Process Failure in a Rapidly Changing High-Tech Organisation: A System Dynamics View

  • Bruce Campbell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1507)


IS is still suffering from high rates of failure and dissatisfaction by users with the delivered product. Respondents to a recent survey [19] said that the major reason for IS failure or poor performance is due to the lack of consideration of “softer” organisational issues – not technological reasons. This is hardly surprising given that most current modelling techniques are based on the structured analysis paradigm and do not easily lend themselves to modelling softer issues. Furthermore, there is a growing consensus that much remains to be done in order to determine exactly how softer factors influence the implementation of computer systems. This paper reports on research in progress at an Australian high-tech organisation where a number of modelling techniques were used to determine why processes within an implemented system were failing over time. The modelling techniques included data flow diagrams, flow charts and system dynamics modelling. The latter proved highly effective at demonstrating the impact of the softer organisational issues on the processes. The paper further emphasises the need to consider a system holistically during the requirements specification and design phases.


Information System Product Code Organisational Issue Soft Factor Service Record 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdel-Hamid, T., Madnick, S.E.: Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, D.F., Richardson, G.P., Vennix, J.A.M.: Group model building: adding more science to the craft. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 13(2). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barlas, Y.: Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 12(3), pp. 183–210. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, W.B.: The Organization and Socio-Technical Controls. In: Scott, W.G. (ed.) Organization Concepts and Analysis. Dickenson Publishing Company, California (1969)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process Modelling. Communications of the ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curtis, B., Krasner, H., Iscoe, N.: A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems. Communications of the ACM 31(11), 1268–1287 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Geus, A.P.: Modelling to Predict or to Learn? In: Morecroft, J.D.W., Sterman, J.D. (eds.) Modeling for Learning Organizations. Productivity Press, Oregon (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dangerfield, B., Roberts, C.: Projecting dynamic behavior in the absence of a model: an experiment. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 11(2), pp. 157–172. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forrester, J.W.: System Dynamics - Future Opportunities. In: Legasto, A.A., Forrester, J.W., Lyneis, J.M. (eds.) System Dynamics, pp. 7–22. North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forrester, J.W.: Industrial Dynamics. M.I.T. Press and John Wiley & Sons, New York (1961)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forrester, J.W., Senge, P.M.: Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models. In: Legasto, A.A., Forrester, J.W., Lyneis, J.M. (eds.) System Dynamics. TIMS Studies in Management Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 209–228. North-Holland Publishing, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gasson, S., Holland, N.: The Nature and Processes of IT-Related Change. In: Orlikowski, W.J., Walsham, G., Jones, M.R., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, pp. 213–234. Chapman and Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ginzberg, M.J.: Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions. Managment Science 27(4), 459–478 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruhn, V., Wolf, S.: Software Process Improvement by Business Process Orientation. In: Software Process - Improvement and Practice, Pilot Issue. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    HPS, Introduction to Systems Thinking and iThink. High Performance Systems Inc., Hanover, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson, M.C.: Critical Systems Thinking and Information Systems Development. In: Proceedings, 8th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Flinders University, South Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein, H.K., Hirschheim, R.A.: A Comparative Framework of Data Modelling Paradigms and Approaches. The Computer Journal 30(1) (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kueng, P., Kawalek, P.: Process Models: a help or a burden? In: Proceedings, Association for Information Systems 1997 Americas Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana (August 1997),
  19. 19.
    OASIG, The performance of Information Technology and the role of human and organizational factors Report to the Economic and Social Research Council, UK (1996), or in Word 2 format from:-
  20. 20.
    McGrath, G.M.: Migrating Information Systems Through the Analysis of Power, Its Determinants and Distribution, PhD thesis presented to the School of Mathematics, Physics, Computing and Electronics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGrath, G.M.: A Process Modelling Framework: Capturing Key Aspects of Organisational Behaviour. In: Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference - 1997, Sydney, September 29-October 2, pp. 118–126 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGrath, G.M., Campbell, B.R., More, E., Offen, R.J.: Intra-Organisational Collaboration in a Complex. Rapidly-Changing Environment: A Field Study, a paper prepared for the Seminar on Collaboration, held at the University of Technology, May 8 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morecroft, J.D.W.: Executive Knowledge, Models, and Learning. In: Morecroft, J.D.W., Sterman, J.D. (eds.) Modeling for Learning Organizations. Productivity Press, Oregon (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peterson, D.W., Eberlein, R.L.: Reality Check: a bridge between systems thinking and system dynamics. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 10(2-3). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors. Free Press, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richardson, G.P.: Problems with causal-loop diagrams. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 2, pp. 158–170. John Wiley & Sons, London (1986)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richmond, B.: The Strategic Forum: aligning objectives, strategy and process. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 13(2). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Senge, P.M.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Random House, Australia (1992)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sterman, J.D.: Learning in and about complex systems. In: System Dynamics Review, vol. 10(2-3), pp. 291–330. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vennix, J.A.M.: Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Joint Research Centre for Advanced Systems EngineeringMacquarie UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations