Abstract
This paper is about project definition. The authors are concerned that the inquiry method, argumentation, is not fully appreciated with respect to how it can be used to critique attempts at the definition ofprojects. Therefore, and being upfront about it, this paper will argue that argumentation is useful for critiquing project definitions. The evidence presented in support of this argument includes definitions and descriptions of the attributes of both project definition and argumentation and then tries to formalize the way to apply argumentation to project definition drawing on recent experience by the authors with having to negotiate 14 six-month information systems (IS) project definitions with novice consultants. Space constraints permit us to elaborate upon only one of these. The implications of accepting the argument presented is to give more thought to this structured discourse approach to critiquing IS project definitions.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Alvesson, M., and Skoldberg, K. Reflexive Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.
Angell, I. O. “Systems Thinking about IS and Strategies,”Journal ofInformation Technology (5), 1990, pp. 168–174.
Apotheloz, D., Brandt, P., and Ouiroz, G. “The Function of Negation in Argumentation,” Journal of Pragmatics (19), 2993, pp. 23–39.
Arygris, C. “Actionable Knowledge,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (32: 4 ), 1996, pp. 390–406.
Argyris, C., and Schön D. A. Organizational Learning IL Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1996.
Avison, D. E., and Wood-Harper, A. T. Multiview: An Exploration in Information Systems Development. Oxford: Alfred Waller Ltd., 1990.
Baskerville, R. L., and Wood-Harper, A. T. “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Technology (11), 1996, pp. 235–246.
Batiste, J. L., and Jung, J. T. “Requirements, Needs, and Priorities: A Structured Approach for Detecting MIS Project Definition, MIS Quarterly, December 1984, pp. 215–227.
Broad, W., and Wane, N. Betrayers of the Truth. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Chalmers, A. F. What Is This Thing Called Science. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1982.
Checkland, P. “Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science (17:1),2000, pp. SI 1-S58.
Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
Churchman, C. W. The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971.
Crosswhite, J. The Rhetoric of Reason. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
Darke, P., and Shanks, G. “User Viewpoint Modeling, Information Systems Journal (7), 1997, pp. 213–239.
Davidson, D. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Davis, G. B. “Information Systems as an Academic Discipline: Explaining the Future,” Journal of Information Systems Education (14: 4 ), 1992.
East, C., and Metcalfe, M. “Rich Pictures for Identifying Concerns,” Working Paper, University of South Australia, 2002.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Kruiger, T. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1987.
Fischer, F., and Forrester, F. The Argumentative Turn, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993.
Fitzgerald, B. “Formalized Systems Development Methodologies,” Information Systems Journal (6), 1996, pp. 3–23.
Fitzgerald, B. “Systems Development Methodologies: The Problem of Tenses,” Information Technology and People (13:3)), September 2000, pp. 174–185.
Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Haynes, J. Perspectival Thinking. OneIdea Company, 2000.
Hirschheim R., Klein, H. K., and Lyytinen K. “Control, Sensemaking and Argumentation,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
Hospers, J. Human Conduct. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.
Jayaratna N. Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies—NIMSAD—A Systemic Framework.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Keeney R. L. “Creativity in Decision Making with Value Focused Thinking,” Sloan Management Review, Summer, 1994, pp. 33–41.
Klein, H., and Myers, M. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67–93.
Kummerow, E. H. Differentiating Organizational Subcultures. Auckland, NZ: ANZAM, 2001.
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Linstone, H. Multiple Perspectives for Technology Mangers. New York: Wiley, 1999.
Mason, R. O. “A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning,” Management Science (15), 1969, pp. B-403–B-414.
Mason, R. O., and Mitroff, I. I. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumption. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
Metcalfe, M. “The Argumentative Methodology,” IT and People (5), 2002a.
Metcalfe, M. Business Research Through Argument. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1995.
Metcalfe, M. “Concern Solving for ISD,” in M. G. Hunter (ed), Socio-technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2002 (forthcoming).
Metcalfe, M., and Powell, L. “Revisiting Argument,” Australian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, 2000b.
Meyers, R. A., and Seibold, D. R. “Perspectives on Group Argument,” Communications Yearbook (14), 1989, pp. 268–302.
Mitev N. Information Systems Failures Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London School ofEconomics, 2000.
Mitroff, I. “The Myth oføbjectivity,” Management Science (8).Y72. pp. 86\3’6l8.
Mitrofl I., and Linstone, H. The Unbounded Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Morgan G. Images YyOrganizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1986
Moynihan T. “Coping with Client Based People Problems,” Information and Management (39), 2002, pp. 377–390.
Myers, M., and Avison, D. Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002 (forthcoming).
Neal, R. A. “Project Dcöniúoo.International Journal,f Project Management (l3:\).1995.pp. 5–9.
Niederman, F., and DeSanctis, G. “The Impa tnydmSoncm,olArgunmnt Approach on Group Problem Form”laúoo’’’ Decision Sciences (26: 4 ). l995.
Perelman, C., and L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatis on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame, 1969.
Pettigrew, A. M. “Success and Failure in Corporate Transformations,” in R. D. Galliers and W. R. J. Baets, Information Technology and Organizational Transformation: Innovation for the 2/m Century Organization. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1998.
Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1966.
Popper K. K. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princutvo, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971.
Popper K. R. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1972.
Provis, C. “Interests vs Positions: A Cúdquooftbc Diminchno.Negoxa/i,uJvn/no/(2: 4 ). 1996, pp. 305–323.
Roberts, N. “Coping with Wicked Problems,” Research Conference of the International Public Management Network, Sydney, Australia, 4–6 March 2000.
Russo, N. L. L. “Exploring the Assumptions Underlying Information Systems Methodologies: Their Impact on Past, Present and Future ISM Research,”Information Technology andPeople (13:4), November, 2000.
Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 190.
Scult, A. “Heidegger on Aristotle,” www.multimedia.2.drake.edu/s/scultlh-on-a.html June, 1999.
Settle, T. “The Rationality of Science Versus the Rationality of Magic,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences,Y7\. pp. \7’94.
Settle-Murphy, N., and Thorton, C. “Facilitating Your Way to Success,” Information Strategy, (15:3). 1999, pp. 3645.
Smith C. C. “Improved Project Definition,” Hydrocarbon Processing, August 2000.
Sowell T. Marxism. London: Unwin. 1985.
Tbuhnin` S. E. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.
Tracey, T. J. G., and Glidden-Tracey, C. E. “Integration Theory, Research Design, Measurement and Analysis, Counseling Psychologist (Z7:3).\999 pp. 299’324.
Truex D. P., Baskerville R., and Klein H. “Growing Systems in Emergent Organizations,” Communications of the ACM (42:8), 1999, pp. 117’123.
Ulrich, W. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. New York: Wiley, 1983.
Ulrich W. “The Philosophical Staircase for 1SD,” Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (3: 3 ), 2001.
Vickers, G. The Vickers Papers. London: Harper and Row, 1984.
Von Bertalanffy, L. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller, 1968.
Walton, D. The New Dialectic. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1998
Wxsto8 D. G. “The Fetish of Technique,” Information Systems Journal (6), 1996, pp. 25–40.
Weick, K. E. “Managerial Thought in the Contex o[Actioo,’iuW. Bennis, nL0. Mason, and I. I. Mitroff(eds.), The Executive Mind. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1983
Ziegelmueller, G. W., and Dause, C. A. Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Metcalfe, M., Lynch, M. (2003). Arguing for Information Systems Project Definition. In: Wynn, E.H., Whitley, E.A., Myers, M.D., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 110. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35634-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35634-1_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-5328-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35634-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive