PhD course - Complex Systems Thinking and Systems of Systems Management in IS

Lecturers:

Prof. John L. King (PhD)

Prof. Kalle Lyytinen (PhD)

Prof. Vlad Fomin (PhD)

Prof. Dr. Roman Beck

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Koenig

Date(s) of the course:
May 5 and May 6, 2014

Time:
8:30 AM-5:30 PM

Place:
The course takes place at the Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Nature and Purpose of Course:
The world as we know it today is characterized by complicated, sometimes complex social-technical systems, which surround us at every moment. We are integrated in communication networks, computer-mediated social networks, integrated billing and payment system, multi-modal transport systems, smart power grids and many more systems and infrastructures, which as it seem effortlessly support our modern life. The same interlaced network of integrated systems can be found in commercial environments, where enterprise resource planning systems, supply chain management system, financial transaction systems and many more have to work together in an interactive, automated or semi-automated way. These systems have grown over several decades now and enable and support our modern way of life, but they are not static but constantly changing. Maturing systems are decommissioned, new systems are added, old-er systems are revitalized, additional functionalities are added to existing systems and so on which has created a complicated network of heterogeneous systems of different age, quality, reliability, performance etc. which may develop their own dynamics.

Due to constant market changes and technological progress, organizations are under institutional pressure to adapt their systems in order to stay competitive, which is especially a critical issue in markets characterized by high environmental turbulence. In such situations, systems requirements are also constantly changing which is creating complicated and complex problems for IT architects, systems designers, and senior IT decision makers. Being human, we all act under bounded rationality which makes it increasingly more challenging to totally grasp the width, depth, and interrelations of IS systems.

In a technological society, such an environment is getting more complex since the existing systems are increasingly interconnected. While individuals are paying with their smart phones, watching Internet-TV, or calling friends via voice-over-IP, companies use integrated systems for business intelligence or orchestrate complicated service sourcing networks with their vendors. Thus, understanding systems of systems is becoming increasingly crucial for prudent management emerging IS risks. Since we have introduced new, interconnected systems at an amazing rate in the last decade, we somewhat diverted our attention away from evaluating and assessing the impact. Similar to the financial services sector, where regulatory authorities believed that monitoring risk at bank level would be enough to control for systemic risks in the overall financial market, we have been equally successful in IS in quantifying all kinds of risks on business process or firm level, but not from an integrated, systemic IS infrastruc-ture point of view.

While we have accepted and enjoyed the advents of interconnected information systems, we have not rigorously enough asked ourselves if we have answers to solve the accompanying more unwelcome consequences. What can fail in systems of systems? Can we measure and predict the likelihood that systems failure will take place? How can we deal with the consequences and impact such a failure will have on individual, organizational and social well being? Why is it so difficult to manage systems of systems and what need to be done to improve it? Is there a way to predict the impact of today’s system adoption decisions on future digital options?

The aim of this PhD course is to build the foundations of system thinking to get a better handle on the systems of systems management, The participants will work on the philosophical grounding of complex system thinking and will develop scenarios how system thinking can improve IS management in this regard. The aforementioned list of question is not conclusive but provides first guidance to enter the field.

General Course Readings

Michael C. Jackson (2003) Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

In addition, it is expected that the relevant literature is read (see recommended readings below)

Session Assignments

The following topics will be assigned to the participants:

1. Roots of Systems Thinking

Introduces the systems language and philosophical roots and connects them with related early work in IS. Generally speaking, a system is a complex con-glomerate which functioning depends on its parts and the interactions between those parts. This definition, however, leaves a lot of open space for interpretation concerning different types of systems (such as physical, biological, designed, social, information). Here the systems language and the philosophical roots are introduced and related to early work in IS.

2. Applied Systems Thinking

Considers the development of applied systems thinking and discusses the dif-ferent systems approaches which arose until the mid of the last century. In so doing, the various requirements originating from higher complexity will be discussed. Until the midst of last century, Systems Thinking research has been criticized for its solely theoretical and philosophical nature. Here the different systems approaches which arose during that time are discussed and the originating requirements for complex systems thinking are inferred. From this discussion, various system approaches with managerial implications resulted, overcoming the aforementioned criticism. Finally, these managerial applications are introduced.

3. Hard Systems Thinking

Considers the nature and limitations of what has been called ‘hard systems thinking’ and then looks how in the second half of the last century the weak-nesses of hard systems thinking were overcome. During the midst of the past century the term "hard systems thinking" was found for various systems approaches solving real-world problems. Models, in hard systems thinking, are designed to capture the essential features of the real world. Sometimes these will be regularities in behavior, which detailed observation and measurement reveal in particular types of socio-technical system. At other times, the sys-tems practitioner will have to rely on insight and whatever incomplete infor-mation that happens to be available. Applying the scientific methods to real-world problem, however, revealed limitations of hard systems thinking (reconsidering one of its main tenets "reductionism" for "holism" in the context of socio-technical problems). Here the hard systems applicability and its limits in the context of IS are discussed. Finally, it is outlined how the weaknesses of hard systems thinking were overcome during the second half of last century.

4. System Dynamics

Illustrates the foundations of modern applied systems thinking and introduces related work from IS research. Developed in the 1950s, system dynamics deals with the understanding of the behavior of complex systems over time. In systems with high interdependencies it is insufficient to only analyze parts of the system separately and to discount for mutual effects. Therefore, SD is a holistic transdisciplinary approach accounting for feedback and causality between the parts of a system to model system complexity. In the area of IS, system dynamics can be applied on diffusion models to analyze diffusion of new IT-services as well as to gain insights into the performance of an information system.

5. Organizational Cybernetics

Discusses the cybernetic concept of black box, negative feedback, and variety as prerequisite to improve complex systems. Defined as science of effective organization, organizational cybernetics helps to understand and improve sys-tems, like organizations that are characterized by extreme complexity and self-regulation. Complex systems have a recursive nature which refers to the fact that systems exist in hierarchies, and that the organizational form of higher level systems can be found repeated in the parts. However, to overcome complexity is to realize and address its existence by gathering knowledge about how regulation, control, and communication function in every form of system within organizations needs to be applied.

6. Complexity Theory

Introduces complexity theory with focus on aspects of organizational chal-lenges such as disorder, irregularity and randomness in IS systems. Complexity theory, exerting a holistic view, focuses attention on aspects of organiza-tional life such as disorder, irregularity, and randomness. It accepts instability, change and unpredictability and offers appropriate advice on how to act. Alt-hough it offers implications for agile project management showing benefits in agile work environments such as IT development, it has been criticized for limited applicability to the complex evolving systems in real-world. Here these different advantages and limitations are presented and inferences for the IS re-search are made.

7. Strategic Assumptions Surfacing and Testing

Discussing and dealing with wicked problems using SAST as systems meth-odology. In the late 1970s, the development of a systems methodology was started, that was meant to be employed when managers and their advisers are confronted by wicked problems. Wicked problems are characterized by being interconnected and complicated further by lack of clarity about purposes, conflict, uncertainty about the environment and societal constraints. In tackling wicked problems, problem structuring assumes greater importance than problem-solving using conventional techniques. Here the significance of the SAST from its beginning up to its current significance in modern IT development is outlined.

8. Soft Systems

Discusses the soft systems approach as developed by Checkland and connects this with related research in IS. Overcoming the strictly ‘goal-seeking’ character of management concepts, Peter Checkland introduced the concept of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). SSM is a methodology, setting out principles for the use of methods, that enables intervention in illstructured problem situations where relationship maintaining is at least as important as goal-seeking and answering questions about ‘what’ we should do as significant as determin-ing ‘how’ to do it. The success of SSM has been central to the soft systems revolution which has liberated systems thinking from the intellectual straight-jacket in which it was locked and, at the same time, has made it much more relevant to managers. Today, SSM is used by both academics and practitioners, is important in a number of applied disciplines, especially in IS. Here the benefits of the soft systems approach are laid out and the various soft system methodologies relevant to the field of IS are introduced.

9. Critical Systems Heuristics

Introduces critical systems heuristics as a practically orientated, emancipatory systems approach that can ensure planning and decision-making including a critical dimension. With CSH a systems approach, for the first time, takes the need to counter possible unfairness in society into consideration by ensuring that all those affected by decisions have a role in making them. In so doing, it established emancipatory systems thinking and provided it with a methodology that can be used by planners and concerned citizens alike to reveal and challenge the normative content of actual and proposed systems designs. It is a practically-orientated, emancipatory systems approach that can ensure planning and decision-making include a critical dimension, and can enable the designs emanating from other systems approaches, whether hard or soft, to be suitably interrogated to reveal whose interests they serve. In this part the view of CSH on the other various systems approaches is illustrated and its applicability to various aspects in the IS (such as conduction of field studies and planning IS) are discussed.

10. Postmodern Systems Thinking

Discusses the systemic modernism and critical modernism manifestations of system thinking. As opposed to the aforementioned system approaches, post-modernists emphasize the incommensurable, accepting multiple interpretations of the world and tolerance of divergence. They want to ensure diversity and encourage creativity by reclaiming conflict and bringing marginalized voices forward to be heard. Postmodernism offers little security. Rather it thrives on instability, disruption, disorder, contingency, paradox, and indeterminacy. As such, postmodern systems thinking offer concepts for, e.g., IT in high-risk pro-jects or introduce the concept of ethics in IS. The development of postmodern systems thinking, its benefits and limits in the context of IS are discussed.

11. Total System Intervention

Discusses total systems intervention as new approach to planning, designing, problem-solving and evaluation of critical systems thinking. Exceeding the highly theoretical and philosophical approach of critical systems thinking (CST), total systems intervention (TSI) provides guidelines for applying CST in practice by offering a new approach to planning, designing, problem-solving and evaluation. Here, the combined multi-methodology of TSI and its analysis of system failures as well as its application to information systems is discussed.

Program:

Monday 5th May

Tuesday 6th May

 Recommended reading:

• Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a System of Systems Concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661-671.
• Anderson, P., Meyer, A., Eisenhardt, K., Carley, K., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Introduction to the Special Issue: Applications of Complexity Theory to Organization Science. Organization Science, 10(3), 233-236.
• Avison, D. E., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1991). Information Systems Development Research: An Exploration of Ideas in Practice. The Computer Journal, 34(2), 98-112.
• Bardhan, I., Demirkan, H., Kannan, P., Kauffman, R., & Sougstad, R. (2010). An Interdisciplinary Perspective on IT Services Management and Service Science. J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 26(4), 13-64.
• Barrett, S. S. (1986). Strategic Alternatives and Inter-Organizational System Implementations: An Overview. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1(3), 5-16.
• Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2012). Critical systemic thinking as a foundation for information systems research practice. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 10(3), 144-155.
• Boynton, A. C., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Information Technology Planning in the 1990's: Directions for Practice and Research. MIS Quarterly, 11(1), 59-71.
• Braa, J., Hanseth, O., Heywood, A., Mohammed, W., & Shaw, V. (2007). Developing Health Information Systems in Developing Countries: The Flexible Standards Strategy. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 31(2), 301 - 402.
• Brocklesby, J. (1994). Let the jury decide: Assessing the cultural feasibility of total systems intervention. Systems practice, 7(1), 75-86.
• Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Jr., R. J. B. (2012). Dialectics of Collective Minding: Contradictory Appropriations of Information Technology in a High-Risk Project. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 36(4), 1081-1108.
• Checkland, P. (1981). System Thinking, System Practice. Chichester, Suxxex: John Wiley and Son.
• Checkland, P. (1985). Achieving 'Desirable and Feasible' Change: An Application of Soft Systems Methodology. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 821-831.
• Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective: {John Wiley & Sons}.
• Checkland, P. B. (1988). Information systems and systems thinking: Time to unite? International Journal of Information Management, 8(4), 239-248.
• Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations Research as a Profession. Management Science, 17(2), B37-B53.
• Clegg, B., & Shaw, D. (2008). Using process-oriented holonic (PrOH) modelling to increase understanding of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 18(5), 447-477.
• Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91-112.
• Corbett, C. J., & Wassenhove, L. N. v. (1993). The Natural Drift: What Happened to Operations Research? Operations Research, 41(4), 625-640.
• Córdoba, J.-R., & Midgle, G. (2008). Beyond organisational agendas: using boundary critique to facilitate the inclusion of societal concerns in information systems planning. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 125-142.
• Cukier, W., Ngwenyama, O., Bauer, R., & Middleton, C. (2009). A critical analysis of media discourse on information technology: preliminary results of a proposed method for critical discourse analysis. Information Systems Journal, 19(2), 175-196.
• Dutta, A. (2001). Business Planning for Network Services: A Systems Thinking Approach. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 260-283.
• Ericson, R. F. (1969). The Impact of Cybernetic Information Technology on Management Value Systems. Management Science, 16(2), B-40-B-60.
• Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in Fast-Response Organizations. Management Science, 52(8), 1155-1169.
• Flood, R. L. (1995). Total Systems Intervention (TSI): A Reconstitution. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(2), 174-191.
• Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking. Systems practice, 4(3), 197-213.
• Georgantzas, N. C., & Katsamakas, E. G. (2008). Information systems research with system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 24(3), 247-264.
