A Cognitive Perspective On Boundary-Spanning IS Design

Dr. Susan GassonAssistant ProfessorCollege of IS & TDrexel University

An Investigation of Boundary-Spanning IS Design

The nature of organizational IS design and the role of boundary-spanning knowledge management in high-level design.

Traditional (decompositional) process model vs. convergence model of design process.

Three views of design as social cognition. Research study: participant observation and ethnographic

data collection of boundary-spanning design process in organizational context over period of 18 months.

[If time] SSM as a tool for surfacing implicit understanding. Research findings: the nature of a boundary-spanning design

process.

Boundary-Spanning, Enterprise-Level IS Design

Organizational IS design is viewed here as a high-level, conceptualization process: The giving of form to an organizational IS Involves the co-design of business and IT systems Distinct from the low-level “design” stage of SDLC.

Involves knowledge sharing and negotiation of consensus across multiple knowledge domains or organizational boundaries.

Product engineering manager

Financial accounting manager

IS managerBid

process manager

Marketing manager Operations

finance manager

Extent of shared understanding

Traditional Model Of Design Process

Individual, rational model of problem-solving (Alexander, 1964). Assumes consensual, objectively-defined set of initial goals

(Simon, 1973). Empirical studies reveal emergent strategies:

“Opportunism” of expert software designers (Guindon, 1990). “Improvisation” in designing IT-related organizational change

(Orlikowski, 1996).

Consensus on organizational

problem and goals for change

Agreed form of IS solution

Gap analysis: process of design

Convergence Model of Design

Framing of organizational

change problem Framing of organizational

change problem Framing of

organizational change problem

Problem Framing of organizational change problem

& goals

Framing of target system

solution

Framing of target system

solution

Framing of target system

solution

Framing of organizational

change problem

Framing of organizational

change problem

Framing of target system

solution

Framing of target system

solution

Framing of target system

solution

Framing of design process goals (gap analysis)

No longer goal-driven, but continual evolution of “gap analysis” between how we understand (frame) the problem and how we

understand (frame) the solution.

Research Question

Does the convergence model offer a convincing alternative to the decompositional model of design and, if so, how does the convergence of problem- and solution-space take place in boundary-spanning group design?

Boundary-Spanning IS Design Process

• Convergence model still deals with individual processes – does this explain collaborative process?

• People are members of multiple social worlds, through their membership of different work and disciplinary groups (Strauss, 1983; Vickers, 1974).

• Organizational "problems" not consensual but emerge through interactions between the various social worlds to which decision-makers belong (Suchman, 1998; Weick, 1998).

Therefore, we need to examine processes of social cognition, to understand collaborative design process.

3 Views Of Social Cognition

Socially-situated cognition: Situated action (Suchman, 1987; 1998): shared work-spaces are

produced through social and contextual interaction; continually redefined.

Cognitive “frame” (Goffman, 1974) – “structures of expectation” guide how people predict and interpret context (Tannen, 1993).

Socially-shared cognition: Shared frames: cognitive "shortcuts" provide shared interpretations of

organization without the need for complex explanations (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Fiol, 1994).

Congruence between “technological frames” (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994).

Distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995): Understanding is not so much shared between, as "stretched over"

members of a cooperative group (Star, 1989). Coordination achieved through “heedful interrelating” (Weick &

Roberts, 1993).

Research Questions

Does the convergence model offer a convincing alternative to the decompositional model of design and, if so, how does the convergence of problem- and solution-space take place in boundary-spanning group design?

IS design as socially situated cognition: How do individuals' design frames interact, to form a group

"framing" of an information system? IS design as socially-shared cognition:

Does a design group develop a shared design-frame over time? If so, what aspects of the design are shared?

IS design as distributed cognition: How does a boundary-spanning design group manage and

mediate distributed design understanding?

Boundary-Spanning Collaboration in The Co-Design of Business and IT Systems

Technicaldivision

Bidresponse

Core designteam

Bidresponse

Bidresponse

Bidresponse

Bid response Product/

customerstrategy

Customer interface & intelligence

Financialstrategy

Productdevelopment

Cost/effortestimation

Productioncapacityplanning

Contractualpolicy

Commercial division

Financedivision

Operationsdivision

Marketing division

Participant observation & ethnographic data collection of group of 7 managers involved in design of IS to support the process of responding to customer invitations to bid for new business:

IS Manager

Process Improvement

Manager

Framing in IS Literature

Concept comes from cognitive psychology Orlikowski & Gash (1994) used concept of “Technological

Frames” to represent different understandings of the role of technology in work.

Davidson (1996, 2002) extended concept to understand how IT system stakeholders understood what IT is required and the role that this would play.

Problem of granularity: this is behavioral and not cognitive research: Frame congruence (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994) – frames are

similar in content and structure (qualitatively coded).

Problem of explicit vs. implicit knowledge about IS: Framing involves implicit knowledge, so employed Soft

Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981) to elicit.

Data Analysis Methods

1. Qualitative coding of “levels of problem decomposition” Analyze goal-orientation and decompositional focus

of group process Qualitative coding of “contributions” to design

meetings at 4 points, distributed throughout design project.

2. Qualitative coding of in-depth interviews, based on SSM (Checkland, 1981), to derive design “framing” concepts employed by individuals.

3. Discourse analysis of design meeting transcripts to understand how distributed understanding was managed.

Research Question

Does the convergence model offer a convincing alternative to the decompositional model of design and, if so, how does the convergence of problem- and solution-space take place in boundary-spanning group design?

Design Was Not Decompositional

Meeting Episode of design

Purpose of meeting Intended level of decomposition1

Average level of decomposition

A 1 overall system purpose & functions 4 - 5 3.28 B 3 detailed design of stage 1 3 3.05 C 5 detailed design of stages 2-6 3 2.75 D 6 implementation of stages 2-6 1 - 2 2.82

1

2

3

4

5High-level design goals

Detailed implementation mechanisms

Predicted Actual Simulated Single Meeting

Research Questions

Does the convergence model offer a convincing alternative to the decompositional model of design and, if so, how does the convergence of problem- and solution-space take place in boundary-spanning group design?

Sub-questions, from a “framing” perspective: How do individuals' design frames interact, to form a group

"framing" of an information system? Does a design group develop a shared design-frame over time?

If so, what aspects of the design are shared? How does a boundary-spanning design group manage and

mediate distributed cognition?

Data Analysis Methods

2. Discourse analysis, to derive design “framing” concepts employed by individuals

Data collected (in interactive interviews) at 3 points: beginning, middle (approx.), and end of design project

Interview questions focused on 3 aspects of design, reflecting the 3 elements of the convergence model: Problem-framing Solution-framing (target system goals and form) Process-tasks required to get from problem to solution

(gap analysis) Employed Soft Systems Methodology techniques

(Checkland, 1981) in interviews, to surface implicit frames/understandings.

SSM Goal Surfacing: 6 Definitions of “Achieve Higher Quality In Bid Process”

E n g i n e e r i n g M a n a g e r

T a k e s a n i n o r d i n a t e a m o u n t o f t i m e t o r e s p o n d t o B i d s w h i c h w a s n o t a l l o w e d f o r i n r e s o u r c e p l a n s

S e n i o r m a n a g e m e n t a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t s e r v i c i n g B i d s s h o u l d a f f e c t b u s i n e s s a s n o r m a l

B i d P r o c e s s M a n a g e r

B i d - p r o c e s s c e n t r e d o n B i d M a n a g e r ’ s r o l e

B i d p r o c e s s h a n d l e d b y b u s i n e s s a s a w h o l e

S e n i o r F i n a n c e M a n a g e r

H i g h d e g r e e o f i n f o r m a l i t y i n B i d p r o c e s s

M o r e m a n a g e d B i d p r o c e s s

P r o c e s s I m p r o v e m e n t ( Q u a l i t y ) M a n a g e r

B u s i n e s s p o s i t i o n a t s t a r t o f b u s i n e s s p r o c e s s r e d e s i g n p r o j e c t , s t r u g g l i n g t o c o p e w i t h v o l u m e o f o r d e r s

B u s i n e s s h a s c h a n g e d : v o l u m e i s n o l o n g e r t h e i s s u e ; q u a l i t y a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f r e s p o n s e i s t h e i s s u e .

P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t A c c o u n t a n t

N a r r o w f o c u s o n g e t t i n g b u s i n e s s

W i d e r f o c u s o n g e t t i n g b u s i n e s s ( n e w c u s t o m e r s a n d / o r n e w p e o p l e a n d / o r n e w t e c h n o l o g y s p e c i f i e d

I S M a n a g e r

I n d i v i d u a l a u t h o r i n g t o o l s u s e d t o g e n e r a t e B i d r e s p o n s e s e c t i o n s , s o n o c o n s i s t e n c y

C o n s i s t e n t ‘ l o o k a n d f e e l ’ a c h i e v e d f o r a l l s e c t i o n s o f B i d r e s p o n s e s

Example SSM Root Definition For Process-Task

Identify mutual problems with Bid response process

Report on progress and gain management buy-in for required changes

Allocate processes

Management: monitor progress in problem resolution

Identify appropriate people to analyse these processes

Identify processes which bound Bid response process

Identify someone to own process improvements

Implement required process changes

Monitor progress in tackling mutual problems

Project boundaries are to

limited to fully achieve objectives of process

Those processes which interface with Bidding process are improved

Root Definition: A system owned by the Managing Director where the Team leader identifies which processes need analyzing and obtain resources for this for the benefit of the people who operate the Bid response process and customers. This is necessary because the Bid response process is bound up in other business processes. It is constrained by the subsequent impact on wider processes which interface with any process that interfaces with the Bid process.

How do individuals' design frames interact, to form a group "framing" of an information system?

Organizational problem frames noticeable convergence of individuals’ framing-perspectives.

Target system goals converged to some extent towards the middle of the project appeared to converge superficially towards the end

use of common metaphors, e.g. "electronic document library" but differed widely in meanings attached to metaphors overall, little convergence at the level of individual

understanding Design tasks required (gap analysis)

diverged widely at all stages.

Product engineering manager

Financial accounting manager

IS managerBid

process manager

Marketing manager Operations

finance manager

Extent of shared understanding

Does a design group develop a shared design-frame over time? If so, what aspects of the design are shared?

The use of shared metaphors in defining system goals or aspects of a solution did not indicate a shared understanding of what those goals/solutions entailed.

What was shared was an understanding of how the problem on which the group was focusing was structured e.g. the use of the phrase “the big-arrow, little-arrow concept”

indicated a shared understanding that the team’s problem was to find a way of defining the Bid process so that it was aligned with, but separate and parallel to the product lifecycle process.

But problem definitions were discarded when they caused perceived dissonance with individual frames.

Replaced by more sophisticated problem-structure that embodied some elements of previous structure, but also replaced other elements.

Does a design group develop a shared design-frame over time? If so, what aspects of the design are shared?

VAGUE TARGET SYSTEM GOALS

SHARED PROBLEM DEFINITION

Initial problem definition

Modified problem definition 1

Modified problem definition 2

Modified problem definition 3 . . .

Perceived path of design

Actual path of design

Changing Project Scope

At each change in direction: Revised, organizational change goals Emerging information about

organizational processes

Existing problem definition

Discarded, partial problems & goals

Revised design problem definition

• Very different from the traditional model, design was driven by shared problem-frames, not shared goals.

How does a boundary-spanning design group manage and mediate distributed design understanding?

Through understanding problems in common, the group was able to develop sufficient levels of trust that they could delegate responsibility for parts of the solution definition, when this was too complex for one person to understand in detail: "I know that Peter wants to fix the same things that I

want to fix, so I'll trust him to sort out his end of the system [personnel training]".

How Do Groups Manage Distributed Knowledge In Design?

Shared attitudes and beliefs towards the design (why are we doing this and how do we want to change the company? – built through developing shared problem-structures) guide shared interpretations of the organizational environment. This permits groups to negotiate distributed understanding of

design tasks and how to perform them. Negotiation is facilitated by the use of boundary objects (e.g.

design models), that capture and communicate a joint knowledge of the design that is greater than the knowledge of any individual.

Knowledge of who knows what allows group to distribute work effectively among themselves. Appears to be established through individual “specialization” in

specific application-domain areas, during the design process.

Research Question

Does the convergence model offer a convincing alternative to the decompositional model of design and, if so, how does the convergence of problem- and solution-space take place in boundary-spanning group design?

Questions?