Document View - ProQuest

Summary) Most, if not all, systems development projects in the commercial world are still developed with teleological engineering-based methodologies. These methodologies either completely disregard, severely downplay, or only superficially address the social reality of the information systems, people and organizations. Introna provides a critique of teleological information systems development methodologies. He argues that these methodologies lead to "dead" systems that make very little sense to their users. He presents the work of the architect Christopher Alexander as an example from another discipline of ateleological development. Using principles gleaned from his work, he presents some ideas of how information systems development may become more ateleological. Narrative, metaphor and myth seem to provide some indicators of how such ateleological development may be achieved. He acknowledges that there is no simple answer to the issues involved, except for the conviction that more precision or automation in teleological development methodologies would not do much to solve the enormous problems occurring in practice today. Copyright MCB UP Limited (MCB) 1996 Lucas D. Introna: London School of Economics, London, UK Introduction" The man of system... seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chessboard have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chessboard of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. (Adam Smith, 1942)" Teleological[1] and instrumental thinking with its associated nomothetic techniques and methodologies have dominated the information systems discipline since its technological inception. This, however, started changing in the 1980s with the work of Boland (1983), Klein and Hirschheim (1983), Hirschheim and Klein (1991), Klein and Lyytinen (1985), Kling (1980; 1984) and Lyytinen (1986). These authors used the philosophical concepts of criticalsocial theory (Habermas, 1984), hermeneutics (Gadamer et al., 1989), and structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) to argue effectively against the pure techno-rational conception of information systems. It can today be argued that there exists a substantial body of knowledge that provides a social reconceptualization of information systems. The theories, methodologies and techniques of systems development also had to go through this reconceptualization. This has been done by various authors. For example Hirschheim and Klein (1989) provided a taxonomic framework (based on Burrell and Morgan (1979)) that indicates the implications of this reconceptualization of systems development as a social process as opposed to a technical, objective and teleological endeavour. The problem facing us today, however, is that most (if not all) systems development projects in the commercial world are still developed with teleological engineering-based methodologies. These methodologies either completely disregard, severely downplay, or only superficially address the social reality of the information systems, people and organizations. In fact, it seems as it there is a growing emphasis on technorational methodologies such as information engineering and computer-aided software engineering (CASE). It seems as if the, predominantly academic, paradigm shift from the technical to the social has had very little (if any) impact on systems development in the "real" world (as it is often referred to). Purpose of this paper The purpose of this paper is to present a critique of the current assumptions that inform much of ISD practice and think through some other ways of reconceptualizing the "problem". The paper will argue that the teleological approach, although efficient and technically effective, generates systems that are seen by the users as not sufficiently dynamic and, in many cases, continually inappropriate for their needs. The paper will draw on ateleological theory used in architectural design, as Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 1 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM developed by Alexander (1979), to suggest some ateleological principles for information systems development. It will be argued that ISD needs to shift from the systems-based schema to narrative, metaphor and myth as ways to embody the principles of ateleological development. The paper is by no means a comprehensive exposition but must merely be seen as some "notes" in thinking through these ideas. Teleological systems Much, if not all, of what happens in modern organizations is teleological or instrumental (see Habermas's (1987a; 1987b) critique of modern society see also Introna (1994)). To be teleological is to set and achieve objectives, it is to be purpose driven. It is a maxim of modern society that without purposes, and without achievement the individual, the organization, or the society will not succeed. In this society to be teleological is not just morally justified, it is essential. It is argued that every individual must take hold of their future, plan it, and achieve it. Setting goals and achieving them is the essence of "success" in the teleological society. Teleological systems are systems that are purpose directed. They are systems that continually seek and move towards a predetermined goal or set of goals. Teleological systems use negative feedback (first-order cybernetics) to continually measure themselves against the convergence towards these goals or objectives. The classical notion of problem-solving where a problem is defined as the shortfall between the actual state of the system and the desired state (as defined by the goals) is embedded in these systems. The aim is to search continually for problems and generate actions (sub-teleological systems) to solve the identified problems. What these teleological systems often neglect to address is that, what is, or is not "desired", is subject to normative judgements. Furthermore, that these judgements, being normative, will always tend to serve particular interests (at the cost of other interests). Hence, they are inherently political! In teleological information systems development (as found in structured design, IE, CASE, etc.) the problem or shortfall is the user or business requirement. This is subjected to detailed analysis and then formally expressed in terms of a user requirement specification using structured techniques such as entity relationship models and data flow diagrams. The user requirement or functional requirement now becomes the goal to be achieved in the development project. Another teleological system, i.e. an information system development project is thus initiated to solve the problem. This teleological system spawns many teleological subsystems to solve the subproblems or shortfalls (feasibility studies, technical design, construction, testing, etc.). Almost every subsystem will have a feedback mechanism to ensure that the whole process is progressively converging to the ultimate goal the solving of the user requirement. What are the shortcomings of this approach? It could be argued that this approach has a historical success record like no other (most systems are in fact developed with this approach). The next section will develop some lines of argument against it. In this critique the term "system" refers to both the development process as well as the results of this process. Assumptions about the "nature" of information systems and ISD In order to do teleological development (or construct a system with convergence behaviour to a predetermined point) there are certain requirements that logically must be met: The systems behaviour must be relatively stable and predictable. If the behaviour is not stable and predictable then it would be impossible to design teleological systems to solve the shortfall as they will continually change, unless, of course, the problems or shortfalls can be solved instantaneously. The designer must be able to "manipulate" the system's behaviour directly at least to the point that it can be determined. The designer must be able to exert some sort of "control" over the next state that the system will produce. There could be no talk of design or development without this control. The designer can only design to the degree that it is possible to control in this paradigm. The designer must be able to determine "accurately" the goals or criteria for success as the "inaccurate" determination of the goals will only change the gap and not bridge, or solve it. If one considers ISD as some socio-technical phenomena as argued by the interpretivist school and the radical humanist school[2] and not merely as the construction of physical artefacts, then one may agree that the technical "part" of the system could, to some degree at least, conform to the above requirements, but definitely not the social "part". Are social systems behaviour stable and predictable? Are designers able to manipulate or control social systems behaviour? Is it possible to determine stable requirements in an unstable environment? Social reality is not the same as physical reality. Social reality is a socially constructed reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1979). As Giddens (1987) argues: "[W]e cannot treat human activities as though they were determined by causes in the same way as natural events are. We have to grasp what I would call the double involvement of individuals and institutions: we create society at the same time as we are created by it" (p.11). This phenomenon of double involvement makes human behaviour unpredictable, uncontrollable and discontinuous. Social reality continually redefines itself. It is always in the process of Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 2 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM becoming, of creation and recreation. This is what Giddens (1984,p. 25) calls the duality of structure:" The constitution of agents and structures are not two independently given sets of phenomena, a dualism, but represent a duality. According to the notion of the duality of structure, the structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organize." Social systems cannot be "designed" and developed in any teleological or methodological sense, as is possible with technical systems. Social systems can at most be indirectly influenced (I am, obviously, referring to the situation in a normal free and open society). It must then be concluded that, if it is believed that information systems are social processes that may, to a greater or lesser extent, be supported by technology, then a teleological approach will be at least limiting and inadequate and at most completely inappropriate[3]. The wisdom of the whole Viewing a phenomenon from the teleological point of view is to lose the "wisdom of the whole". Bateson (1972) described the wisdom of the whole as, "knowledge of the larger interactive system that system which, if disturbed, is likely to generate exponential curves of change". Once a goal or set of goals has been selected, the behaviour of the systems "converges" to the behaviour required to achieve the goals. The continued selection of goals and continued convergence of behaviour thus creates a system that loses its ability to understand/comprehend the whole. In the teleological view the belief exists that if one could select the "right" set of goals then eventually the whole should benefit. The problem with this thinking is that whenever an explicit goal is selected there is an implicit or explicit assumption that some form of behaviour (or goal) is better than other forms of behaviour (or goals). The hierarchy of goals and objectives now becomes an issue. Which immediately leads to conflict. The organization in such cases spends a significant amount of time to "solve" the conflict generated by one of the principal requirements of teleological behaviour. The actions of the "conflict-resolution" are in themselves teleological, that in turn create more conflict, i.e. exponential change. A great deal of the system's energy is spent trying to resolve internal conflict. The more severe consequence is that the ecology of the whole is lost. The system now falls into a neverending trap of "problem solving" and, in so doing, does not get to systemic thinking and reflection. What will be the consequence of this lack of systemic thinking, be? Bateson (1972 , p. 160) argues that this obsession with "ends" and "means" will lead to a "totalitarian" rather than a "democratic" system of life. He continues by saying that the solution is "that we look for the 'direction', and 'values' implicit in the means, rather than