Hirschheim (1985) reviews existing approaches to office systems design in some detail, relating the many problems encountered in systems development to the failure to consider "the social elements". Broadly, he suggests the adoption of a sociotechnical approach, although his discussion goes further in some respects. For instance, he proposes the adoption of Land's distinction between three categories of participation, in ascending order of scope and significance: 'consultative', 'democratic' or 'responsible'. He proposes to move beyond the
sociotechnical approach developed by Mumford in two further respects:
(i) the adoption of a 'Multiview'-type combination of methodologies and techniques: Checkland's methodology would assist with analysis, for instance, and Mumford's techniques with detailed design processes (Hirschheim, 1985, p.280-1);
(ii) reference to a number of traditions in social theory, in order to analyse the office as a social system: not only the interpretive tradition used by Checkland, for instance, but also psychoanalysis (associated here with Erich Fromm) and the critical social theory of Habermas
(op. cit., chapter seven).
Hirschheim discusses this explicitly pluralist approach in a 1987 paper which draws together some of the different strands. He matches what he sees as the four main trends in information systems development with the four paradigms in social theory identified by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Each is presented as a story, with key actors, narrative and plot:
(i) 'The analyst as systems expert': that is, long- established approaches such as SSADM, working within a functionalist paradigm;
(ii) 'The analyst as wise man or change agent': that is,
soft systems, working within an interpretivist paradigm;
Scandinavian 'Collective Resource' approach, informed by labour process theory and working within a radical structuralist paradigm;
(iv) 'The analyst as emancipator or social therapist': that is, trends illustrated only within research literature to date, but proposing to incorporate some elements of all the three preceding approaches, working within a neohumanist or radical humanist paradigm. (See for example Lyytinen and Klein, 1985).
Like Land et al (op.cit.,) Hirschheim concludes that current information systems development practices remain most strongly influenced by the functionalist paradigm, and that "the price of the practical monopoly of functionalism is an increased failure rate of IS implementation, due to complexity denial." (1987, p.15). He argues for "a radicalized contingency approach (which)
conceptualises situations from different paradig mat ic perspectives and looks for a best fit of development approaches which draw on incompatible theoretical foundations." (Op. cit., p.15).
Mike Jackson's starting-point is the critique of both 'hard' and 'soft' methodologies which has been summarised in Chapter Three. Concluding that Soft Systems is the best approach "in those many social systems... in which
there is a rough balance of power and resources between different s t a k e h o l d e r s ", Jackson goes on to consider
systems approach in situations of significant inequality. (1985, p.146). He describes Habermas' work as aiming to complement or extend Marxist analysis of the economy with an analysis of language and ideology, and he quotes Habermas' own summary of key processes:
"'... the formation and extension of critical theorems, whch can stand up to scientific discourse, the organisation of processes of enlightenment, in which such theorems are applied and can be tested in a unique manner by the initiation of processes of reflection carried on within certain groups towards which these processes have been d i r e c t e d ; and the selection of appropriate strategies, the solution of tactical questions, and the conduct of political struggle.'"
(Habermas, 1974, quoted in Jackson, op.cit., p.146).
The testing of theories, by the social actors addressed, is compared to psychoanalysis:
"the analyst's success is measured by the extent to which the patient recognises himself/herself in the explanations offered, and becomes an equal partner in the dialogue with the analyst."
(Op. cit., p.148).
Such an equal role is the precondition for 'undistorted communication' and for the discussion of possible strategies. To achieve it, actors may have to struggle politically against powerful opponents who are reluctant to make concessions. Jackson concludes by proposing that detailed work be done in order to develop and apply
Habermas' three functions, in the form of a critical systems methodology appropriate for use in situations characterised by conflict and inequality.
Jackson and Hirschheim, then, demonstrate the problems raised for information systems development processes by the dominant 'functionalist' paradigm. They share a commitment to developing alternatives on the basis of some form of critical social theory. However, where Hirschheim proposes a 'pluralist' or 'radicalized contingency' approach, combining perspectives which have incompatible theoretical starting-points, Jackson prefers a clear-cut distinction between situations appropriate for 'Soft Systems' analysis, and those requiring a 'critical' approach. Both see their views as preliminary, and in need of further elaboration. A number of points may be raised, in evaluating them both.