• Gregory, W. (1996). Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems thinking. Systems practice, 9(6), 605-625.
• Hackathorn, R. D., & Karimi, J. (1988). A Framework for Comparing Information Engineering Methods. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 203-220.
• Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information Systems Developement and Data Modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jackson, M. C. (1983). The Itinerary of a Critical Approach. In W. Ulrich (Ed.), Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. A New Approach to Practical Philosophy (Vol. 9, pp. 878-881). Bern, Switzerland: Operational Research Society.
• Jackson, M. C. (2001). Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 233-244.
• Jackson, M. C. (2009). Fifty years of systems thinking for management. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(1).
• Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a System of Systems Methodologies. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35(6), 473-486.
• Kennedy, M. (2001). The role of System Dynamics Models in improving the Information Systems Investment Appraisal in respect of Process Improvement Projects. Paper presented at the Nineteenth International System Dynamics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93.
• Kottemann, J. E., & Konsynski, B. R. (1984). Information Systems Planning and Developement: Strategiv Postures and Methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1(2), 45-63.
• Kuhn, A. J. (1988). System design for performance control and deregulation: ‘Steersmanship’ in the new environment. Technovation, 8(1–3), 87-109.
• Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489-509.
• Mitroff, I. I., Emshoff, J. R., & Kilmann, R. H. (1979). Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving. Management Science, 25(6), 583-593.
• Nakamura, T., & Kijima, K. (2011). Total System Intervention for System Failures and Its Application to Information and Communication Technology Systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(5), 553-566.
• Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Commun. ACM, 48(5), 72-78.
• Ormerod, R. (2005). Putting Soft OR Methods to Work: The Case of IS Strategy Development for the UK Parliament. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(12), 1379-1398.
• Reisman, A., & Oral, M. (2005). Soft Systems Methodology: A Context Within a 50-Year Retrospective of OR/MS. Interfaces, 35(2), 164-178.
• Remenyi, D., White, T., & Sherwood-Smith, M. (1997). Information systems management: The need for a post-modern approach. International Journal of Information Management, 17(6), 421-435.
• Richards, L. D., & Gupta, S. K. (1985). The Systems Approach in an Information Society: A Reconsideration. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 833-843.
• Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching Dynamic Feedback Systems Thinking: An Elementary View. Management Science, 24(8), 836-843.
• Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B., & Rebeck, K. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 5-16.
• Sarker, S., Fuller, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2009). Ethical Information Systems Development: A Baumanian Postmodernist Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(11), 787-815.
• Sawy, O. A. E., & Nanus, B. (1989). Toward the Design of Robust Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 5(4), 33-54.
• Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477-495.
• Ulrich, W. (1988). Systems thinking, systems practice, and practical philosophy: A program of research. Systems practice, 1(2), 137-163.
• Vidgen, R. (1997). Stakeholders, soft systems and technology: separation and mediation in the analysis of information system requirements. Information Systems Journal, 7(1), 21-46.
• Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111(2872), 23-29.
• Warren, L., & Adman, P. (1999). The use of critical systems thinking in designing a system for a university information systems support service. Information Systems Journal, 9(3), 223-242.
• Yeo, K. T. (2002). Critical failure factors in information system projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 241-246.

Exam:

1. Write a paper based on the assigned literature. Furthermore, it is required that the students will explore further examples of recently published systems of systems and systems thinking related literature in IS and to illustrate the research approaches and contributions of these papers. 
2. Provide a 25 minutes presentation including a handout for the course participants. Here, the students present the major findings of the assigned literature to the audience. The presentation should cover. 
   • summary & key point(s) 
   • research question answered 
   • perspective on systems of systems thinking in IS 
   • What is this paper useful for? 
   • 2-3 points for discussion in class 
3. Prepare an assigned session. Here, the students have to conduct a literature review prior to the seminar an present the results of their research.
4. Acting as discussant for assigned session. Here, every student has to prepare comments on session topic and acts as discussant for the presenters.

Credits:
5 ECTS (for course participation, working on the assigned project and writing the as-signed paper, readings, paper-presentation, response, course moderation and discus-sion preparation, final paper). Course preparation: 122 hours. Course participation: 18 hours

How to sign up:
Please consult the website of the course.