looking ahead to a blueprinted goal and thinking of this goal as justifying or not justifying manipulative means". Learning and learning systems Systems which must adapt in a meaningful and holistic way must be able to learn. Teleological systems have a limited capacity to learn. This limited capacity is brought about by two factors. First, as systems become increasingly teleological, their set of alternative actions become progressively less. In these systems the only acceptable actions are the actions that make the systems behaviour converge towards the selected goal. This limited set of legitimate actions limits the system's ability to experiment, as behaviour that does not directly contribute to the converging behaviour is inefficient and ineffective. The lack of ability to experiment causes the system to lose its capability to expand its scope of actions which limits its capability to learn. Teleological behaviour therefore occurs to a greater or lesser degree at the expense of learning. Furthermore, to learn, the system must be able to appropriate the tacit information that is part of its continual interaction with its environment, for it is through appropriation that new understanding is constituted. Appropriation requires the system to be able to do the following (Introna, 1993): The system must become part of a hermeneutic circle. The system must therefore be able to continually interpret and understand itself in terms of the whole. This implies that the system (as part) must understand its actions or behaviour in terms of its meaningfulness in relation to the whole. To lose this coherence would imply the loss of identity and the wisdom of the whole. Such continual reinterpretation would be seen as inefficient and ineffective forms of teleological behaviour. The system must remain open to the possibilities of new understanding. Remaining open to new understanding is to be distracted from, or lose sight of, the goals or objectives that are essential for teleological behaviour. From a systems theory perspective Bateson (1980), using the work of Ashby (1957), showed that a system cannot learn (and thus evolve) unless it is stochastic. Bateson defines stochastic systems as systems that incorporate at least two processes. First, the system must have a random process a process that can generate diversity. Second, the systems must have a built-in comparator that selects certain events, states, or alternatives based on some type of criteria. The determination of the criteria is critical as inappropriate criteria could force the system into short-term teleological behaviour. In the process of Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 3 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM evolution the comparator is "natural selection". Stochastic systems are, however, divergent. Divergent systems' behaviour cannot be predicted, and not being predictable means they cannot be "controlled". It should be clear, from the above, that learning and control are negatively related. Returning to the process of development it can be concluded that: The teleological design process (as a convergent process) is very predictable and thus controllable. The process does not, however, have the ability to evolve as it is not able to learn. To create an evolving development process a "stochastic" ability is needed. An ateleological design process, therefore, is the only way to create a dynamic and learning process between the designers, the users and the information system. The a priori assumption The assumption that there is, an intrinsically "there", a priori truth that all ought to converge towards is at the heart of this teleological behaviour. It is the view that there is a truly "right" way (technique, method methodology, etc.), to do things or achieve goals. According to teleological thinking we must therefore find or "discover" this right way and converge to it. Within this worldview teleological behaviour not only makes sense, but is an absolute requirement. In the business world we have enshrined this rationality in the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness. To justify one's actions (morally, ethically and scientifically) one need only show that it is more efficient or more effective. If it is not teleological it is inefficient and ineffective. My counter-argument is this: what we see as efficient or effective is only defined in terms of our current teleological language game (Wittgenstein, 1956), and that one can destroy the systems in an "efficient" and "effective" manner. Many technically efficient and effective organizations have not survived. What we need is a new language that rids us from the illusion that we can trade the wisdom of the whole with teleological concepts such as efficiency and effectiveness and succeed in becoming a whole society! Rorty (1991) expressed this idea as follows:" ...until we discard the metaphor of inquiry, and human activity in general, as converging rather than proliferating, as becoming more unified rather than more diverse, we shall never be free of the motives which once led us to posit gods (p. 27). ...there would be less talk about rigour and more about originality. The image of the great scientist [manager, leader, developer, etc.] would not be somebody who got it right but somebody who made it new (p. 44)." Ateleological systems "development" The ateleological concept We should agree that a teleological approach to systems development seems not to provide the answers we so desperately need, what is the alternative? It may seem as if we have destroyed all basis for meaningful behaviour. It may be useful to try to contrast ateleological behaviour with teleological behaviour, before attempting to outline the alternative. A sense of the difference between teleological and ateleological systems development can be gleaned from the "attributes" of the processes as expressed in Table I. Do examples of ateleological systems development exist? Yes, there are various examples in different fields of social interaction and development that can be distinguished in this manner. It must again be noted, before discussing these examples, that the distinction as made above is a specific way of using a language and that there is no claim here that this is the only way of distinguishing these two spheres of thinking. This is, nonetheless, a start in the articulation of what are two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world in general and systems development in particular. An appropriate example is found in architecture and urban design. Houses and cities are also examples of socio-technical systems, and in that sense they, the theories of their design and development, could give us a new understanding of the development of information systems as socio-technical systems. The use of architecture as a reference theoretical framework has been argued by Kling (1984) and more recently by Lee (1991). Architecture and ateleological design It must, however, be said that the mainstream thinking and philosophy in architecture and urban design are rationalistic and teleological. The exception to this rule is the thinking as embodied in the work of Alexander (1979). Alexander describes a design process that seeks to design buildings and cities that are alive, beautiful, and whole those qualities that make people to want to dwell in them. To try to do justice to his theory is beyond the scope of this paper. Some of the important concepts will, however, be outlined. His theory is rich and subtle, and can best be understood by reading his work, especially The Timeless Way of Building. Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 4 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM Alexander's first, and very important principle, is that the design process must be self-generative: "It is a process which brings order out of nothing but ourselves; it cannot be attained, but it will happen of its own accord, if we will only let it". The design process is not controlled by a "designer" in this case the architect. The process must be in the hands of the people. It enables them to "design" that, which is meaningful for them. The adaptation between the people and the buildings is profound. He expresses this as follows:" Each detail has meaning. Each detail is understood. Each detail is based on some person's experience, and gets shaped right, because it is slowly thought out, and deeply felt. Because the adaptation is detailed and profound, each place takes a unique character. Slowly, the variety of the places and the buildings begins to reflect the variety of human situations in the town. This is what makes the town alive (Alexander, 1979)." According to Alexander, the second important principle is that the development process should be piecemeal. There should be no big jumps. Each increment must contribute to the whole. It must make it more whole and more alive. This piecemeal process is implemented by a pattern language. It is a "language" because it provides a set of dynamically evolving patterns that are used to express in physical space (buildings, cities) the human events of the people using the language. What is a pattern? Patterns are fundamental geometric structures or relationships that, if applied, will generate wholeness. Patterns are expressed in terms of a rule "which establishes a relationship between a context, a system of forces which arise in that context, and a configuration which allows these forces to resolve themselves in that context". Patterns are, however, not a fixed set of rigid relationships, but are "a field not fixed, but a bundle of relationships, capable of being different every time that it occurs, yet deep enough to bestow life whenever it occurs". The patterns are combined in Alexander et al's. (1977) book Pattern Language which is a fundamental reference for most architects today. There is a hierarchy of patterns which starts with basic patterns and patterns of patterns of patterns, etc. Examples of common patterns are the following: Light from two sides. This pattern holds that any room (space) must always receive light from two sides. If this does not happen then the room will become two-dimensional (flat) and would not blend with our experience of three-dimensional space. Clear entrance. This pattern holds that the building must have a clearly visible entrance to identify its front. Without this space the person will not be able to interact with the building since we tend to look for the front of a system when we want to initiate interaction. The individuals can now apply the patterns in a dynamic and locally defined way. So that each building develops its character over time from the patterns (of human events) which keep on repeating there (historicity), and nothing else, not even the aesthetic ability of the designer. The reason we have entrance halls in our homes, for example, is the repeated event of arriving and leaving that occur there. The lack of such a space will cause the event of arriving and leaving to become unnatural and forced, hence the adaptation is not detailed and not profound and the variety of the places and buildings does not reflect the variety of human situations that happen there. The imposing of the structure of space on the human events is what make the space dead and functional. The only legitimate basis for design in buildings and cities is the pattern of human events: "this quality [of wholeness and beauty] in buildings and in towns cannot be made, but only generated, indirectly, by the ordinary actions of the people, just as a flower cannot be made, but only generated from the seed". An essential concept in the design process is that the application of the pattern not only generates wholeness in the part but also ensures that the whole will be generated in a beautiful manner in the same way that a genetic code allows the individual cells to be more or less autonomous and still generate a whole. The application of the pattern language seeks to create harmony, or blend the patterns of events (social and natural events) and patterns of space (buildings, roads, parks). The pattern language is dynamic and evolves as people use it. It is truly a language that evolves around people's ability to express themselves, and the events and patterns that make up their world. Alexander compares pattern language to natural language, as shown in Table II. It should be clear that the design process as described by Alexander is a stochastic process. The patterns can be combined in a local and contingent way every time they are applied. There is, however, the comparator which requires that every added pattern should make the building come "alive" thus, to make the fit between the building and the human events profoundly meaningful. An important distinction needs to be made at this point. When considering the teleological and ateleological notions in Alexander's work it may objected that some of his patterns are very teleological. This may be true. However, all action has as its most basic unit some type of teleological directedness. To give a simple example: I may decide to let my holiday emerge "as I go" by having no fixed plan on where I am going and as to my final destination (global), but I must at least get into my car and drive somewhere (local). An ateleological system also needs local directed action, however, these actions are not Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 5 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM informed by some global plan or blueprint but rather by local emerging contingencies, this is the essential difference. The typical (teleological) mistake often made in development is to conceptualize a whole and then add parts to construct the whole. This is not how nature "designs". The whole evolves as each living part or pattern is added (in a profound and meaningful way). When does communication really come alive (in the use of language)? Is it when there is a predesigned presentation or format? No, it is when the conversation or dialogue evolves each sentence constructed to make the dialogue whole (coherent). When it does not try to "force" it to a predefined point. In Bateson's terminology, when the conversation is stochastic, it will come alive by letting it evolve through the interaction, and around the events, of the people in dialogue. This is "true" language. This is the way conversations, buildings and information systems become alive. Some principles of ateleological development From the critique of teleological development and the brief discussion of Alexander's ideas above we may briefly conclude some principles of ateleological design: Local and contingent. Every step of the development must maximize the local possibilities as they emerge. This implies that the design process must be open enough to recognize these local conditions or contingencies and factor them into the process. If this does not happen the adaptation will not be profound and the resulting systems will be dead. Historical. If the development process is "self-generative" or self-referencing then it will be historical (Maturana and Varela, 1980). Thus, every step will be "informed" by that which has gone before it. The development process ought to be more like having a conversation or telling a story in which case every statement made is only sensible (meaningful) in the context of the previous statements. In a story or conversation the coherence or story-line is more important than any specific statement. Therefore a major development requirement should be coherence and not transformation or efficiency. Piecemeal. Each increment in the developmental process must add to the whole. This implies both maintaining the coherence and adapting to the local contingencies. This can only be achieved if the steps are "small" enough for this to be feasible. "Small" in every case will again be contingent on the resources available to "spend" on every increment as well as the evolving history of the system. Random. For the development process to learn it must have an element of "randomness" in it. This implies that the process must have the openness to generate unexpected next steps and a process of "evaluation" (comparator) to assess the potential of this unexpected state for the process as a whole. We may summarize the above as follows: An ateleological development process is a piecemeal process that aims to take maximum account of local emerging contingencies, as well as actively pursuing "random" unexpected possibilities while maintaining some sense of overall coherence. What does this mean in the information systems development context? This will be the topic for discussion in the next section. Information systems and ateleological development The information systems development context How could this theory be used in the development of information systems? Before attempting to answer this question it may be useful to consider the "design" context in which this question must be answered. Figure 1 shows the system of interactions between the user, the social system and the information system. It is important that we understand this interaction in order to see clearly what it is we want to "design". It is clear from Figure 1 that there are two systems of the information system that need to be "designed" or developed. First, there is the processing technology space. The technology space creates the infrastructure for the manager/user to create, process, inquire and maintain the data symbol space. Second is the data symbol space. The data symbol space is or rather should be an isomorphic mapping of events in the social space. This mapping is created by the selective capturing of certain quantitative (or directly attributable) aspects of actual social events, such as a sales transaction, or a cost allocation, or the employment of an employee. The systems analyst is usually responsible for the definition of the nature of this mapping. Bateson (1972) calls this a map-territory relationship. The data symbols in the information system are a (crude and selective) representation of the actual social events in a similar manner that the map is a representation of the actual territory. What is very important is to realize that the data symbols are not the social events as the map is not the territory. There is also another map-territory relationship involved. That is the relationship between the social events and the cognitive "mapping" of these events in the consciousness of the manager/user. The cognitive image or "map" is also in some way isomorphic to the social events. This mapping is, however, very different from the first in a fundamental way. The cognitive image of the manager/user is not limited to quantitative or directly describable elements. This mapping includes visual, emotive, aesthetics and moral images. Most of all, this cognitive "map" is tacit and not easily accessible even to the manager (Polanyi, 1973). The manager understands the social reality mostly in the sense of "knowing how to act", and not in the sense Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 6 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM of being able to create linguistic or other representations of it. The relationship between the cognitive image of the manager/user and the data symbol space (of the IS) is a relationship of a map to a map. They are, however, maps using different symbol and image sets. This is a very complex second order isomorphic type mapping between the manager/user's cognitive "map" and the data symbol space of the information system. This is the crucial relationship or mapping in the design process. It is this mapping that needs to be designed in such a manner that the manager will feel totally comfortable with it. This relationship must become "alive" for the manager. If it does not come alive, the manager will ignore it and return to the first order mapping that the manager is directly involved in. This is mostly what happens. In fact, it may even be argued that the nature of this mapping is such that it would, by default, fail. Maybe computerized information systems with their limited ability to represent (capture) always already there, tacit knowledge will never be more than "registers" for confirmation and post hoc rationalization? I will not take up this line of argument here (refer to Introna (1996)). The set of relationships, as described above, exist in and is part of the social reality of the organization. The manger is active in creating this reality and is created by it. Thus, the mapping, as discussed above, is not a mapping of absolute realities "out there". It is part of the communicative context of the organization. It is part of the active construction and reconstruction of this reality. The data elements selected for capture in the information system become part of the organizational dialogue (and per implication that which is not selected may not become part of the organizational dialogue). It can be concluded that there needs to be some form of dynamic interaction (dialogue or conversation) that needs to be "designed" and "redesigned", between the information system (data symbol space), the manager/user, and the social reality within which it functions and which it creates. The information system must be seen as part of the sense-making process of the manager. In the sense-making process the manager not only seeks to understand the social events (within the social reality) but also seeks to structure, or re-create it, so as to make it meaningful. Alexander in the IS context? When considering the design of the processing technology space, it is easy to see that the theory of Alexander can be very successfully used to design this interaction. The patterns of interaction between the user and the system can be used as a basis to define patterns that will dissolve the conflict and create harmony. When considering the design of the data symbol space the design problem becomes much more complex as it is now linked to the continuously changing social reality in which the manager/user seeks to create a meaningful existence. In this case the harmony that needs to be created is between the patterns of social events and the patterns of understanding and sensemaking. We therefore need to create a pattern language that uses a language "type" structure that can be used to design the understanding events, so as to create a dynamic interaction between the pattern of events and the pattern of understanding that is profound. To rephrase Alexander's (1979) words:" So that each detail has meaning. Each detail is understood. Each detail is based on the manager/user's experience, and gets shaped right, because it is slowly thought out, and deeply felt. Because the adaptation is detailed and profound, each understanding event takes a unique character. Slowly, the variety of understanding (as constituted by the information system) begins to reflect the variety of human situations in the organization. This is what makes the information system alive." How will this be achieved? What is being sought is a pattern language to structure understanding and sense-making. The requirement is for a pattern language that will create a profound fit between the manager's understanding, and sense-making process, and that which is available and presented in the information system. Given the fact that the manager's understanding, as reflected in the manager's cognitive image, and the symbols in the information system are created and re-created via a symbol-based language, the need for patterns that can structure and restructure these symbolic expressions of reality is clearly indicated. It seems that the use of symbolism such as narrative, metaphor and myth could provide the "language" patterns (or meta-language) is required to "design" these symbolic structures or spaces. Symbolism in social systems The connection between symbolism, communication and construction of social reality has been explored by many authors in the social science field such as Deetz (1986), Mumby (1988) and Pondy (1991). Pondy (1991, p. 157) clearly argues that there is an intimate relationship between symbolism, the sense-making process and organizing:" The central hypothesis is that the use of metaphors in the organizational dialogue plays a necessary role in helping organization participants to infuse their organizational experiences with meaning and resolve apparent paradoxes and contradictions, and that this infusion of meaning or resolution of paradox is a form of organizing. In this sense, the use of metaphors help couple the organization, to tie its parts together into some kind of meaningful whole; that is, metaphors help to organize the objective facts of the situation in the minds of the participants. ...That is, metaphors serve both as models of the situation and models for the situation." Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 7 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM It is this relationship that must be creatively channeled by the designers of the information system. If we consider metaphors as a basis for design then it must be said that metaphors are in fact actively used by most ISD methodologies (probably unbeknown to the users thereof). The dominant metaphor in systems design today is the metaphor of "system". We impose order on to the reality by defining it as a system. We do systems analysis. We "identify" entities and define relationships between entities. We define boundaries and create interfaces. Our complete design dialogue is defined in terms of the systems metaphor. The system now becomes a model of, and a model for, the symbols space that needs to be designed. It must be acknowledged that the "system" metaphor has provided us with an elegant set of tools and techniques. What is disconcerting, however, is the idea that this metaphor is the only valid metaphor for the design of information systems. It is my contention that the systems metaphor can only provide a limited perspective on the understanding of information systems in "real life" and that we have in fact "over utilized" this metaphor to the point that the map is now the territory. Thus, we need to discover/define a more diverse set of metaphors that can be used as design patterns in the design situation. In terms of the pattern language concept we have been communicating with a one word language. It is not surprising that managers and IS professionals have difficulty communicating with each other. The use of a one word language will lead to the building of systems that are "dead" not alive and profoundly meaningful. Imagine what would be attended to if one were to use other non"engineering" type metaphors such as: the information system as a "novel"; or the information system as a "battle". We may tend to think through notions such as: the plot, foreground, background, offensive, defensive, character development, scenes, tactics, positions, story lines, endings, orders, chain of command, pace, diversions, meeting, etc. The "systems" metaphor in the design of transaction processing systems may have worked well but what about the design of a World Wide Web site, or an electronic meeting system, or a multi-media education application, and so forth. To see that metaphor can be used as patterns for design may not be controversial but when it comes to myth many may outrightly reject the idea. Such strong opposition may be rooted in the commonly held notion that a myth is a "cleverly structured lie". Something that looks true on the surface (and is accepted as true) but is really false. For others the idea of myth is linked to "primitive" man, where myth was seen as a set of vain stories constructed by primitive man as a substitute for "real" knowledge that they did not have (in the absence of science and scientific methods of inquiry). The anthropologist Malinowski (1926), however, argues that myth is in fact a "hardworking, extremely important cultural force" that is active and very prevalent in society and organizations today. Myth, like metaphor, is an active mode or process of structuring social reality. It is an inherent part of the sense-making process of each individual in the organization. Malinowski (1926, p. 13) depicts myth as follows:" Studied alive, myth, is not symbolic, but a direct expression of its subject-matter; it is not an explanation in satisfaction of a scientific interest, but a narrative resurrection of a primeval reality, told in satisfaction of deep religious wants, moral cravings, social submissions, assertions, even practical requirements. Myth is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of primitive faith and moral wisdom." Myth is an active force for ordering reality (Ausband, 1983). It is the role of myth to make the world coherent and meaningful by demonstrating or imposing order on it. Myths are not "manufactured", they emerge as part of the daily discourse of articulating our understanding of things. Myth is our "best" attempt to structure reality given our current understanding and context. Thus many "facts" become "myths" in hindsight as new understanding emerges. Defined in this manner, humanity is in a sense continually struggling "against" myth as part of the struggle against partial understanding; fully realizing that this struggle does not imply that myth is a deviant way of living but an implicit part of the daily construction of social reality. Without myth, the world would be continually fragmented, chaotic and unstructured. We reach for order through myth. When our myths have to be abandoned because they no longer work for us, we reach for new myths. For the everyday person to make sense of the world, myth is used to construct a "meaningful" reality that will enable the person to act meaningfully. Myth is, in a very real sense, a language. It allows the user to deal with phenomena in relation to a framework or background of stories or tales. It puts new experiences into a familiar context, much as a language does (Ausband, 1983). It is in the cycle of creation, destruction, and recreation of myth that understanding, sense, structure, and meaning are born. Myth is the bridge between the known and the unknown. The bridge that must be constructed and deconstructed as understanding unfolds. The discussion above is not a comprehensive discussion of myth but serves only to show that myth, as a tacit dimension of understanding, must be part of the patterns used in ateleological design. Yet, it does seems feasible that metaphor and myth can, in some way, play a role in creating patterns for thinking about the reality and the systems we are trying to develop. The most feasible, however, seems to be narrative. Here one can refer to the work ofBoje (1991), Boland (1993) and Bruner (1990). These authors argue that the fundamental organizing principle of cognition is not schema (as supposed by many researchers in artificial intelligence) but narrative. When individuals are asked to describe their day at work or their experience of a holiday, they always tend to do it with a story. Narrative seems to function as the structure that "ties" together our experiences in a coherent whole that makes sense, and that we can explain to others (and ourselves). Facts that do not tie into the story are easily forgotten or seen as of less importance (Boland and Tenkasi, 1993). Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 8 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM Using symbolism in the ateleological development process How will we now use the narrative, metaphor and myth as a part of thinking through ateleological systems development? There are many issues that may be thought through in ISD context using the notions of narrative, metaphor and myth. Due to the scope of the paper I will limit myself to a few, in no specific order. If the fundamental organizing principle of cognition is narrative and the fundamental organizing principle of the data symbol space is schema, then there would be a substantive reason to believe that the data space will almost certainly fail to "make sense" to the user. The decontextualized nature of "entities" in the database renders them senseless. These objects need to be made coherent within some "convincing" stories constructed by the stakeholders involved. These stories should also become part of the historical record of these entities. The systems analysis process ought to change to be more of a narrative type analysis. The stakeholders could be asked to convey their understanding of the situation at hand with their own story. By means of narrative analysis the main episodes can be isolated and further analysed. Surely it would be easier for users to tell their story of the events of a typical day than to identify entities and their attributes as is often required by the systems metaphor. By using narrative, the tacit elements of their understanding (of the social space) can unknowingly be made explicit as part of the story. Furthermore, the use of narrative will also ensure that the historicity of the domain under investigation will always be "dragged in" and maintained in some way. From these brief comments it seems clear that there is a vast field of possibilities, once we dare to break free from the dominance of the schema-based teleological paradigm of systems development to a narrative based ateleological basis for systems development. Obviously there is still much research needed to get a hold of the concepts discussed above. The intention of the paper is only to suggest some possibilities and not to exhaust it. Reflection and conclusions It is clear from the discussion above that teleological systems development is not the appropriate way for all developing systems. To summarize: The teleological approach assumes that social reality is the same as physical reality. Thus, social reality can be "designed" and developed with the same methods that proved very successful for technical systems. Teleological behaviour forces the system to "part"-behaviour. This form of behaviour loses the wisdom of the whole. Holistic behaviour is traded for reductionistic behaviour, at severe cost to the system as a whole. Teleological behaviour severely limits the system's ability to learn. The lack of learning makes much of the system's behaviour become ad hoc. Teleological approach assumes that there is an intrinsically "right" way to create the systems. All behaviour is therefore legitimized by merely indicating that it would lead to convergence to the stated goals. There is no burden on the designers to enhance or improve the whole. In spite of the above one can argue that although there are definite defects in the teleological approach, it gets things done. In contrast ateleological systems do not know where they are going. They have no way of knowing whether they are progressing. They will tend to spend much energy to "discover" what needs to be done and they will be very inefficient. There are no criteria to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. Thus, anything goes! These arguments against ateleological systems are very powerful and very real. Maybe there is a continuum with complete teleological behaviour on the one end and absolute ateleological behaviour at the other end. Up to now the preference was towards the absolute teleological type of behaviour and we need to move back to the middle. Is it possible then to have teleological behaviour coexist with ateleological behaviour in the same system? Are they not mutually exclusive? One could argue that the part can be teleological and the whole not, but this would lead to anarchy, or the whole is teleological but the part not, but this could lead to totalitarianism. The "methodology" that Alexander (1979) proposes creates a system that isteleological and ateleological at the same time. It is teleological in the sense that there is an all encompassing requirement that any development must add to the "wholeness" and "beauty" of the system. The question with each addition is "will this increment make the system alive?" There is thus a requirement that every addition must be meaningful it must reflect the actual human events. The adaptation must be profound. The goal is a single all-encompassing requirement to make the whole system alive and beautiful. In a sense it is an unachievable goal. This implies that design and development is an ongoing neverending enterprise. If we consider the methodology as a basis for systems development then there are certain concerns that need to be addressed. In Alexander's (1979) methodology the "designer" tries to integrate human events or patterns with space patterns. In information systems we have the complex problem of double involvement. The creation and recreation of the system by the user (designer) and the creation and recreation of the user (designer) by the system. This principle is a powerful argument against a teleological, deterministic type of development process. If we discard this approach can we offer a realistic Document View ProQuest http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/pqdlink?index=3&sid=4&sr... 9 of 12 14/01/2010 12:51 PM alternative? This paper suggests that we use narrative, metaphor and myth as a pattern language within an open process to develop the information system. The exact "how" still needs to be explored and debated. This is our challenge. Will we be able to break free from our teleological and rationalistic tradition? Will we be able to create information systems and organizations that are alive, which people want to work with and in? If that is our desire then we must remember that this quality (of wholeness and beauty) in information systems cannot be made, but only generated, indirectly, by the ordinary actions of the people, just as a flower cannot be made, but only generated from the seed.