Firstly, there is the question of matching a methodology to a situation. Both Jackson and Hirschheim suggest that a decision has to be made about the organisation or situation being considered. For Jackson, the main issue is whether or not a 'rough balance of power and resources' exists. Hirschheim provides a range of examples, in his outline of the radicalized contingency approach. Functionalism (structured approaches) could be appropriate for what he describes as predominantly technical, "engineering-type" applications, such as air traffic control. Social relativism (Soft Systems) would be appropriate for situations involving 'social factors' with
no obvious technical solutions, such as budgeting. Radical structuralism would apply where there is a power struggle between workers and management. Neohumanism would be appropriate where there are value conflicts, but also "a willingness to resolve the issues by informed debate." (1987, p.15; Hirschheim gives no illustrations for the last two paradigms).
There is an uresolved, implicit problem here. Initiative appears to remain in the hands of the analyst, in terms of defining an organisation and a 'problem' within either Jackson's or Hirschheim's terms. Yet , it is questionable - bearing in mind the research reviewed in Chapters One and Two - whether any organisations present either unambiguously 'technical' problems, or relationships based on a rough balance of power and resources. This would not invalidate Jackson's approach in principle; in fact, it could be seen as more widely relevant than he claims, for instance if it could be developed to address gender issues as well as labour/management ones. But Jackson does not address the issue of how the analyst himself/herself can or should act, in entering a complex organisational situation. Should he or she explicitly act as the advocate of the least powerful stakeholders? Or maintain a facilitating role, avoiding over-identification with any particular party if possible? What techniques might be adopted in order to pursue either position? Clearly, much remains to be acknowledged, and then clarified, in Jackson's approach.
Equally fundamental problems arise in connection with Hirschheim's proposals, which remain vulnerable to the weaknesses associated with the S o c i o t e c h n i c a l , Soft Systems and Multiview approaches (see Chapter T h r e e ) . This is illustrated in sections of Hirschheim's discussions of office systems design (1985) . Here, although he gives both moral and pragmatic reasons for supporting participative approaches, the emphasis always tends to drift towards the pragmatic ones, with the associated risks of implicit managerial bias:
"... true participation is the most likely way to
ensure that full support of the users is obtained, thus lessening any prospect of sabotage, resistance, avoidance or other dysfunctional behaviour."
(Op. cit., p.175).
However, in the case of an information system which may be associated with potential job loss or long periods of VDU use, 'resistance' is only dysfunctional for the manager, not the end-users. Or again, describing the outcome of a workshop exercise, in which participants had adopted different 'user' roles regarding a hypothetical office automation project:
"Unfortunately, the clerk's presentation fell on deaf
ears... these insights led to a commonly-recognised need for the development of conflict-handling m ethods and management strategies which would minimise the destructive side-effects of conflicts about technology."
At a more general level, it appears that the 'radicalised contingency' approach, like Multiview, tends to reduce information systems methodologies to implicitly neutral techniques. The existence of 'incompatible theoretical foundations' is acknowledged, but no consistent framework is adopted within which to analyse organisational processes. The clerk's lack of success (in a workshop exercise or in a real organisation) appears as 'unfortunate', rather than as a feature of identifiable social and organisational relations.
Secondly, there are issues in relation to gender. Hirschheim (1985) does provide a short historical overview of the emergence of office work, in the context of the industrial revolution. But its significance as an area of women's employment remains unacknowledged. The one indexed reference to women - "women, emancipation of" - turns out to be a neat example of technological determinism: while economic and political factors are ignored, the typewriter is seen as having made a significant contribution to improving women's status.
For Hirschheim and for Jackson, issue of power, inequality and conflict are all conceived in terms of labour and management; the sexual division of labour is not seen as relevant. In the office context, this weakens their approaches in two respects. Firstly, there is the danger that important areas of skill and communiciaton will be ignored or underestimated, because of their
gender-associated low status. Secondly, there is the danger that situations characterised by entrenched occupational segregation, along gender lines, will be wrongly assumed to be free of conflict and inequality.
I now turn to some examples of interdisciplinary research in Scandinavia, in which a number of the points raised so far, in this chapter, and in the preceding one, have been addressed.