Loitering with Intent: Dealing with Human-Intensive Systems

  • P. M. Bednar
  • C. Welch


This paper discusses the professional roles of information systems analysts and users, focusing on a perspective of human intensive, rather than software intensive information systems. The concept of ‘meaningful use’ is discussed in relation to measures of success/failure in IS development. The authors consider how a number of different aspects of reductionism may distort analyses, so that processes of inquiry cannot support organizational actors to explore and shape their requirements in relation to meaningful use. Approaches which attempt to simplify complex problem spaces, to render them more susceptible to ‘solution’ are problematized. Alternative perspectives which attempt a systematic, holistic complexification, by supporting contextual dependencies to emerge, are advocated as a way forward.


Problem Space Organizational Problem Soft System Methodology Information System Development Design Science Research 
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.
    Agner-Sigbo, G. (ed). (1993). To be Continued. Stockholm: Carlssons Bokforlag (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agner-Sigbo, G. and Ingman, S. (1992). Self-Steering and Flexibility. Ord & Form AB: Uppsala (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen, N.E., Kensing, F., Lassen, M., Lundin, J., Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., and Sorgaard, P. (1990). Professional Systems Development: Experiences, Ideas and Action. Prentice-Hall: New York Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, D. (2002). LM4: A classically paraconsistent logic for autonomous intelligent ma-chines. Proceedings of the 6th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Infor-matics (SCI 2002), Florida Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashby, R. (1964). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Methuen: LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G. (2005). Information Systems Development. McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead, 2nd editionGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bednar, P.M. (2007). Individual Emergence in Contextual Analysis. Special Issue on Individual Emergence, Systemica, 14(1-6): 23-38Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bednar, P.M., Anderson, D., and Welch, C. (2005). Knowledge Creation and Sharing - Complex Methods of Inquiry and Inconsistent Theory. Proceedings of ECKM 2005, Limerick, Ireland Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bednar, P.M. and Welch, C. (2006a). Phenomenological Perspectives on IS: Lessons Learnt from Claudio Ciborra. Proceedings of the 3rd itAIS Conference: Information systems and people: Implementing IT in the workplace, Universit á Bocconi, Milan, Italy Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bednar, P.M. and Welch, C. (2006b). Incentive and desire: Covering a missing category. Pro-ceedings of Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, San Serolo, Venice, Italy Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bednar, P.M. and Welch, C. (2007). A double helix metaphor for use and usefulness in In-forming Systems. In H.-E. Nissen, P.M. Bednar, and C. Welch (eds.), Use and Redesign in IS: Double Helix Relationship? A Monograph of Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 10, 2009: 293-295.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bertalanffy, L. von (1969). General Systems Theory. George Braziller: NYGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boulding, K.E. (1953). The Organizational Revolution. Harper & Row: NYGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley: ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ciborra, C.U. (1992). From thinking to tinkering: The grassroots of strategic information systems. Information Society, 8: 297-309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ciborra, C. U.  (1998). Crisis and foundations: An inquiry into the nature and limits of models and methods in the information systems discipline. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 7: 5-16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ciborra, C. U.  (2002). The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ciborra, C. U. (2004a). Encountering information systems as a phenomenon, in C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, and F. Land (eds.), The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology: Innovation, Actors, and Contexts, Oxford: Oxford University Press Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Ciborra, C. U.  (2004b). Getting to the heart of the situation: The phenomenological roots of situatedness. Interaction Design Institute, Ivrea, Symposium 2005. Accessed June 2007 at: 2005.html
  21. 21.
    De Zeeuw, G. (2007). Foreword. Systemica 14(1-6): ix-xiGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of Sense-making research: Concepts, methods, and results to date. International Communication Association annual meeting, Dallas, May 1983Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friis, S. (1991). User Controlled Information Systems Development. Lund University: ScandinaviaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hagerfors, A. (1994). Co-Learning in Participative Systems Design. Lund University: ScandinaviaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bednar, P. (2000). A contextual integration of individual and organizational learning perspectives as part of IS analysis. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 3(3): 145-156Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design science research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(1): 75-105Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (1994). Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: The case for ETHICS. MIS Quarterly, 18: 83-109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K., and Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information System Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ingman, S. (1997). Trust and Computer Use. Lund University (in Swedish): ScandinaviaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Langefors, B.(1966). Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems. Lund University: StudentlitteraturGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marchand, D. and Hykes, A. (2006). IMD Perspectives for Managers No.138, Designed to Fail: Why IT-enabled Business Projects Underachieve. 15th European Conference, St Gallen, Switzerland, at programme.php, Accessed 25 July 2007
  32. 32.
    Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P.A., and Stage, J. (2000). Object-Oriented Analy-sis & Design. Marko Publishing House: Aalborg Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition. Reidel: DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mumford, E. (1983). Designing Human Systems For New Technology: The ETHICS Method. Manchester Business School: ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mumford, E. (1995). Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis. Macmillan: BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nissen, H. - 2 -E. (2007). Using Double Helix Relationships to Understand and Change Informing Systems. In H.-E. Nissen, et al. (eds.) Use and Redesign in IS: Double Helix Relationship? A Monograph of Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 10, 2009: 29-62.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Olerup, A. (1982). A Contextual Framework for Computerized Information Systems. Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busk: Copenhagen, Denmark Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, C.S. (2001). Desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research - a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2): 121-134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Radnitzky, G. (1970). Contemporary Schools of Metascience. Akademiforlaget: Gothenburg Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sandstrom, G. (1985). Towards Transparent Databases. Lund University: Studentlitteratur Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sims, D. (2004). The Velveteen Rabbit and Passionate Feelings for Organizations. Chapter 13 in Myths, Stories and Organization. Y. Gabriel(ed.). Oxford University Press: Oxford Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sommerville, I. (2004). Software Engineering. Addison Wesley: San Diego, 7th Edition Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stowell, F.A. and West, D. (1995). Client-Led Design. McGraw Hill: NYGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Commu-nication. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Wiley: ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ulrich, W. (2001). Critically systemic discourse: A discursive approach to reflective practice in ISD. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 3(3): 55-106 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weber, R. (2003). Still desperately Seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly, 27(2): iii-xi Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weick, K. (1995). Sense-Making in Organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. M. Bednar
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Welch
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsLund UniversitySweden
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of PortsmouthHampshireUK
  3. 3.Department of Strategy and Business SystemsUniversity of PortsmouthHampshireUK

Personalised recommendations