty to the team, what personality conflicts are likely, can this person generate innovative ideas, does the job mean improved self respect, is it ethical, is it interesting or what motivates them to do it, are they tempted by the career opportunities that are available with all the project partner companies. This is akin to a Freudian view of work. Interface Design Taking the specific case of website interface design, T.O.P2 can be used to gather designer and user perspectives on the needs that a website interface should fulfil. This should reveal the different perspectives that designers rely upon to develop an interface and the perspectives that users draw upon in their interaction with that same interface (see Figure 9). This is particularly important for websites, as they are available to a global audience where a ‘mismatch’ of assumptions is more likely due to increased differences (this is discussed in detail in Hillier 2002); and because users are particularly hard to contact (Lane & Koronios 2001). If we consider a current website customer (PO) through a technical lens (TL) we can consider such aspects as computer skills, typical client hardware and software configurations, spending power and the number of repeat visits to the site. Looking through a sociological lens (OL) we could consider what market segment this individual belongs to, nationality and
965
www
Lens
A designer
Lens
professional affiliations, and how they communicate with the company; while looking through a psychological lens (PL) we might look to the motivation for visiting the website, likes and dislikes regarding the layout and design, and overall satisfaction with the website (Davis 1989). All this information will assist designers to appropriately target their presentations.
A user
Figure 9 Designer and users approach a given design through their own lens
Limitations of T.O.P2 In order to avoid the pretense that T.O.P2 is an ‘all things to all people’ framework, we shall now examine some of its limitations. The T.O.P2 framework cannot provide an indication as to the value of the given object (or its level of granularity) or lens to be applied, nor can it provide any ‘correct answers’ or indicate which perspectives are ‘wrong’. This is because the various perspectives have no ‘correctness’ about them (Jenkins 2002). They are merely ways of looking at something. So we can state that not all combinations of objects and lenses will make sense or be of use. It is up to the users of the framework to decide the suitability of each, by whatever process they deem appropriate. Other tools and techniques, such as, brainstorming, Delphi, conferencing and team voting, can be used to populate the framework. No doubt the users’ internal lens will colour their selections and provide guidance. But only by involving as wide a range of participants as possible, will we be able to collect a plethora of perspectives. It does not mean that a single thinker cannot use the framework in a productive manner. Both the suggested iterative technique and the semi-structured nature of the framework provides for a useful increase in the number of perspectives above what an individual could achieve by merely ‘sitting and thinking about it’ on their own. The T.O.P2 framework is not intended to be a thorough model of all available perspectives or paradigms. At this point in the T.O.P2 framework’s development it does not provide for such concepts as ‘collective mind’ (Weick & Roberts 1993) or ‘swarm intelligence’ on face value, although, it may with further modification, as swarm intelligence seems to be just close cooperation between many individuals (Bonabeau & Meyer 2001). An alternative framework by Jenkins (2002) does provide this capability. Jenkin’s MP++ framework provides a general framework for multiple perspectives, where the person using it essentially chooses the perspectives and classes of objects. Where as with T.O.P2, the framework provides the perspectives.
Research in Progress Research is planned that applies the T.O.P2 framework to cross-cultural website design. Cases studies of using T.O.P2 would further highlight its strengths and weaknesses in the practical and pragmatic environment of information systems development projects. Other research of interest will be to establish a broader role for the T.O.P2 framework within existing systems
966
development methodologies and techniques such as Soft Systems and traditional systems development life cycle models. In addition, by comparing T.O.P2 to other systems thinking tools it is hoped to further refine the T.O.P2 framework and better establish its place within the pre-existing toolbox of systems development apparatus. The T.O.P2 framework could also be extended by the addition of more rows and columns. This would allow for additional object types and lenses. Linstone (1999) has recently suggested the addition of an ‘R’ lens to his T.O.P framework, signifying religious or mystical dimensions to the problem situation. The author is cautious about adding this dimension to the T.O.P2 framework at this stage, as further research would need to be undertaken into how this might be applied and the impact this might have on the other lenses, particularly how it would fit with the P and O lenses. In regard to the evaluation of literature and systems, the T.O.P2 framework could be used as a critique method, as discussed Metcalfe, Wilson & Joham (2002).
Conclusion This paper has introduced the T.O.P2 framework and argued the need for further research on its use. In doing so, the importance of considering multiple perspectives in the process of website development has been highlighted. The value of T.O.P2 is primarily in providing a ‘pre-set’ selection of perspectives that can be readily applied to a problem situation, the aim being to raise questions in the mind of systems analysts and designers that they would have otherwise forgotten. By considering a wider range of perspectives, designers can be better equipped in understanding the complex problems they face, and thus be able to apply their specialist skills more effectively. Acknowledgements Mike Metcalfe from whom the concept of object and lens was made clear. This is explained in Metcalfe & Lynch (2002). Adam Jenkins who developed the MP++ framework (Jenkins 2002) and with whom productive discussions were held.
References Allison, G. T. (1969): Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis, American Political Science Review, Vol. 63, No.3, pp.689-718 Allison, G. T. (1971): Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Little, Brown, Boston, USA Andersen, D. F. (1977): Mathematical Models and Decision Making in Bureaucracies: A Case Story Told from Three Points of View, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, USA Argyris, C. (1993): On the nature of actionable knowledge, The Psychologist, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.29-32 Argyris, C. (1996a): Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.390-406 Argyris, C. (1996b): Unrecognized Defenses of Scholars: Impact on Theory and Research, Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, Vol. 7, No.1, pp.79-87 967
Ash, J. S., Gorman, P. N., Lavelle, M. and Lyman, J. (2000): Multiple perspectives on physician order entry, Annual Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4-8 November, Los Angeles, USA Bonabeau, E. and Meyer, C. (2001): Swarm Intelligence, Harvard Business Review, May, pp.107-114 Brunswik, E. (1952): The conceptual framework of psychology, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, No. 10, pp. IV + 102 Chan, S. (1999): The Chinese learner – a question of style, Education and Training, Vol. 41, No. 6/7, pp.294-304 Checkland, P. (2000): Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.S11-S58 Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1999): Systems Thinking, Systems Practice – A Thirty Year Retrospective, John Wily & Sons, New York, USA Checkland, P. (1981): Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wily & Sons, New York, USA Churchman, C. W. (1971): The design of inquiring systems, Wiley, New York, USA Wilkes, G. A. and Krebs, W. A. (Eds) (1991): Collins Concise Dictionary of the English Language – Australian Edition, 2nd Edn, Harper Collins, Australia Davies, A. F. (1980): Skills, outlooks, and passions, Cambridge University Press Davis, F. D. (1989): Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.319-340 de Raadt, V. D. (2001): Multi-modal systems method: the impact of normative factors on community viability, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.171-180 Gross, A. and Walzer, A. (1997): The Challenger Disaster and the Revival of Rhetoric in Organisational Communication, Argumentation, Vol. 11, pp.75-93 Gu, J. and Zhao, L. (1996): An overview of evaluation theory and practice, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 3, pp.2407 –2411 Haynes, J. D. (2000): Perspectival thinking, ThisOne and Company Ltd, Palmerston North, New Zealand Hillier, M. (2002): Multilingual website usability: cultural context, Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Commerce, 23-25 October, Hong Kong, China, (forthcoming) Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. K. (1989): Four paradigms of information systems development, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp.1199-1216 Jenkins, A. (2002): Defining Perspectives: T.O.P and MP++, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, 9-11 August, Dallas, USA, (forthcoming) Jiang, J. J., Klein, G, and Discenza, R. (2001): Information system success as impacted by risks and development strategies, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.46 – 55 Lane, M. S. and Koronios, A. (2001): A balanced approach to capturing user requirements in business-to-consumer web information systems, Australian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.61-69
968
LeRoux, J. (1994): Perception, in Matsumoto, D People. Psychology from a cultural Perspective, Brookes / Cole Publishing Company, California, USA Linstone, H. (1984): Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making, New York, USA Linstone, H. (1999): Decision Making for Technology Executives: Using Multiple Perspectives to Improve Performance, Artech House Liu, K. and Gupta, J. N. D. (1997): Problem Analysis for Cooperative Systems Design, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, 15-17 August, Indianapolis, USA Markus, M. L. (1983): Power, politics, and MIS implementation, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.430-444 Matsumoto, D. (1994): People - Psychology from a cultural Perspective, Brookes / Cole Publishing Company, California, USA Metcalfe, M., Wilson, J. and Joham, C. (2002): Critique Skills As The Core Competency of IS Academics, Informing Science and IT Education Conference, 19-21 June, Cork, Ireland (forthcoming) Metcalfe, M. and Lynch, M. (2002): Arguing for IS Project Definition, Working Paper, University of South Australia Metcalfe, M. (2002): Stakeholder Analysis by Perspectival Thinking, Working Paper, University of South Australia Mitroff, I. I. and Linstone, H. (1993): The Unbounded Mind, Oxford University Press Morgan, G. (1986): Images of Organization, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, USA Norman, D. A. (1990): The Design of Everyday Things, 2nd edn, Doubleday/Currency Roesnfield, L. and Morville, P. (1998): Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, O'reilly Steinbruner, J. D. (1974): The Cybernetic Theory of Decision, Princeton University Press Straub, D. W. (1994): The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-mail and Fax in Japan and the U.S., Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.23-47 Ulfelder, S. (2001): The dirty half dozen – six ways IT projects fail – and how you an avoid them, Darwin, June, pp.58-64 Walsham, G. and Sahay, S. (1999): GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and Opportunities, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.39-65 Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993): Collective Mind in Organisations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp.357-381 Zhu, Z. (2000): WSR: A systems approach for information systems development, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 17, No.2, pp.183-203 Zhu, Z. (1997): Systems Approaches: Where East Meets West? The first International Electronic Seminar on Wholeness, 1 December 1996 to 31 December 1997 [online access: http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/seminarya.html]
969
