Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Systemic Problems in IS Adoption Using Critical Systems Heuristics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most of the traditional technology acceptance models revolve around information systems (IS)/information technology (IT) adoption at individual user level. Organizations are complex social systems in which stakeholders interact and play different roles in IS/IT adoption and use. This study provides an organizational perspective through multiple stakeholder viewpoints to explore ‘systemic problems’ in IS adoption. This paper contributes to IS literature by applying boundary critique mechanism of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) through an interpretive study of a web portal implementation project in a West Australian University. This perspective considers systemic problems as a ‘system of conflicts’ comprising key factors and organization-wide stakeholder interactions. Moreover, it adds to CSH theory as to how systemic problems are identified by using boundary judgments and evaluated using a hermeneutic approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. see Literature Review section for the reason of choosing this definition

References

  • Aakhus M, Ågerfalk PJ, Lyytinen K, Te'eni D (2014) Symbolic action research in information systems: introduction to the special issue. MIS Q 38(4):1187–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achterkamp MC, Vos JFJ (2007) Critically identifying stakeholders evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1995) ‘Whole-ing’ the parts and righting the wrongs. Syst Res Behav Sci 12(1):43–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ, Eriksson O (2006) Socio-instrumental usability: IT is all about social action. J Inf Technol 21(1):24–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Eaglewood Cliff, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold RD, Wade JP (2015) A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach. Procedia Comput Sci 44:669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avital M, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K (2009) Introduction to designing information and organizations with a positive lens. Inf Organ 19(3):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babaheidari SM (2007) Reviewing interpretive approaches for evaluation of information systems investments: a literature review of central concepts. Master Thesis in Informatics, IT University of Göteborg, Gothenburg, Sweden 2007, Report No. 2007:43. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/19439/1/gupea_2077_19439_1.pdf. Accessed Sept 2017

  • Bentley LD, Dittman KC, Whitten JL (2000) Systems analysis and design methods. Irwin/McGraw Hill

  • Bentley Y, Cao G, Lehaney B (2013) The application of critical systems thinking to enhance the effectiveness of a university information system. Syst Pract Action Res 26(5):451–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan N (1995) Measuring usability as quality of use. Softw Qual J 4(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black DA, Lebow J (2009) Systemic research controversies and challenges. Blackwell Publishing. http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html

  • Butler T (2016) Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems enacting research methods in information systems. Springer, vol 2, pp 11–39

  • Carr S, Oreszczyn S (2003) Critical systems heuristics: a tool for the inclusion of ethics and values in complex policy decisions. Paper presented at the 4th congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, Toulouse, France

  • Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Holwell S (1997) Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba JR (2007) Developing inclusion and critical reflection in information systems planning. Organ 14(6):909–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba JR (2009) Critical reflection in planning information systems: a contribution from critical systems thinking. Inf Syst J 19(2):123–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba JR, Midgley G (2008) Beyond organisational agendas: using boundary critique to facilitate the inclusion of societal concerns in information systems planning. Eur J Inf Syst 17(2):125–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 14(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dongping F (2007) Towards complex holism. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(4):417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis RK (1995) Critical considerations in the development of systems thinking and practice. Syst Pract 8(2):199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elpez I, Fink D (2006) Information systems success in the public sector: stakeholders’ perspectives and emerging alignment model. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 3(1):219–231. http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2006/IISITElpe140.pdf. Accessed Sept 2017

  • Flood RL (2010) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’to action research. Syst Pract Action Res 23(4):269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL, Carson ER (1993) Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science. Plenum Press, New York

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Friedman AL, Miles S (2006) Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oxford University Press on Demand

  • Fuenmayor R (1991) The roots of reductionism: a counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Syst Pract 4(5):419–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangwar H, Date H, Raoot A (2014) Review on IT adoption: insights from recent technologies. J Enterp Inf Manag 27(4):488–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gharajedaghi J (2011) Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity, a platform for designing business architecture, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G, Lyytinen K (1982) A language action view of information systems. In: Ginzberg M, Ross C (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference on information systems, Ann Arbor

  • Grohs JR, Kirk GR, Soledad MM, Knight DB (2018) Assessing systems thinking: a tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems. Think Skills Creat 28:110–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grudin J (1992) Utility and usability: research issues and development contexts. Interact Comput 4(2):209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein HK (1994) Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: the case for ETHICS. MIS Q 18(1):83–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim RA, Smithson S (1998) Evaluation of information systems: a critical assessment. In: Willcocks L, Lester S (eds) Beyond the IT productivity paradox. Wiley, Chichester, pp 381–409

  • Houghton L (2009) Generalization and systemic epistemology: why should it make sense? Syst Res Behav Sci 26(1):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh MQ, Klein HK (2004) The critical social theory of Jürgen Habermas and its implications for IS research. In: Social theory and philosophy for information systems. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 157–237

  • Ivanov K (2011) Critical systems thinking and information technology: Some summary reflections, doubts, and hopes through critical thinking critically considered, and through hypersystems1. Information and communication technologies, society and human beings: Theory and framework (Festschrift in honor of Gunilla Bradley). IGI Global, pp 493–515

  • Jackson MC (1991a) Creative problem solving: total systems intervention. In: Flood RL, Jackson MC (eds) Systems methodology for the management sciences. Contemporary systems thinking. Springer, Boston, pp 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2632-6_11

  • Jackson MC (1991b) The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. Syst Pract 4(2):131–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (1997) Critical systems thinking and IS research. In: Mingers J, Stowell F (eds) Information systems: an emerging discipline? McGraw-Hill, London, pp 201–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2006) Creative holism: a critical systems approach to complex problem situations. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(5):647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC, Keys P (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc:473–486

  • Jeyaraj A, Rottman JW, Lacity MC (2006) A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. J Inf Technol 21(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jokonya O (2016) Towards a critical systems thinking approach during IT adoption in organisations. Procedia Comput Sci 100:856–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jokonya O, Kroeze JH, van der Poll JA (2012) Towards a framework for decision making regarding IT adoption. Paper presented at the proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists conference

  • Kalnins HJR, Jarohnovich N (2015) System thinking approach in solving problems of technology transfer process. Procd Soc Behv 195:783–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai P (2017) The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology. J Inf Syst Technol Manag 14(1):21–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplume AO, Sonpar K, Litz RA (2008) Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. J Manag 34(6):1152–1189

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1994) Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: an empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Q 18(2):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Hirschheim R (1988) Information systems failures—a survey and classification of the empirical literature. Oxford Surveys in Information Technology 4:257–309

  • Lyytinen K, Klein HK (1985) The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas as a basis for a theory of information systems. In: Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds) Research methods in information systems IFIP 8.2 Proceedings, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 219–236

  • Mason RO, McKenney JL, Copeland DG (1997) An historical method for MIS research: steps and assumptions. MIS Q 21(3):307–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (2003) Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Action Res 16(2):77–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (2006) Systems thinking for evaluation. In: Williams B, Imam I (eds) Systems concepts in evaluation: an expert anthology. EdgePress/American Evaluation Association, Point Reyes, CA, pp 11–29

  • Miles S (2011) Stakeholder definitions: Profusion and confusion. Paper presented at the EIASM 1st interdisciplinary conference on stakeholder, resources and value creation, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona

  • Miles S (2012) Stakeholder: essentially contested or just confused? J Bus Ethics 108(3):285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulej M (2007) Systems theory: a worldview and/or a methodology aimed at requisite holism/realism of humans’ thinking, decisions and action. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(3):347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E, Weir M (1979) Computer systems in work design: the ETHICS method. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama OK (1991) The critical social theory approach to information systems: problems and challenges. In: Nissen HE, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 267–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press, San Diego

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan B (2011) Systems thinking in adult social care: how focusing on a customer’s purpose leads to better services for the vulnerable in society and enhances efficiency. In: Zokaei K, Seddon J, O’Donovan B (eds) Systems thinking: from heresy to practice. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 40–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Packer MJ, Addison RB (1989) Entering the circle: hermeneutic investigation in psychology. Suny Press

  • Raza SA, Standing C (2010) Towards a systemic model on information systems’ adoption using critical systems thinking. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 12(3):196–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raza SA, Standing C (2011) A systemic model for managing and evaluating conflicts in organizational change. Syst Pract Action Res 24(3):187–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich BH, Benbasat I (1990) An empirical investigation of factors influencing the success of customer-oriented strategic systems. Inf Syst Res 1(3):325–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds M (2007) Evaluation based on critical systems heuristics. In: Williams B, Imam I (eds), Systems concepts in evaluation. An expert anthology. Point Reyes, American Evaluation Association, Edgepress, CA, pp 101–122

  • Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankaran S, Tay BH, Orr M (2009) Managing organizational change by using soft systems thinking in action research projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 2(2):179–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhanam R, Hartono E (2003) Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance. MIS Q 27(1):125–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger M (2006) System dynamics and the evolution of the systems movement. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(5):583–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville I (1996) Software engineering, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples DS, Wong I, Seddon PB (2002) Having expectations of information systems benefits that match received benefits: does it really matter? Inf Manag 40(2):115–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale R, Standing C (2005) An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: a content, context, process framework. Eur J Oper Res 173(3):1090–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun D, Hyland P, Bosch O (2015) A systemic view of innovation adoption in the Australian beef industry. Syst Res Behav Sci 32(6):646–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons VJ (1991) A review of information systems evaluation: content, context and process. Eur J Inf Syst 1(3):205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan FB, Hunter MG (2002) The repertory grid technique: a method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Q 26(1):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thong JY (1999) An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. J Manag Inf Syst 15(4):187–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning. In: A new approach to practical philosophy. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1987) Critical heuristics of social system design. Eur J Oper Res 31(3):276–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1996) A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull

  • Ulrich W (2000) Reflective practice in the civil society: the contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Pract 1(2):247–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2001) The quest for competence in systemic research and practice. Syst Res Behav Sci 18(1):3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc 54(4):325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vemuri P, Bellinger G (2017) Examining the use of systemic approach for adoption of systems thinking in organizations. Systems 5(3):43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39(2):273–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bertalanffy L (1975) Perspectives on general system theory: scientific-philosophical studies. Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman J (2007) Thinking systems need systems thinking. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(3):271–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1993) Interpreting information systems in organizations. Wiley, Chichester

  • Walsham G (1995) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Inf Syst Res 6(4):376–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inf Syst 15(3):320–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward J, Daniel E (2006) Benefits management: delivering value from IS & IT investments. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren L, Adman P (1999) The use of critical systems thinking in designing a system for a university information systems support service. Inf Syst J 9(3):223–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitney KM, Daniels CB (2013) The root cause of failure in complex IT projects: complexity itself. Procedia Comput Sci 20:325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabadi AM (2016) Adoption of information systems (IS): the factors that influencing IS usage and its effect on employee in Jordan telecom sector (JTS): a conceptual integrated model. International Journal of Business and Management 11(3):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhichang Z (2007) Complexity science, systems thinking and pragmatic sensibility. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(4):445–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, PO Box 1982, Dammam, 31451, Saudi Arabia

    Syed Arshad Raza & Atiq W. Siddiqui

  2. School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Building 2, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia

    Craig Standing

Authors
  1. Syed Arshad Raza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atiq W. Siddiqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig Standing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Syed Arshad Raza.

Appendices

Appendix A

Checklist of boundary questions (Ulrich 1983)

1. Who ought to be the client/beneficiary?

2. What ought to be the purpose?

3. What ought to be the measure of success/performance?

4. Who ought to be the decision maker?

5. What resources or components of the system should be controlled by the decision maker?

6. What resources or components of the system should not be controlled by the decision maker?

7. Who ought to be involved in the design of the system or who should be the designer?

8. What sort of expertise ought to be considered for design/ who should be the expert and what role should he /she play?

9. Who should be guarantor (held responsible) for the system’s performance?

10. Who should represent or witness the affected?

11. Who among the affected ought to be involved? To what extent should the ‘affected’ be given chance to challenge the premises and promises of those involved?

12. What worldview should underlie the design of the system?

Appendix B

Interview Questions – Adapted from Ulrich (1983)

1. Who do you think are the stakeholders or people related to the portal?

2. Who should be the beneficiary in the design and improvement of the portal?

3. Who do you think is the beneficiary of the portal?

4. What should be the purpose or goals of the portal to serve the beneficiary?

5. What in your opinion is the purpose of the portal?

6. Which factors e.g. social, technological etc. do you think should be considered in measuring portal’s performance?

7. What are the problems related to your experience with the portal?

8. Who in your viewpoint should make major decisions about the content, purpose and resources of the portal?

9. Who do you think makes these decisions or who is the decision maker?

10. What resources should not be controlled by the portal’s decision maker?

11. Who should be involved in defining the requirements of the portal?

12. Who do you think are actually involved in defining the requirements of the portal?

13. Who do you think are not involved but influenced or affected by the development or improvement of the portal?

14. Who among the affected should be involved?

15. Who you think should be held responsible if the portal fails to achieve its purpose?

16. How do you think the portal should evolve in the future?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raza, S.A., Siddiqui, A.W. & Standing, C. Exploring Systemic Problems in IS Adoption Using Critical Systems Heuristics. Syst Pract Action Res 32, 125–153 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9467-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9467-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation