activity-driven needs analysis - connecting repositories · 2014. 1. 8. · irmeli luukkonen...

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences

isbn 978-952-61-0831-5

Irmeli Luukkonen

Activity-Driven Needs Analysis and Modeling in Information Systems Development

Activity-Driven (AD) information

systems development (ISD) starts

by analyzing and modeling the work

activities where the information

systems are and will be used. In this

thesis, AD needs analysis and mod-

eling, as part of the development of

the AD approach, were studied in

relation to ISD in user organizations.

Empirical studies were carried on in

healthcare organizations in Finland,

China, and Mozambique. The re-

search increased the understanding

of the AD approach as a whole. The

results show that the AD approach is

well suited to starting-point analysis

to capture a shared overview and

understanding.

dissertatio

ns | 074 | Ir

meli L

uu

kk

on

en | A

ctivity-Driven

Need

s An

alysis a

nd

Mo

delin

g in In

form

atio

n S

ystems D

evelopm

ent

Irmeli LuukkonenActivity-Driven Needs Analysis

and Modeling in InformationSystems Development

IRMELI LUUKKONEN

Activity-Driven Needs Analysis and Modeling in

Information Systems Development


No 74

Academic Dissertation To be presented by permission of the Faculty of Science and Forestry for public

examination in Auditorium L22 in the Canthia Building at the University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, on June 27th, 2012 at 12 o’clock noon.

School of Computing

Kopijyvä

Kuopio,2012 Editors: Profs. Pertti Pasanen and Pekka Kilpeläinen

Distribution:

University of Eastern Finland Library / Sales of publications P.O.Box 107, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland

tel. +358-50-3058396 http//www.uef.fi/kirjasto

ISBN: 978-952-61-0830-8 (Print)

ISSNL: 1798-5668 ISSN: 1798-5668

ISBN: 978-952-61-0831-5 (PDF)

ISSN: 1798-5676

Author’s address University of Eastern Finland School of Computing P.O. Box 1627 70211 KUOPIO FINLAND email: [email protected] Supervisors University Lecturer Anne Eerola, PhD

University of Eastern Finland School of Computing P.O. Box 1627 70211 KUOPIO FINLAND

email:[email protected] Docent Mikko Korpela, DTech. University of Eastern Finland School of Computing P.O. Box 1627 70211 KUOPIO FINLAND email: [email protected] Advisor Anja Mursu, Dr. Econ. Salivirta & Partners Oy Kauppakatu 28 40100 JYVÄSKYLÄ FINLAND email: [email protected]

Reviewers Professor Tero Päivärinta, PhD

Luleå University of Technology Computer and Systems Science Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering 97 187 LULEÅ SWEDEN

Professor Susanne Bødker, Dr.Scient. Aarhus University

Faculty of Science Department of Computer Science 8200, AARHUS N DENMARK

Opponent Professor Kari Kuutti, PhD University of Oulu

Faculty of Science Department of Information Processing Science P.O. Box 3000 90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND

ABSTRACT

Increasingly complex information systems are used for supporting work in organizations. The development of the systems is not only the concern of software providers, but especially the early phases of development are an issue in user organizations. Cooperatively obtained shared understanding of the needs for information systems should be a basis for the development. However, gaining a shared understanding between the different types of actors is challenging, especially when the starting point analysis should be rather quick. The methodological support for the viewpoint of user organizations in information systems development is scanty, and the starting point of development is obscure. The Activity-Driven approach to information systems development has been proven to be supportive for the developers’ view in earlier studies. This thesis studies the potential of the Activity-Driven approach in the development of the information systems of user organizations. The objective is to support those who plan the information systems development in user organizations or are involved in development activities in one role or another.

The user organization viewpoint and its stakeholders and concerns were mainly researched in the healthcare domain. Healthcare is a multifaceted domain, where information plays a critical role, and the requirements for the quality of information systems are high. The empirical materials were obtained by action research in several healthcare organizations in Finland, complemented by case studies in China and Mozambique and a web-based inquiry concerning process modeling in organizations.

The results show that the Activity-Driven tools for analysis and modeling (tables, diagrams, and stories) support the early phases of information systems development: domain exploration and needs analysis. The AD approach also supports the planning of the early phases and modeling. The options for further research include improving the core of the approach by increasing the maturity of the approach and expanding the

approach with sound interlinkages with enterprise architecting and detailed requirements specification.

AMS Classification: 68M01, 68U35

Universal Decimal Classification: 004.415

INSPEC Thesaurus: information systems; systems engineering; systems analysis; modeling; organizational aspects; health care

Yleinen suomalainen asiasanasto: systeemityö; tietojärjestelmät; suunnittelu; kehittäminen; käyttäjät; tarpeet; mallintaminen; toiminnan teoria; toimintatutkimus; terveydenhuolto

Acknowledgements

During the years of research, a large number of great people have provided their valuable time, insights, and efforts that made the research possible. I would like to express my deep gratitude to them all.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors for their guidance, support, and trust during the research. Dr. Anne Eerola encouraged me to start my PhD studies and brought up the user organizations’ perspective on information systems development as an interesting topic for research, and supported my research all through the process. Dr. Anja Mursu and Dr. Mikko Korpela familiarized me with Activity Theory. Anja guided me during the first half of the research in the ZipIT project and Mikko during the latter half, specifically in pushing me forward to finalize the thesis. Mikko also made it possible for me to conduct research in China and Mozambique. I appreciate their rich insights into software engineering, information systems, healthcare information systems development, and Activity Theory.

Professor Susanne Bødker and Professor Tero Päivärinta kindly accepted the role of reviewer and Professor Kari Kuutti kindly promised to take on the role of the opponent. I would like to present my gratitude for their efforts and feedback on my work.

The research was framed by the ZipIT, China-Finland eHealthPartnership, SOLEA, ISD4D, and INDEHELA projects, funded by the Finnish Agency of Technology and Innovation (TEKES), the Finnish Work Environment Fund, the Academy of Finland, and several Finnish companies and healthcare organizations. The Finnish Concordia Fund, Ulla Tuomisen Säätiö, and Finnish Work Environment Fund supported my research with stipends. I wish to acknowledge the funders, and also the School of Computing at the University of Eastern

Finland (earlier the Department of Computer Science and the HIS R&D Unit at the University of Kuopio) for providing me with the opportunity to conduct this research.

The research network included co-researchers from the University of Eastern Finland, Savonia University of Applied Sciences, the University of Tampere, and Aalto University in Finland, Cape Peninsula University of Technology in South Africa, Eduardo Mondlano University in Mozambique, and Obafemi Awolowo University in Nigeria. I would like to thank all my co-researchers and co-writers within the research groups, as well as the colleagues and friends with whom I have had the pleasure of working: Anneli, Antto, Esa, Hannu, Heidi, Heli, Hellevi, Janne, Joonas, Juho, Kari, Liisa, Maritta, Merja, Mika, Pauliina, Pirkko, Päivi, Ritva, Saara, Tanja, Timo, Tuula, and others. Particularly, my warmest thanks go to my long-term sister in research, Marika Toivanen, who has been close to me in research and as a friend. She has been the one most capable of putting my thoughts in order when they were confused. I would also like to thank my other sisters in research, Dr. Tuija Tiihonen, Susanna Martikainen, Marilla Palmén, and Vilma Vainikainen, for their inspiring spirit and for believing in my research. I would like to present my deep appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Juha Mykkänen and Dr. Kaija Saranto for the research cooperation and for their support. Special thanks also go to Jiechen Jiang, who was an invaluable co-researcher and guide in Shanghai, and to the INDEHELA network researchers.

The research data were gathered from several healthcare organizations in Finland, China, and Mozambique, and I would like to thank all the participants from Kuopio University Hospital, the City of Kuopio, the Municipality of Sotkamo, East Hospital, Weifang Community Health Center, and the Bilene-Macia health center for their valuable time and insights into the work activities and use of information that relate to home healthcare, inpatient care, radiology, maternal healthcare, and healthcare information systems development, amongst others. Special thanks also go to the students of the Intensive Course on Health Information Systems Development and Implementation.

My final words of thanks go to my family for their support and trust, and for bringing balance and joy into my life. I am deeply grateful to my mother, Sylvi, who taught me to get down to work, my sister Pirjo, who listened me in both the dark and cheerful moments, and my brother Jukka, who, maybe without knowing so himself, gave me the idea of starting my studies of computer science at the university. Special thanks go to our children, Otto and Jenni, and Laura and Mertsi, who have grown up as independent and smart adults. My dearest thanks go to my beloved husband Lars for all the navigation, patience, and love – and for building The Boat.

Kuopio, 28 May, 2012 Irmeli Luukkonen

LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS This thesis is based on the following six original articles. The articles are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals I–VI. The publications have been included at the end of the printed version of this thesis with permission by their copyright holders.

I. Minkkinen I, Eerola A. Improving requirements engineering from the client’s perspective in the health care domain. In: Hasselbring W, ed. Proceedings of the International Association of Science and Technology for Development (IASTED) International Conference on Software Engineering as part of the 25th IASTED International Multi-Conference on Applied Informatics, Innsbruck, Austria, February 13–15, 2007, pp. 93–98. Anaheim: Acta Press, 2007.

II. Luukkonen I, Toivanen M, Mursu A, Saranto K, Korpela M. Researching Activity-Driven Approach for Information Systems Development. In Miranda IM, Cruz-Cunha MM, and Gonçalves P. (eds.) Handbook of Research on ICTs for Healthcare and Social Services: Developments and Applications. IGI Global, 2013 (in press).

III. Luukkonen I, Korpela M, Mykkänen J. Modelling approaches in the early phases of information systems development. In: Alexander T, Turpin M, van Deventer JP, eds. IT to Empower – 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010), Pretoria, June 6–9, 2010.

IV. Luukkonen I, Korpela M, Mursu A. Studying the Applicability of Methods – Activity Driven Needs Analysis Applied to Maternity Pathway in Pudong, Shanghai. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Ubiquitous Healthcare and Supporting Services (UBI-HEALTH’10), May 31 – June 2, 2010, Shanghai, China, 2011.

V. Luukkonen I, Saranto K, Korpela M. 2011. Assessing the Role of a Site Visit in Adopting Activity Driven Methods. In: Moen A, Andersen SK, Aarts J, Hurlen P (eds.), Proceedings of the XXII European Medical Informatics Conference (MIE 2011), User Centred Networked Health Care. IOS PRess BV. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 169. pp. 422–426.

VI. Luukkonen I, Mykkänen J. Analyzing Process Modeling as Work Activity. In Proceedings of the 35th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS2012), August 17–20, 2012, Sigtuna, Sweden (to appear).

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE JOINT PAPERS

For all the papers, I was the corresponding writer. I wrote the majority of the papers and provided the literature review. Paper II was written jointly with Marika Toivanen. The empirical materials for the paper were gained in several research projects conducted jointly in research groups. As for the conference papers, I presented the papers at conferences.

Paper I. The empirical material was based on the work of a research group in the ZipIT project (action research). For this paper, the research was designed and outlined jointly with Anne Eerola. The author analyzed the data and wrote the article, while Anne Eerola commented on the paper and supervised the writing process. The paper was presented by the author at the IASTED 2007 conference.

Paper II. The constructive analysis was conducted and the paper written jointly with Marika Toivanen. Anja Mursu mainly contributed to the section concerning business applications of the AD approach, Kaija Saranto mainly contributed the section concerning early teaching experiences, and Mikko Korpela commented on the paper generally. The author coordinated the writing and the publication process. The paper is to be part of the PhD theses of Irmeli Luukkonen and Marika Toivanen.

Paper III. For Paper III, the author conducted the literature survey, designed the conceptual analysis, and wrote the manuscript. Juha Mykkänen mainly commented on the issues regarding traditional modeling approaches and Mikko Korpela commented on the issues concerning socio-technical approaches and edited the manuscript. The paper was presented by the author at the ECIS 2010 conference.

Paper IV. The empirical materials for this paper were based on the research conducted in the China-Finland eHealthPartnership project, which was planned and conducted jointly with the research group. For this paper, the author outlined the manuscript and wrote the article. The co-authors commented on and edited the paper. The paper was presented by the author at the UBI-HEALTH’10 workshop (International

Workshop on Ubiquitous Healthcare and Welfare Services and Supporting Technologies). The author also organized the e-publication of the paper through SPROUTS (SPROUTS: Working Papers in Information Systems).

Paper V. The author made the research plan, conducted the data gathering and analysis, wrote the manuscript, and organized the publication process. Kaija Saranto and Mikko Korpela commented on the paper, and Mikko Korpela edited the paper. The paper was presented by the author at the MIE conference.

Paper VI. The author made the research plan, conducted the literature survey on process modeling, constructed the concept for the data gathering, organized the research experiment and analysis, wrote the manuscript, and organized the publication process. Juha Mykkänen commented on all the research phases. The paper will be presented by the author at the IRIS conference (Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACM Association for Computing Machinery ActAD Activity Analysis and Development AD Activity-Driven ADM Architecture Development Model AT Activity Theory BPM Business Process Management BPMN Business Process Modeling Notation BPR Business Process Re-engineering CIO Chief Information Officer CSCW Computer Supported Cooperative Work DWR Developmental Work Research EA Enterprise Architecture ETHICS Effective Technical & HCI Human Computer Interaction ICT Information and Communication Technology IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers INDEHELA Informatics Development for Health in Africa IS Information Systems (dicipline) ISD Information Systems Development IT Information Technology PD Participatory Design RE Requirements Engineering SE Software Engineering SOA Service Oriented Architecture SSM Soft Systems Methodology SWD Software development TOGAF The Open Group Architecture Framework UEF University of Eastern Finland UML Unified Modeling Language WA Work Activity WD Work Development

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1 1.1 Motivation and background..................................................... 1 1.2 Research objective and research questions ............................ 3 1.3 Structure of the thesis ................................................................ 5

2 Theoretical background .............................................................. 7 2.1 Information system .................................................................... 8 2.2 Enterprise architecture ............................................................ 10 2.3 Information systems development ........................................ 12 2.3.1 Technical approach: software-centric....................................... 13 2.3.2 Socio-technical approach: information systems and work development ......................................................................................... 14 2.3.3 Enterprise Architecture: managing IT and business alignment 16 2.4 Activity Theory in ISD ............................................................ 17 2.4.1 Applications of AT in ISD ....................................................... 18 2.4.2 Work Activity .......................................................................... 19 2.4.3 Activity-Driven approach to ISD ............................................ 20 2.5 Stakeholders and viewpoints ................................................. 23 2.6 Models and modeling ............................................................. 26 2.7 Requirements for modeling and models in user organizations ..................................................................................... 28

3 Research approach and process ............................................... 31 3.1 Interpretive research on information systems development 31 3.2 Research environment ............................................................. 35 3.2.1 Applied research projects as research environment ................. 35 3.2.2 Healthcare organizations as the context of the empirical research ................................................................................................ 37 3.3 Research process ...................................................................... 39

4 Summary of the original papers ............................................. 43 4.1 Research papers in relation to the research projects ........... 43

4.2 Paper I. Improving requirements engineering from the client’s perspective in the healthcare domain ............................... 44 4.3 Paper II. Researching Activity-Driven Approach for Information Systems Development ................................................ 46 4.4 Paper III. Modelling approaches in the early phases of information systems development ................................................. 47 4.5 Paper IV. Studying the Applicability of Methods - Activity Driven Needs Analysis Applied to Maternity Pathway in Pudong, Shanghai ............................................................................. 49 4.6 Paper V. Assessing the role of a site visit in adopting Activity Driven methods ................................................................. 50 4.7 Paper VI. Analyzing Process Modelling as Work Activity 52

5 Putting it together ...................................................................... 55 5.1 User organization revisited .................................................... 55 5.1.1 Early phases of ISD ................................................................. 55 5.1.2 Viewpoints and stakeholders .................................................... 56 5.1.3 Modeling .................................................................................. 61 5.2 Activity-Driven Approach summarized .............................. 65 5.3 The potential use of AD approach in user organizations .. 66 5.4 Needs for improvement .......................................................... 69

6 Discussion and future research ............................................... 71 6.1 Responses to the research questions ..................................... 71 6.2 Assessing the research approach and process ..................... 74 6.3 Contribution of the thesis ....................................................... 76 6.3.1 Theoretical contribution .......................................................... 77 6.3.2 Practical contribution .............................................................. 77 6.4 Limitations of the research and future research .................. 78

7 Conclusion .................................................................................. 81

References ......................................................................................... 83

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Examples of Activity-Driven tools Appendix B: List of questions in experimental inquiry on process modeling Appendix C: Original publications

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The elements of the information system in the context of Work Activity ............................................................................... 10 Figure 2. The shared understanding as the basis for requirements ...................................................................................... 15 Figure 3. The shared understanding as a basis for business-IT alignment ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 4. Work activity depicted in the ActAD framework, modified from, e.g., Mursu (2002) .................................................. 20 Figure 5. Activity-Driven ISD Model in a nutshell (modified from Toivanen et al., 2009) .............................................................. 23 Figure 6. ISD as a temporal activity on the border between two organizations (modified from Korpela et al., 2002) ..................... 25 Figure 7. Research cycle in action research ................................... 34 Figure 8. Research projects .............................................................. 37 Figure 9. The basic research ideology of this research ................ 40 Figure 10. The story of my research ............................................... 41 Figure 11. Research projects in relation to the publications ....... 44 Figure 12. Stakeholders and their concerns .................................. 59 Figure 13. Example of stakeholder entry and participation in the ISD process phases ........................................................................... 60 Figure 14. Purpose guides decisions related to modeling .......... 64

Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences No 74 1

1 Introduction

Information systems in organizations are increasingly complex. The development of the systems is not only the concern of software providers, but especially the early phases of development are an issue in user organizations. Unfortunately, the methodological support for the viewpoint of user organizations in information systems development is scanty.

The research aims to support those who plan information systems development in user organizations or are involved in the development activities in one role or another. As an introduction to the research, this chapter presents the background and the research objectives, and the structure of this thesis.

1.1 MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND

In organizations, information is used as a tool in work activities. Information is manipulated and mediated via information systems and is also stored in them. An information system is a socio-technical system that includes both a technical system and a social system interacting with each other and imposing demands on each other (Lee, 2004, p. 11). The purpose of an information system is to support work activities, and assist the achievement of the goals of work. In this thesis, the term “user organization” means the organization in which the information system is used.

Information systems are developed through a process that includes activities for analysis, design, implementation, introduction, and sustained support, as well as process management (Korpela et al., 2000). The development should incorporate the development of the social and technical systems. Computer-based components of a technical system are

Luukkonen I.: Activity-Driven Analysis and Modeling in ISD

2 Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences No 74

developed mainly by software companies, in the software engineering process (e.g., Boehm, 1988). In user organizations, the information systems development is increasingly related to the holistic development of the organization´s business and information technology, known as enterprise architecture development (e.g., Schekkerman, 2004). Modeling is an essential supportive activity in the development of any kind of system. Models are deliverables of modeling activities, and the purpose of models is to facilitate the obtaining of mutual understanding between different types of stakeholders, for instance, users and developers.

Requirements Engineering (RE) is the activity that mediates the needs of the system users to the developers who, in turn, design and build the solutions. Most methods for Requirements Engineering (e.g., Sommerville and Sawyer, 1997; Robertson and Robertson, 1999; Bray, 2002; Yourdon, 1989; Rumbaugh et al., 1999; van Lamsweerde, 2001) are designed for supporting software development.

In complex domains, requirements engineers face challenges in communication with distributed stakeholder groups, taking account of the architecture requirements and business as drivers for the product requirements, and the focus on integration instead of system design, amongst others (Hansen et al., 2009). For example, healthcare is a complex and multifaceted domain. A healthcare service system is composed of multiple types of organizations. An inside view of organizations reveals a multitude of different types of actors, information, and information systems that are highly regulated and governed by legislation. The cooperative work of healthcare professionals includes indeterministic and unpredictable workflows where information plays a significant or even critical role. Information systems face high requirements in terms of quality. Capturing the requirements for such complex systems is difficult.

In practice, the struggle with complexity starts in the “front-end activities” which precede the actual development activities (Hannola, 2009). However, there is a lack of guidance and methods supporting the early phases (Dorn et al., 2007;

Introduction


Hannola, 2009). Specifically, this is the case from the user organization’s perspective. Therefore, the activities preceding or supporting the actual known phases of information system development in user organizations are the focus of this thesis. Preliminary explorations, domain and information needs analysis, and modeling are such activities. They produce relevant information for making decisions as to whether “to go or not to go”, or where deeper analysis is needed.

At the starting point of the research for this thesis, promising results of applying Activity Theory (Hedegaard, 1999) and Developmental Work Research (Engeström, 1987; 2000; 2005) in information systems development had been obtained (Bertelsen and Bødker, S. 2000; Korpela et al., 2004). In relation to the development of healthcare information systems, the theoretical framework, Activity Analysis and Development (ActAD), which was established by Korpela and Mursu (Korpela, 1994; Mursu 2002) was applied as an analytical tool in a few cases for gathering, structuring, and analyzing requirements for software systems by other researchers (Toivanen et al., 2003; Toivanen et al., 2004) and by the present author (Minkkinen, 2004; Minkkinen et al. 2005). The experiences encouraged the choice of the Activity-Driven approach for further research to be studied and further developed in relation to the development of user organizations’ information systems, and healthcare as the main domain where the representatives of user organizations could be found.

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The main objective of this thesis is to study the potential of the Activity-Driven approach and related methods in user organizations’ information systems development and in parallel, improve the maturity of Activity-Driven approach. The problems in utilizing the approach are paid attention in order to identify the needs for improvement of the methods.



The following premises (axioms) based on the previous research experiences and literature, framed the scene for the study at the beginning. That is, the premises are not questioned in the thesis but they place the study into the broad traditions of Information Systems, Participatory Design and Activity Theory. A socio-technical approach and user participation are necessary preconditions for the successful development of information systems (e.g. Mumford, 2000; Bjerknes and Bratteteig, 1995). The Activity-Driven approach (AD approach) is a promising socio-technical approach that has been developed and researched from the viewpoint of the developers of information systems (e.g. Korpela, 1994; Mursu, 2002; Toivanen et al., 2003). However, it is reasonable to think that the user organizations’ perspective differs from that of software engineers’ perspective to ISD. The starting point in any ISD process is fuzzy and there is a need to increase the understanding of those activities, as well as to develop methods suitable for such situations.

On this ground, the AD approach was taken for closed look as a likely candidate to support the user organizations’ viewpoint to information systems development.

The main research question (RQ) is formulated as follows.

RQ: What are the potentials and weaknesses of utilizing the AD approach in the early phases of user organizations’ ISD?

The contribution of this thesis is constructed by considering

the following subquestions (SQ1–4). The two major concepts, the ISD process in user organizations and the AD approach, are addressed in tSQ1 and SQ2. The relationship between these two is addressed in SQ3. SQ4 addresses the developmental needs for the AD approach in order to improve the applicability of the approach in user organizations.

SQ1: What are the main phases in the process of information systems development in user organizations, who are the stakeholders, and what are their concerns regarding ISD?

Introduction


SQ2: How can we define the AD approach and what are its main features, and what are the typical methods of the AD approach like? What distinguishes it from other approaches? SQ3: In what phases and for what purposes can the AD approach be applied in user organizations’ ISD and what problems are there with the utilization? SQ4: What features of the AD approach need to be improved in order to enable it to be applied practically in user organizations?

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

The thesis consists of two parts. Part I comprises the summary of the research and Part II includes the original papers. The background and motivation, as well as the research objectives and research questions, are provided in Chapter 1 to introduce and justify the research. The theoretical part in Chapter 2 deals with the key concepts of this research. The research process is described in Chapter 3, including a description of the research approach and methodology. A summary of the original papers is presented in Chapter 4, as is their relationship to the research projects. The results are discussed in Chapter 5, where the results of the research cycles are re-analyzed and constructed in the light of the main research question. The research process and the theoretical and practical contribution of the research are discussed in Chapter 6, and the ideas directing future research that have emerged are presented. Chapter 7 concludes Part I. There are two Appendices at the end of Part I: Appendix A contains a set of examples of Activity-Driven tools (diagrams, tables, and stories). Appendix B contains the questionnaire for data gathering for Paper VI.


2 Theoretical background

In this chapter the key concepts of the thesis are introduced. The underlying assumptions, philosophies, and values related to the concepts originate from the fundamental disciplines of each of them. The key concepts are interrelated with each other.

Information Systems (IS) is the scientific field that studies information systems. It is a discipline within Computing Sciences. In contrast to Computer Science and Software Engineering, Information Systems is an applied social science that focuses on ”integrating information technology solutions and business processes to meet the information needs of businesses and other enterprises, enabling them to achieve their objectives in an effective, efficient way” (ACM Computing Curricula 2005, p. 14).

An information system is a real-world object that, according to the broad definitions (e.g., Alter 2008; Davis, 2000; Lyytinen and Newman, 2008), is a socio-technical system that includes both a technical system and a social system, and that is used for a specific purpose.

Information Systems Development (ISD) is the process of developing information systems. The Activity-Driven approach belongs to the category of socio-technical ISD deriving from Activity Theory (see Mursu et al., 2007) and it consists of frameworks and tools for modeling and analysis, and working principles, (see also Paper II; Appendix A; and Appendix B). Enterprise Architecture (EA) is a means for the holistic development and management of an enterprise and, specifically, a mechanism for aligning Information Technology (IT) and business (Ross, 2006; Sessions, 2007). Information systems are part of EA, and recently the development of information systems in user organizations has increasingly been engaged with the development of enterprise architecture. Modeling is an essential activity for ISD and EA purposes. Process modeling is a common way of obtaining information about the functionality



of an organization and is used in relation to both ISD and EA. Different viewpoints are needed to relate the different kinds of stakeholders and their concerns that relate to information system development. The key concepts are touched on, with the user organizations’ view to ISD being kept in mind.

2.1 INFORMATION SYSTEM

Information systems are used for manipulating, mediating, and storing information. There is no universal explicit definition of an information system in the literature, but instead numerous definitions that differ from each other (Alter, 2008). Some definitions highlight the technical and computer-related aspects (e.g., Pawlak, 2002, p. 182), while others have a broader scope and include systemic, organizational, and human aspects of information systems (e.g., Davis, 2000; Lee, 2004; Alter, 2008).

The three assumed views of information systems that have different emphases on the social and technical system as components of the information system are defined as technical, social, and socio-technical (e.g., Iivari and Hirschheim, 1996). The technical system includes artifacts used for mediating information (e.g., computers, software, and manual tools) and the interaction between the “hosting” organization and the system is mainly defined by the inputs and outputs. The social system structures the human interaction and includes the means for the interaction, e.g., communication means, practices and rules, the professional or organizational hierarchy, and the division of labor; then the information systems are seen as “…an integral, constitutive part of organizational communication, control, coordination, cooperation and work arrangements and not only as a separate support system…” (Iivari and Hirschheim, 1996, p. 553). The technical and social systems (as interdependent subsystems) interact with each other and impose requirements on each other, and thus comprise a continuous process of transformation, the socio-technical system (Lee, 2004, p. 11; Iivari and Hirschheim, 1996, p. 553).

Theoretical background


In this thesis a socio-technical view is used. Iivari and Hirschheim (1996, p. 552) define an information system as “a computer-supported system which provides a set of people (users) with information on specified topics of interest in a certain organizational context”. Process modeling is a common way of obtaining information about the functionality of an organization and is used in relation to both ISD and EA. Different viewpoints are needed to relate the different kinds of stakeholders and their concerns that relate to information system development. The key concepts are touched on, with the user organizations’ view to ISD being kept in mind. In organizations, work and its purposes constitute the context of the information system. Activity Theory was applied to give a structure to Work Activity (Engeström, 1987), which Kuutti (1991) further suggested to be the primary unit of analysis in developing information systems. Work Activity (WA) is an object-oriented entity and information systems are used as a means either of work or of coordination and communication, and the information technology might be either manual (e.g., paper-based documents) or computer-based communication (e.g., Mursu et. al., 2007). Section 2.3 provides more information about the applications of Activity Theory in ISD and Section 2.4.2 about Work Activity.

Figure 1 presents the author’s interpretation of information systems. The main elements of an information system are people, artifacts, and information entities. The people use information entities in their daily work as tools, e.g., for decision making and cooperation. The objectives of using the information and information system come from Work Activity. The information entities comprise the content, form, and structure of information. The artifacts, manual (e.g., paper-based), computer-based, and immaterial (e.g., spoken language), contain and mediate the information entities and enable actors to manipulate the information. The use-related immaterial elements (goals of work, cooperation, rules, practices, capabilities and knowledge of the people, etc.) guide the use of the artifacts and information. Information entities and the artifacts form the core of the technical system, and the people



and use-related immaterial elements form the core of the social system.

Figure 1. The elements of the information system in the context of Work Activity

2.2 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

The architecture of a system represents the fundamental organization of the components of a system, their relationship to each other and the environment, and the design principles for developing and structuring the system (IEEE, 2000). Enterprise Architecture (EA) gives a logically organized overall view of an organization and its functions and information systems and supports management and change planning regarding both the business and IT, but specially the strategic alignment of the two (e.g., Scheckerman, 2004; Ross, 2006; Winter and Fischer, 2006; Sessions, 2007; Foorthuis et al., 2009; Pulkkinen, 2008). Foorhuis et al. (2009) see two major ideal functions for EA: a descriptive one, to provide decision makers with a clear and comprehensive overview of the enterprise, and a prescriptive one, to provide a framework that guides and constrains the subsequent development and planning of business and Information Technology (IT) solutions (Foorhuis et al., 2009).

Information system

Immaterial elementsrelated to use of

information(rules, practices,ways of doing)

InformationEntityPeople Artifact

Manual Computer-based

use contain

Content StructureForm

Immaterial elementLanguage

Work Activity as thecontext ofinformation system



Efficiency, integration, agility, change management, compliance, consistency, and cost-effectiveness are key words that are related to enterprise architecture and its benefits for organizations (Kaisler, 2005; Winter and Fischer, 2006; Hoogervorst, 2004; Ross, 2006; Sims, 2005). Perko (2008) lists the benefits of EA as follows. EA permits better enterprise governance and accountability, provides an engagement model for business and IT, defines an appropriate level for integration and standardization, achieves greater value from IT, and increases shared understanding and organizational learning (Perko, 2008, pp. 51–52).

The Zachman framework and OpenGroup Architecture Framework (TOGAF) are the most commonly used frameworks for developing and organizing EA (Perko, 2008). The Zachman framework (Zachman, 1997; see also http://www.zachman.com/ for the Zachman Framework 3.0) is meant for defining and viewing the enterprise in a highly structured manner. Some of the fundamental ideas for the framework originate from the manufacturing and engineering disciplines, and systems engineering (Zachman, 1997). The TOGAF framework defines the process for developing EA, the Architecture Development Model (ADM). TOGAF supports four sub-architectures (the business architecture, information architecture, system or application architecture, and technology architecture). The sub-architectures are used for overcoming the complexity and improving the understandability of the overall architecture.

EA is a concern of large organizations with complex information systems, both business and public (Pulkkinen, 2008). Not only companies, but also public administration or health and social care organizations are increasingly investing in the creation of enterprise architectures. Several projects have been conducted for the purpose of developing frameworks, reference models, and guidelines for developing national- and regional-level EA, as well as guidelines for local applications. KuntaIT (http://www.kuntait.fi/), KanTa – the National Archive of Health Information (www.kanta.fi/), and the National Project for IT in Social Services, TikeSos (www.sosiaaliportti.fi/tikesos),



are examples of recent national-level projects in Finland that have been engaged with EA objectives. Such large-scale efforts are driven by national strategies and high-level policies (Mykkänen and Virkanen, 2012).

Despite two decades of research, existing frameworks, and practical developments, the debate implies that no unambiguous consensus on the terms and the principles of Enterprise Architecture exists (Shöenherr, 2009; Stelzer, 2009; Fischer et al., 2010). It has also been argued that EA can be seen as an art and that it is based more on experience and industrial best practices than strong theoretical roots (Wegman, 2007) or academic research (Tamm et al., 2011).

2.3 INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

Information systems are developed through an ISD process. Depending on the standpoint, the ISD process can be seen as a software engineering process, an application acquisition process, or a work development process (Mursu et al., 2007).The development activities focus differently, depending on the approach. The approach to the ISD process is defined as “a class of specific ISD methodologies which share a set of common features” (Iivari and Hirschheim 1996, p. 560) and refined with the notion that ISD Approach, as a set of specific features, “drives the interpretations and actions in information systems development“(Iivari et al., 2001 p. 186). The methodology for ISD is defined as practically oriented: “a codified set of goal-oriented ‘procedures’ which are intended to guide the work and cooperation of the various parties (stakeholders) involved in the development of an IS application” (Iivari and Hirschheim 1996, p. 560).

In this section, the technical and socio-technical approaches to ISD, and ISD in relation to Enterprise Architecture, are discussed in order to reveal the differences and similarities. Later, the stakeholders and their viewpoints are discussed with the similar grouping (see Section 2.5).



2.3.1 Technical approach: software-centric

Well-known ISD models for guiding the ISD process utilized by developers originate from the field of Software Engineering (SE), e.g., the waterfall model (Royce, 1970) and the spiral (Boehm, 1988) which both belong to the category of “systems life-cycle” models. The models are intended to be used in software provider organizations for developing software, and thus the emphasis is laid on the technical system. Although the models are seldom followed precisely in practice, the following phases can be identified within the models: feasibility study, requirements engineering, design, implementation, and testing.

Requirements Engineering (RE) is defined as follows: “software systems requirements engineering (RE) is the process of discovering that purpose, by identifying stakeholders and their needs, and documenting these in a form that is amenable to analysis, communication, and subsequent implementation”(Nuseibeh and Easterbrooks, 2000, p. 37). Some RE methods (e.g., Robertson and Robertson, 1999) emphasize that requirements engineering starts with obtaining understanding of the client’s work. However, the concept of “work” is limited to something that is to be automated, streamlined or changed with the software (Robertson and Robertson, 1999, p.54). Basically, the goal is to produce a technical artifact, and in the RE phase, the specifications for the new product are defined. For this purpose detailed and formally qualified modeling methods and languages are used. Unified Modeling Language (Rumbaugh et al. 1999), UML, is the best-known notation (http://www.uml.org/), and e.g. Class Diagram and Use Case diagram are examples of the models used.

The shift from traditional SE projects in SOA projects (Service-Oriented Architecture) is recognized as a fact that causes complexity in ISD (Cheng and Athljee, 2007). Many things have become more complex both in terms of quality and quantity: the domains, stakeholders, and the roles of the stakeholders, which mean that the problems themselves, the processes for solving them, and the desired outcomes are more complex. The border between the problem space and the



solution space is subject to change, and it is not self-evident who is responsible for which tasks in the ISD process. SOA projects often engage with the Enterprise Architecture approach to ISD.

Nuseibah and Easterbrook (2000) recommend developers to broaden the scope from a software-centric to an information systems development view in order to cope with the complexity. Broadening the scope of the “system to be developed” from a software system to concern a socio-technical information system multiplies the complexity by also imposing the demand to take account of human activities in organizational settings.

2.3.2 Socio-technical approach: information systems and work development

In the socio-technical approach to the development of information systems the social and technical systems are considered and developed together (Iivari and Hirschheim, 1996). The work activity system forms the context for the information systems and the information systems are used as tools for work activities (e.g., Kuutti, 1991; Bødker, 1991). Within IS development, the basic object of analysis should be the work activity system rather than the information system (Kuutti 1991, Korpela et al., 2004). The development of information system should be based on the actual needs for the information system, and for that we first need to understand the work and the use of information and information needs within the work. The users and other stakeholders are considered as indispensable sources for such knowledge.

In this thesis the definition of Korpela et al. (2000, p. 198) of socio-technical Information Systems Development (ISD) is adopted: “Information Systems Development (ISD) is the process by which some collective work activity is facilitated by new information-technological means through analysis, design, implementation, introduction and sustained support, as well process management”. Further, the demand for “fit between technical and social subsystems” (Iivari and Hirchheim 1996, p. 555) is adopted as a critical condition for successful ISD. The collective human activity



is the basic social system that defines the “fit” (Korpela et al., 2000, p. 198).

In the context of socio-technical ISD, we can consider Software Development as an activity of the IT organization, and Work Development and Information Systems Development as activities of the user organization. For each, Requirements Engineering (RE) can be seen a distinctive sub-area inside all of them, producing the specific requirements for developing each area. A shared understanding of the target domain is a necessity as a basis for successful development. Ideally, the Needs Analysis is conducted jointly, producing descriptions and models that can serve as the starting-point of the different development activities of software applications, information systems, or work (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The shared understanding as the basis for requirements

Several separate approaches and methodologies belong to the

broader category of socio-technical approaches, but have their own specific worldviews and features. The Scandinavian approach (Bødker S. et al., 2000; ), ETHICS (Mumford, 1993), the Work System Method (WSM) (Alter, 1999; Alter, 2009a), the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 2000), and applications of Activity Theory in ISD (see Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.3.) are examples of such approaches. The intent of empowering the users in system design is more or less present in all socio-technical approaches.

As a means to support user participation in the development, Participatory Design techniques have been created in relation to,

Work activitysystem

Informationsystem

Software

WorkdevelopmentInformation

systemdevelopment

Softwaredevelopment

RERE

RE


systemdevelopment

Softwaredevelopment

Needs Analysis =>Shared understanding

and requirements



e.g., Human-Computer Interaction and Computer-Supported Cooperative Design (Bødker S. et al., 1996). The techniques were designed for promoting, e.g., communication so that a non-technical participant would be enabled and capable of influencing the development as an equal participant among the developers. Almost twenty years ago, Participatory Design (PD) itself was already considered to be technically a fairly mature (Bødker S. et al., 1996) or maturing (Kensing and Blomberg, 1998) discipline in its own right. Asaro (2000) presents two distinct traditions that have influenced the development of PD methodologies; one is the “European approach”, which comprises the “Scandinavian approach” (Ehn, 1993; Bødker S. et al., 2000) and ETHICS (Mumford, 1993), and the other is IBM’s development method, called Joint Application design (Asaro, 2000).

2.3.3 Enterprise Architecture: managing IT and business alignment

The EA development process is continuous, indeterministic, and iterative, rather than deterministic (Kaisler, 2005). In the context of the development of Enterprise Architecture, the demand for the alignment of business and information technology (IT) is the alignment of the strategies of the two (e.g., Scheckerman, 2004). However, it is also likely that in an organization there will be several ongoing sub-processes (or strings of processes), each developing a particular part of a larger information system. The business-IT alignment requires the individual projects to be aligned with the holistic development of the EA.

Organizations have been regarded as complex adaptive socio-technical systems (Hoogervorst, 2004). Nightingale and Rhodes (2004) discuss the architecting of enterprise systems and argue that a broader view should be taken (emerging enterprises and environmental drivers) and socio-technical approaches applied to enterprise architecting.

Hoogervorst (2004) distinguishes two fundamentally different perspectives, the functional view, serving managerial purposes (what the system is doing; “Black Box”) and the



constructive view, serving design purposes (how the system is designed and built; “White Box”). The constructive view is necessity for planning the changes in both the social and technical systems. Then, the business-IT alignment requires not only that the high-level strategies should be aligned, but also that the detailed structures of the systems should be the object of analysis and agreement. In the EA context, the business processes form the core of the business architecture together with the business strategy, governance, and organization (see, e.g., TOGAF), which may be considered as the social system.

Requirements engineering activities support the design of the technical system, and for instance, Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) is an activity for planning the changes in the social or the functional business system.

Figure 3 presents the ideal situation where the shared understanding and requirements form the basis for further modeling and development.

Figure 3. The shared understanding as a basis for business-IT alignment

2.4 ACTIVITY THEORY IN ISD

Activity theory (AT) is a socio-cultural theory that has its roots in Russian cultural psychology (Leontiev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978). AT provides a theoretical basis for analyzing, understanding,

Businessimprovement

Work activity

Informationsystem

Software

Workdevelopment

Informationsystem

development

Softwaredevelopment


systemdevelopment

Softwaredevelopment

Sharedunderstanding

andrequirements

RERE

EnterpriseBusiness

Improvement

BPM,BPR

EA:B&IT

Alignment



and describing cooperative purposeful human activity (Hedegaard, 1999). AT was proposed to be utilized in ISD in the 1990s, highlighting the fact that the object of analysis in ISD must be the activity system rather than the information system (Kuutti, 1991). Several ISD research areas applied AT (see Section 2.4.1), and research lines, such as the AD approach to ISD, were born. AT makes possible the multi-faceted analysis and explanation of information and its users and the dynamics between them. The following five essential features of AT can be found in different sources (e.g., Engström, 1987; Kaptelinin et al., 1995):

� object-orientedness (aka purposefulness); � mediation (e.g., considering information systems as a

mediator or tool); � the hierarchical structure in terms of actors (individual,

group, and network), functionality (operation, act, and activity), and drivers for the functionality (condition, motive, and goal);

� development, which emerges as the dynamic nature of activity and contradiction as the promoter of change;

� internalization-externalization (cognitive process; switching between the mental and real worlds – thinking and doing).

2.4.1 Applications of AT in ISD

In the field of IS research, AT has been utilized in studies concerning Human-Computer Interaction and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (e.g., Bødker, S., 1991; Bødker, S. and Klokmose, 2011; Bødker, S. and Andersen, 2005; Kaptellin and Nardi, 2006; Mwanza, 2002), ISD as activity (Korpela et al., 2002; Mursu, 2002; Korpela et al., 2006; Soriyan, 2004), domain exploration and analysis (Toivanen et al., 2004; Häkkinen and Korpela, 2007; Luukkonen et al., 2008), and Requirements Engineering (Brown et al., 2006; Uden et al., 2008). The Scandinavian tradition (see, e.g., Bødker S. et al., 2000)



highlights user engagement and empowerment in the research and design.

The applications of AT in enterprise architecting are scarce, although some sporadic experiments exist, mainly for getting started with an issue in EA work, e.g., communication (Nakakawa et al., 2010) or the mediating role of artifacts (Foorthuis et al., 2008). Erol (2011) studies process modeling and utilizes principles derived from Activity Theory as a framework. Taxel (2007) presents a framework utilizing Activity Domain Theory for the analysis of business processes, communication, and coordination. AT has not yet been applied in deeper analysis of the work of enterprise architects, or as a practical modeling tool supporting communication within EA work, but initial steps in this direction are presented in Paper VI where a tentative AD concept for analyzing process modeling Work Activity is presented.

2.4.2 Work Activity

The activity system is composed of networked Work Activities. The theoretical structure for “Work Activity” (WA) was established by Engeström (1987; 1999) in Developmental Work Research (DWR). The triangular shape of mediated cooperative activity (see, e.g., Engeström, 2000) is broadly used for analysis and the triangular model has further academic elaborations, including the oval-shaped presentation of WA, known as the Activity Analysis and Development (ActAD) framework (Korpela, 1994; Mursu, 2002) (see Figure 4).



Figure 4. Work activity depicted in the ActAD framework, modified from, e.g., Mursu (2002)

AT distinguishes short-term action and lasting activities

(Engeström, 2000). The dominating notion of ‘human activity’ is basically a continual phenomenon. However, it is also important to describe short-term temporal cooperative actions. The actions follow the same structure as activity, and the same graphic presentation can be used to describe both (see, e.g., Engeström, 2000, pp. 961–964). Recently, Gonzales et al. (2009) suggested a concept of “Ensemble” to be added in the core terminology of Activity Theory as the intermediate element between continuous Activity and temporal Action.

2.4.3 Activity-Driven approach to ISD

The Activity-Driven approach to information systems development is a special case of a socio-technical approach to information systems development that is the focus of this



research. The approach was not taken under study as a mature, complete approach, but instead as an approach to be developed further. In the early 2000s the elements that had been developed in earlier research were taken as the starting point in the research that applied the elements in the field studies and theoretical elaborations (see Paper II). The research for this thesis is part of that development. Therefore, a short summary of the approach from the standpoint of the author is presented here to clarify the author’s contribution to the development of the approach.

The development of the social and technical systems together was taken as an inherent feature from the general socio-technical school. The main social system in focus was the work activity system in user organizations. The following earlier theoretical elaborations (mainly by Mikko Korpela and Anja Mursu; see the summary of the theoretical underpinnings in Mursu et al., 2007) were taken to form the basis for the AD approach: the Activity Analysis and Development framework (Korpela, 1994; Mursu, 2002; see Section 2.4.2), integrative levels of activity (Korpela et al., 2001), information systems as temporal activity (Korpela et al. 2000), and sustainability factors (Mursu et al., 2004). Some principles were adopted from Participatory Design. Appreciating the workers as the best source of knowledge about the work they do and going to the actual workplaces to obtain information are the most important principles that were taken. Participatory design techniques (for instance, workshops, group interviews, observations, and freehand drawings; see Bødker, K. et al., 2004) were taken as basic templates in the development of AD tools and techniques to gather and analyze information. The above were taken as the basis on which the AD approach was cumulatively built by the author and other researchers.

We soon started to call our approach the “Activity-Driven approach to ISD” (“Toimintalähtöinen lähestymistapa tietojärjestelmien kehittämiseen” in Finnish). The term “Activity-Driven” refers to Activity Theory as a basic theory that has been used for explaining the Work Activity (Engeström,



1989; Korpela, 1994; Mursu, 2002), but it also refers to the crucial idea that the work activity must be the starting-point for what to investigate when information systems are to be developed.

The Activity-Driven ISD Model (Mursu et al., 2007; Luukkonen et al., 2007; Toivanen et al., 2007) (Toimintamalli tietojärjestemien toimintalähtöiseen kehittämiseen in Finnish, see Toivanen et al., 2007) was the main deliverable jointly created by the author and her co-researchers during the ZipIT project (2004-2007). In this research, it is impossible to separate into clear bits and pieces which part belongs to each researcher. The model in a nutshell is shown in Figure 5. The use of the term “model” as a part of the name of the Activity-Driven ISD Model may be a subject of argument, and it might have been better to label the deliverable of the ZipIT project as a methodology (Iivari and Hirschheim 1996, p. 560), instead of a model, in the first place (Section 2.6 has a discussion about the term “model”). The Finnish word “toimintamalli” means literally "the model of action". However, the deliverable was labeled as a Model when it was published, and therefore the term Model is also used here.

After the ZipIT project the research group split, and the author continued by studying the applicability (see Paper IV and Luukkonen et al., 2008) and teachability (see Paper V) of the approach. Rather recently, two phenomena that relate to ISD in user organizations were taken under study: process modeling and Enterprise Architecture. Process modeling is a common activity in the early phases of ISD in user organizations, and Enterprise Architecture is a context for user organizations’ ISD that has emerged. The AD approach was researched in relation to those. During this “post-ZipIT” phase, the further development of the AD tool set (see some examples in Appendices A and B, and Paper VI) was continued by the author, as well as researching the relations of the AD models and process models.



Figure 5. Activity-Driven ISD Model in a nutshell (modified from Toivanen et al., 2009)

The way how the approach was developed and the context of the development have been affected the approach itself, how it is now. Therefore, Paper II summarizes the main research activities of the research group for developing the approach.

2.5 STAKEHOLDERS AND VIEWPOINTS

The terms “stakeholder” and “viewpoint” are discussed in this section in relation to each other. The different types of stakeholders have different viewpoints or perspectives on an information system. Here the viewpoint is explained by the functional relationship that the stakeholder has with the information system. Three different views are used: the software engineering view, socio-technical information systems view, and enterprise architecting view.

Phases Levels & Describing models

1. Analysis for shared understanding of the present state

2. Design for shared understanding of the goal state

3. Making the plans for change

1. Network of activities & Information landscape

ORGANIZATION

ORGANIZATIONUNIT

ACTIVITY

DATA STORE

PAPER

Overview; what services or products do we produce and for whom, who are our stakeholders, what are the essential activities? What are the most important information entities in our activities, where are these information entities located, how do we communicate in the network, and which tools are used?

In information system development (e.g. the introduction of new or tailored software or an integration project), we have to outline how and where change affects the network of activities and information landscape. Zoom out from processes and information flows to see the range of changes.

Validation, verification, decisions

Considering - context (buildings, infrastructure, legislation etc.) - changes in the network of activities and - changes in the information landscape. Planning - re-organized services and activities - purchase of software and hardware and - systems integration.

2. Work activity (processes) & Information system (data flows)

ACTIVITY WORK PROCESS

Zoom in on our essential activities: who is involved in the work process, who makes decisions in different stages, how is the work coordinated, what means (mental and physical) are needed in the process, what information is needed and where from, what is written down, and what information tools are used?

In ISD (e.g. the introduction of new or tailored software or an integration project), we have to outline how and where we utilize IS in work processes, what our work processes will be after the change, and what impact change has on the information systems and data flows. Zoom out from the actions (and use cases) and information tools to see the range of changes.

Planning - changes in the information system - changes in work processes e.g. introduction of new software and new work practices step by step, unit by unit

3. Actions & Information tools

USE CASES OK

valinta

Text:

DRAFT OF USER INTERFACE

Zoom in on our essential work processes, what actions need to be developed, and what detailed information sets and data items are needed in central actions. What information tools (forms etc.) are needed? We can outline use cases from the actions if software is used.

In information system development, we have to outline how we utilize the IS that will be developed in actions, how it would be used, and what effects the changes have on information tools. Users' needs, wishes, and requirements must be considered. We can specify use cases from the actions if software is or is-to-be used.

Planning - changes in information tools (e.g. software) and their use, - changes in actions and duties.



In the software engineering field, software products are developed in the ISD process. Robertson and Robertson (1999) defines the stakeholders in relation to the (software) product as follows: stakeholders are those “who have an interest in the product – they will build it, they will manage it, they will use it or they will in some way be affected by its use” (Robertson and Robertson, 1999, p. 35). For the first three kinds of stakeholders, the “interest” of the stakeholder defines his/her viewpoint on the product. Those who build the product have a “developer/engineering viewpoint”, those who manage the product have a “product management, or administration viewpoint”, and those who use the product have a “user viewpoint”. With the fourth kind of stakeholder this trivial approach ends in an ambiguous situation. For those who “will in some way be affected by its use”, the viewpoint depends on how the particular stakeholder is affected by the use of the product.

In socio-technical ISD, the socio-technical information system is developed in the ISD process. The development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is seen as a temporary activity on the border of two organizations or units (Korpela et al., 2002), the ICT provider and user organization. The stakeholders involved are categorized as information systems professionals who have developer/engineering viewpoint and their management in the information system organization and information system users (user/using viewpoint) and their management (management viewpoint) in the user organization. The management here refers to the management of the organization. Information system users’ clients can be either inside or outside the user organization (Figure 6, Korpela et al., 2002). One of today’s trends is e-services, conducted by the client in a self-service manner. In the healthcare field this means the patient, and, if we broaden the field to include wellbeing services, we should not speak about the patient, but merely about citizens or just clients of service providers.



Figure 6. ISD as a temporal activity on the border between two organizations (modified from Korpela et al., 2002)

In enterprise architecting, large information systems and their parts are developed in relation to the development of Enterprise Architecture. For enterprise architecting, e.g., the Zachman framework provides the views of five different types of stakeholders (planner, owner, designer, builder, sub-contractor) on EA. Compared to the socio-technical model of ISD shown above (Korpela et al., 2002), the designer, builder, and subcontractor together refine the category of developers, and the planner and owner views refine the category of management, but lacks the “user viewpoint”.

The user viewpoint has been intensively studied in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Since the counterparts of interaction are Humans and Computers, the HCI studies specifically benefit the developer - end user communication. For studying the interaction and cooperation between humans, Activity Theory provides a means for studying cooperative work activities and networks of activities (e.g., Bødker, S. et al., 2000). The group of “users” is not a homogeneous group, but includes the different kinds of professionals working in the Work Activities (e.g., Alexander and Robertson, 2004).



2.6 MODELS AND MODELING

In this section the terms that are related to models and modeling are clarified. Modeling is an essential activity in any design-oriented activity, such as information systems development, software engineering, or requirements engineering, and in decision-making-oriented activity such as enterprise architecting. The function of modeling is to create a shared understanding among the participants of the phenomena under study. Generally, a model describes a simplified section of real-world phenomena, selecting essential features of the phenomena and hiding the details. The use of the term, however, varies in different contexts.

The term “Model” has been used for describing conceptually, e.g., the procedure or actions of the developers (e.g., the waterfall model (Royce, 1970) and the spiral model (Boehm, 1988)), systems (e.g., the work system by Alter, 2008), the success and failure factors of information systems development (e.g., the ITPOSMO model by Heeks, 2006). In this end, the meaning of the term “model” is near to the term “framework”, which is defined as ”an essential or underlying structure; a provisional design, an outline; a conceptual scheme or system” (Oxford Dictionary, http://oxforddictionaries.com), and the purpose of such models is to guide some activities. The term “model” may also refer to a particular type of model, e.g., “a data model” drawn with a UML (Unified Modeling Language) Class diagram, or, “a process model” drawn with Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). In this sense, the term “model” is near to the term “notation”. A model that is an output of modeling activities is an instance of a particular type of model. Then the model (as an artifact) comprises the information of the subject matter of the modeling (content) and the form of the model. The form might be strictly specified, as in UML diagrams, or loosely defined, as in ad hoc diagrams, or something between the two, as in “Rich pictures” (Checkland and Scholes, 2005). In this thesis, the term “model” is used with



the latter meaning, as artifacts that are the output of modeling activities and which comprise content and from.

In ISD, the models help the actors in making design decisions and in implementing the solutions. To simplify, a model mediates the needs from the real world to the designer, who designs the solutions as a response to the need. In this sense, the models that are used are among the factors that impact on the success or failure of the implementation. However, it should be noted that the mediation comprises a number of factors, including others than the model per se, which make the success of the mediation hard to predict, e.g., the interpretation that the subjects place upon the signs or models. The work in this thesis does not address those aspects of communication, but, e.g., the research of Bødger and Anderson (2005) provides a sophisticated view of complex mediation

A model is always static, a “still picture” describing a moment in dynamic, changing reality (Melão and Pidd, 2000). Thus the model differs from the real-world phenomena it describes and there is a gap between the model and reality. If the gap is wide, then the possibility of failing to achieve a shared understanding increases. The choice of modeling technique and notation is an important one, because the modeling method affects the phenomena which can be expressed with the models and even restrict which phenomena can be observed and understood (Nuseibeh and Easterbrook, 2000, p. 40). A discussion of the choice is provided in Section 5.1.3.

The quality of the model is another factor impacting on the correspondence between the actual needs (real world) and the design and the implementation of the solution. Recker (2007) classifies the quality into three classes: pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic quality. The pragmatic and syntactic quality of the models, related to different ISD approaches, are used as a basis for analysis in Paper III for clarifying the chosen approaches and their relations to each other.

The usefulness of the models, referring to “pragmatic quality”, is one measure of the success of the project, as evaluated by the users of the model. Pragmatic quality



incorporates the understandability of the models (the model users can “read” the models) and the ability of the models to promote learning and action in the domain (model users can better understand and improve the domain with the help of the models) (Recker, 2007). The understandability of the models is further related to the syntax of the modeling language, visual layout strategies or graph-drawing algorithms, the modelers’ capabilities, domain knowledge, and the purpose of the models (Mendling et al., 2007; Giaglis, 2001). The pragmatic quality can be seen as a subjective matter and dependent on the needs of the users. Business improvement and information systems development need different kinds of models (e.g., Rosemann, 2006a; 2006b). Hence, it is important to identify the future users of the models first, and then to find out and clearly articulate their needs and the intended use of the models (e.g., Recker, 2007). The requirements may concern, e.g., the content and form of the models and delivery of the outputs. Here it should be noted that the “model users” may also be other stakeholders than the (current or to-be) users of the information system.

2.7 REQUIREMENTS FOR MODELING AND MODELS IN USER ORGANIZATIONS

In this thesis the modeling that is conducted in the early phases of ISD and EA is in focus, and the models (e.g. diagrams, pictures, or ) that are results from the modeling activities . The requirements for modeling methods and models should be based on the needs of those who conduct the modeling and those who use the models, and should fit the purpose of the modeling.

Need to support the concrete actors in the ISD process. Iivari et al. (2004) list the tasks that IS experts should be capable of fulfilling: “the distinctive competence of IS experts lies in their: (1) expertise of aligning IT artifacts with the organizational and social context in which the artifact is to be used; (2) identifying and specifying the needs of people who are supposed to use the system (user



requirements construction); (3) organizational implementation; and (4) evaluation/assessment of these artifacts and related changes” (Iivari et al., 2004, p. 317). The purpose of modeling, then, is to grasp a shared understanding in highly heterogeneous groups of the domain, information needs and flows, existing systems, and technologies, for instance. In the front-end activities, the shared understanding should preferably be captured quickly, revealing the essence without going into too much detail.

Need for flexible modeling methods and actual models that are adjustable according to the situation at hands. An emergent change is identified as a reason for difficulties in planning information system or designing software (Truex et al., 1999; Heeks, 2006; Lee, 2004; Lyytinen and Newman, 2008; Hansen et al., 2010). The organizations themselves are emergent in two ways: internal and intra-organizational. They are intra-organizational when adapting to their shifting environment (Truex et al., 1999, p. 378) and internal when the technical and social systems transform iteratively when they interact (Lee, 2004, p. 11). Changes in the outside world cause changes in requirements and unexpected requirements also emerge during the RE process (Hansen et al., 2010). The settings for ISD in organizations are dynamic rather than stable. The old saw “well planned is half-way done” includes the assumption that a planned change is associated with a static view. In reality, organizations are dynamic and subject to continuous change, and the set of goals and values that are related to ISD has to be changeable as well (Truex et al., 1999, p. 379). So, “well planned is half-way done” does not work in every case, but a shift to a “sense of emergent change that is associated with local improvisations” is needed when developing information systems in organizations (Heeks, 2006, p. 133).

Need for EA-related notations. Wegman (2007) reminds us that the most commonly used frameworks, Zachman and TOGAF, do not provide any specific notations for EA modeling. Recently, however, ArchiMate® has been proposed as a tool for enterprise modeling in relation to TOGAF (Lankhorst and van Drunen, 2007).



Need for the “big picture”. Enterprise Architecture is modeled via modeling the sub-architectures. Then the overall holistic view may get lost in details, or remain unaddressed.

Need for understandability and appropriate quality. “Arguments regarding “which model is right”, “which notation is right”, and “which paradigm is right” are relatively meaningless if the model cannot be understood by the stakeholders.” (Kaisler, 2005, p. 2). To achieve a shared understanding when gathering requirements, the models need to fit their purpose; enough is good enough but “perfect” is too much.

Need for guide the forthcoming software and information systems development. It is important that the models which are produced in user organizations can be used for designing the information systems (architecture of the systems and detailed design).


3 Research approach and process

For me as a researcher, it is an imperative driving force that the research leads to results that are relevant to practice; that is, they help to solve some real-world issue. The main concepts for this thesis are the early phases of ISD in user organizations, the utilization of the AD approach there, and modeling as the main supportive activity. How should one choose an appropriate research philosophy and research approach for studying such concepts in relation to each other? The thesis leans on pragmatism (Morgan, 2004; Goldguhl, 2004) and post-positivist research philosophy (Ryan, 2006; Hirschheim, 1985). The research methodology is based on practice-driven qualitative interpretive research (Walsham, 1995; 2006), and also derives features from critical research. Several applied research projects set the scene for the research.

3.1 INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

In this thesis, the post-positivistic interpretive research approach is taken. Post-positivism is also referred to by the term “antipositivism” by Iivari et al.: “antipositivism emphasizes human interpretation and understanding as constituents of scientific knowledge” (Iivari et al., 1998, p. 174); and by the term “non-positivism” by Walsham, emphasizing the fact that scientific knowledge can be obtained from facts and values, which are intertwined (Walsham, 1995, p. 76). Thus post-positivist interpretive research cannot be value-free, but is always influenced by the values of the researcher and the other participants involved. Ryan (2006) characterizes post-positivist



research as follows: it is broad rather than specialized, theory and practice are inseparable in the research, the researcher’s motivation and commitment are crucial, and a broad variety of methods must be used for the collecting and categorization of information. Post-positivist research in the social sciences advocates problem setting as valuable scholarly activity and stresses guidelines, principles, and acknowledgements as research outcomes, rather than overall ‘truth’ (Ryan, 2006).

As alternatives to positivist research, both interpretive and critical research approaches can be classified as post-positivist. Interpretive research, as Klein and Myers (1999, p. 67) put it, “… can help IS researchers to understand human thought and action in social and organizational contexts; it has the potential to produce deep insights into information systems phenomena including the management of information systems and information systems development.”

Critical research highlights the intention of supporting improvements in practice in one way or another (Myers, 1997; Myers and Klein, 2011). Interpretive and critical research are philosophically distinct, but in the practice of research the distinction is not straightforwardly clear, and in practice, it is not always possible to classify an entire research study as only either interpretive or critical (Myers, 1997).

The concept of a hermeneutic circle emphasizes that the understanding of the object of the research is gained by researching the parts of the object and the object as a whole. (Myers, 2004, pp. 107–109). The research results in a new understanding being built upon the earlier understanding and the research steps taken, and thus the results are influenced by the expectations and earlier experiences. The hermeneutic circle is the process of understanding, construction, and deepening of meaning in the interpretive research process (Erikson and Kovalainen, 2008, p. 33).

The research questions in interpretive research may not be explicitly defined at the beginning of the research process, but they will be sharpened and focused during the research iterations (Myers, 1997; Germonprez and Mathiassen, 2004). The

Research approach and process


identification of the problem for Action Research may come either from the researcher to the organization or from the organization to the researcher (Wilson, 2000). Basically, the former means a planned approach and the latter an emergent approach (Germonprez and Mathiassen, 2004, p. 339).

No single method can be sufficient for studying multifaceted issues in ISD. Methodological pluralism has been argued for better holistic analysis in post-positivist research (e.g., Hirschheim, 1985; Mingers, 2001; Davison and Martinssons, 2011). It has been suggested that mixed methods combining both qualitative and quantitative methods will improve the research quality and pragmatic relevancy (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2004).

Action Research has been suggested as a suitable research method for constructive studies in information systems research that is interpretive and critical (e.g., Rapoport, 1970; Wilson, 2000; Baskerville, 1999; Avison et al., 1999). “Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework” (Rapoport, 1970, p. 499). Further on, action research is also suitable approach for method development for socio-technical systems development (Dittrich et al., 2008). The research cycles of action research include reflection between theory building and empirical testing, and interaction between researchers and practitioners. Each phase includes planning, doing and evaluating the research. The empirical results and theoretical considerations form an inseparable dialectic relationship obtained within a research cycle (Baskerville, 1999). Cumulative results are gained through several research cycles. When entering the first cycle, the researcher brings in her/his pre-assumptions. The results from the earlier cycles are combined with the current cycle in the construction phase. The interplay between action (empirical), reflection (empiria, theory), and construction (new and earlier results) is depicted in Figure 7.



Figure 7. Research cycle in action research Pragmatic inquiry (Goldguhl, 2008) and Practice research

(Mathiassen, 2002) are closely related to action research, emphasizing pragmatic epistemology.

There are also criticisms of action research. Simonsen (2009) argues that action research orients the research efforts into practice and intensive communication with practitioners, and hence cannot contribute efficiently to maintaining a high-volume output in terms of contributions to academic journals. Mathiassen and Simonsen (2009) also argue that action research is demanding for the researcher since it includes lots of communication and cooperation with the research site participants.

Participatory design methods (Kensing and Blomberg, 1998; Bødker, K. et al., 2004) can be utilized also for research, not only for design, since they make multifaceted participation possible. When considering the incorporation of the participants on even a more intensive level, we can speak about the “Scandinavian approach” (Gregory, 2003; Bødker, S. et al., 2000), “project collaboration” (Alter, 2009b), or “research engagement” (Mathiassen and Nielssen, 2008). Then the participants are already incorporated in the early phases of research, that is, in the research design and setting the goals. This in turn, relates the above mentioned closest forms of collaboration with the emergent interpretive research.

ActionReflection

Construction

Iteration: researchcycles

Interplay betweenempiria and theorywithin each iterativecycle



3.2 RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

The research spanned four large projects and mainly healthcare organizations provided the context for the empirical studies. A summary of the research projects is presented in Section 3.2.1, and the features of healthcare as a research environment are presented in Section 3.2.2. The projects and the organizations involved are discussed in more detail in research papers.

3.2.1 Applied research projects as research environment

The research was conducted in relation to the following applied research projects. ZipIT (Narrowing the distance between work and information systems development, 2004–2007) concentrated on the development of AD ISD methods, and was supported by 8 practical pilot projects in Finnish healthcare organizations. The resulting methods were applied in the China-Finland eHealthPartnership project (2007–2008) in the context of Chinese healthcare, providing experience of adjusting the methods to local circumstances in rather different cultural context than that where the methods we developed. The SOLEA project (Service-Oriented Locally Adaptable Enterprise Architecture, 2008–2011) studied and developed solutions, models, and methods of the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach for a locally adaptable Enterprise Architecture in healthcare and industry. The INDEHELA-Education project belongs to the series of INDEHELA (Informatics Development for Health in Africa) projects, a long-term North-South-South partnership in research, development, and education to improve healthcare services in Africa through the development of appropriate organizational information systems. Within the projects, the participating organizations provided a domain for the empirical research, and the partner universities and research groups provided research cooperation.

The research was embedded in the four larger projects, and some consequences followed. First, the research process as a whole could not be planned beforehand but the research rather



followed the emergent needs and possibilities framed by the context projects. Second, it was possible to conduct the research in several research groups that included researchers with different background disciplines and research interests. Third, the project participants from the case sites had an influence on the decisions made about case targets and the goals of the research, and the research complied with the goals of the participating organizations whenever possible. Thus an emergent action research approach was followed (Germonprez and Mathiassen, 2004, p. 339). However, the intention of developing and studying the AD approach and the user organization viewpoint was a thread that ran through my research all the way through.

A summary of the projects, partner organizations, and the main research interests relevant for this thesis is provided in Figure 8 in relation to the timeline of the research. In addition to the four above-mentioned projects, two other large projects are presented in the timeline. The PlugIT project (Applications integration in healthcare, 2001–2004) concentrated on integrative technologies and interfaces of healthcare applications, and Activity-Driven IDS initiatives. It provided the context for the pre-PhD research. The ISD4D (ISD4D: A Holistic Information Systems Development Approach for Societal Development) is an international project including participants from South Africa, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Finland. It aims at the development of a holistic method, and my research continues in this context by integrating the AD approach with context modeling at one end and architecture methods at the other end.



Figure 8. Research projects

3.2.2 Healthcare organizations as the context of the empirical research

Healthcare is a complex and multifaceted domain: a broad variety of specialized actors is involved, and the actors work cooperatively in the patient’s care chain in several organizations. Information is a critical tool for making decisions concerning

2005

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2004

Projects

PlugIT2002-2004

ZipIT2004-2007

China-FinlandeHealth

Partnership2007-2008

SOLEA2008-2011

(2012)

ISD4D2011-2015

Research interestsrelevant for thisthesis

Activity Theory appliedin requirementsengineering

University of Kuopio, Healthcareorganizations and softwarecompanies in Finland, SavoniaUniversity of Applied Sciences

University of Kuopio, Healthcareorganizations and softwarecompanies in Finland, SavoniaUniversity of Applied Sciences

University of Kuopio, Healthcareorganizations in China, softwareand consulting companies inFinland, University of Tampere

Research participantsand partners

University of Eastern Finland,Healthcare organizations; industrial,finance, and software companiesin Finland; Aalto University

IND

EH

ELA

Edu

catio

n20

09-2

011

University of Eastern Finland,Obafemi Awolowo University(Nigeria), Eduardo MondlaneUniversity (Mozambique), CapePeninsula Universty (South Africa)

Development and pilotingActivity-Driven ISD model foranalyzing the as-is situationand capturing the needs for to-be situation in healthcareorganizations

User organization viewpointon requirements engineering

Adjusting the previouslydeveloped methods to theneeds of local circumstances

Needs analysis in relation toarchitecture requirements

Process modeling approachfor Enterprise Architecture inuser organizations

Activity-Driven approach inrelation to traditionalapproaches for ISD

Teachability of Activity-Drivenapproach

Activity-Driven approachapplied in enterprisearchitecting

Method development:integrating existing pieces fora holistic method



patient care. Information systems are used for mediating and achieving patient-related and managerial information to support the actual care activities. Healthcare information systems are found as a typical large-scale system, where the scalability of modeling, abstraction, and analysis techniques are critical (Cheng and Athlee, 2007).

The problems in the use of information and communication are often ambiguous. To create information systems which support work in such branches it is important to capture the information needs from the viewpoint of the work, and in a holistic way. Communication and a shared understanding of the domain between IS developers and domain experts – the users of the information system – is essential. In such conditions the use of applications of a socio-technical theory is beneficial for information systems development (e.g., Westbrook et al., 2007).

It was a deliberate research design decision of the author to keep to one domain, although it was very well known that it might lead to domain-specific results. The research approach emphasizes studying human cooperative activities and the information needs within these, and the means for analyzing and describing them. The intention is not to go to ‘too deeply’ into issues specific to healthcare information systems (e.g., by studying the details of healthcare-specific standards, or patient record products) but rather to stay more at the level of general information systems development but emphasizing the user organization viewpoint.

The research incorporates healthcare organizations in Finland, China, and Mozambique. More information about the organizations is provided in relation to the specific cases in the research papers (Paper I, Paper IV, and Paper V) and summarized in Paper II.



3.3 RESEARCH PROCESS

The major research efforts are presented below. The nature of the research was cumulative and iterative. The research results from each of the projects were used as the input for the ones that came next, and relevant theoretical knowledge was obtained in each project. In addition, each project brought its own emphasis and context into the research.

The research mainly followed the idea of the research cycles of action research (Myers, 2004, p. 108), complemented with case studies and theoretical constructions. The research includes 7 major research cycles, including Action, Reflection, and Construction phases. This research was mainly practice-driven: the research cycles started with action research and case studies (Action), and when considering the research process as whole, the action was emphasized in the first half, while the theoretical developments were emphasized in the last half of the process.

The experiences were mirrored in theoretical knowledge both during the action and afterwards (Reflection). The holistic interpretation and construction were done after the empirical field studies (Construction). The main ideology of this research is depicted in Figure 9. In addition to the academic outcomes (Papers I–VI and the thesis), the research groups produced several open access documents, including guidelines for AD ISD in healthcare (Toivanen et al., 2007) and for process modeling (Luukkonen et al., 2012), as well as project reports and domain descriptions for the participating organizations (marked as “Other publications” in Figure 9). Most of these documents can be found on the project websites (www.uku.fi/zipit/; www.uku.fi/ehp/cn-fi/; and www.uef.fi/solea/). A participatory cooperative approach and research methods (Bødker, K. et al., 2004, Gregory, 2003; Bødker, S. et al., 2000; Alter, 2009; Mathiassen and Nielssen, 2008) were adopted whenever possible. Each research cycle had its own features and emphasis, which are described in more detail in the research papers (Papers I–VI).



Figure 9. The basic research ideology of this research The research process is presented as a whole in Figure 10.

The dashed ovals marked with An represent the major Action phases and the dashed ovals marked with Cn represent the major Construction phases. The rounded rectangles represent the relevant theoretical knowledge considered in the research process. The key concepts discussed in Chapter 2 are highlighted with the use of a bolded font. The light gray color implies an emphasis that carries less weight.

The premises for the research in this thesis are based on the experiences gained from the research in the Plug IT project (2003–2004) from a case study of applying Activity Theory to exploring home care work activities and the related information needs of the homecare workers (A0, C0). The PhD research included four major Action phases (A1–4) where the empirical material was gathered, and seven major Construction phases (C1–7) that contributed Papers I–VI and the introductory part of this thesis. Particularly, the research contributing to the development of the AD approach is presented in Section 2.4.3 and in Paper II.

The relationship between Action and Construction phases is not fully symmetrical. Action and Construction phases form an explicit couple (An, Cm) for Papers I (A1,C1), IV (A2,C2), V (A4, C4),

ActionReflection

Construction

Entry

Pre-assumptions and existingliterature & experiences

Exit

Thesis

PapersI-VI

Iteration:researchcircles, n=7Interplay betweenempiria andtheory within eachiterative circleOutput fromresearch

Otherpublications

PapersI-VI

PapersI-VI

PapersI-VI

PapersI-VI

PapersI-VI

PapersI-VI

Otherpublications

Otherpublications



and VI (A3, C6). The third Construction phase (C3) was a theoretical exercise without an Action phase (Paper III). The fifth Construction phase (C5) collected the broad research continuum for the AD approach in the years since 1998, and thus it included all the Action phases (A1–4) but was not limited to them (Paper II). The seventh Construction phase (C7) bound the whole thesis together and resulted in the introductory part of this thesis.

Figure 10. The story of my research

China-FinlandeHealth

Partnership2007-2008

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2012

Paper III

Paper V

Paper I

Paper IV

Writing process ofPapers I-VI and theintroductionpart of the thesis

Action (An)/Empirical domain

Projects

PlugIT2002-2004

ZipIT2004-2007

Theoretical items andconstructive analyses (Cn)

S

ActivityTheory

InformationSystems

Requirementsengineering

Activity Theory

HealthcareIS

Participatory case study /Finnish healthcare

Participatorycase study /

Chinesehealthcare

MethodEngineering,Localization

SoftwareArchitecture

Userorganization

C1

MethodDevelopment

InformationSystems

Develpoment

RE in userorganization

NeedsAnalysis

C2

EnterpriseArchitecture

C5

Introductorypart of the

Thesis

SOLEA2008-2011

(2012)

ISD4D2011-2015

IND

EH

ELA

Edu

catio

n20

09-2

011

C4

Actionresearch in

pilotcases /Finnish

healthcare

AD domainexploration Education

AD modeling

C3

Process modeling

Modeling quality

ActivityTheory

AD ISD

AD ISD

AD ISD

AD ISD

AD ISD

EnterpriseArchitecture

Web survey /Finnishhealthcareand industrialorganizations

Teaching case /Mozambiqanhealthcare

IntegrationArchitecture

C6

AD ISD

HealthcareIS

Paper II

Paper VIC7Enterprise

Architecting

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

C0

SoftwareEngineering

Modeling

Userorganizationstakeholders


4 Summary of the original papers

4.1 RESEARCH PAPERS IN RELATION TO THE RESEARCH PROJECTS

This thesis is based on six original publications and the empirical materials gathered in the following four research projects: ZipIT (2004–2007), China-Finland eHealthPartnership (2007–2008), SOLEA (2009–2011), and INDEHELA Education (2010). The writing processes for the papers mainly took place between the years 2009 and 2011, when I was working as a researcher in the SOLEA project. Figure 11 presents the relationships between the projects and the papers. An arrow between a project and a paper implies a contribution from the project to the paper. The contribution might be either empirical material or theoretical construction.

The research papers study the Activity-Driven approach in relation to

- Requirements Engineering in user organizations (Paper I),

- the research continuum in which it was developed and tested (Paper II),

- other modeling methods and approaches, and the quality of the models (Paper III),

- applicability and situational adjustment of the method and method engineering (Paper IV),

- education and teachability (Paper V), and - enterprise architecting, and process modeling (Paper

VI). A summary of each paper is presented in this chapter. In

Chapter 5 the results are re-analyzed, with the user organizations’ viewpoint being kept particularly in mind.



Figure 11. Research projects in relation to the publications

4.2 PAPER I. IMPROVING REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING FROM THE CLIENT’S PERSPECTIVE IN THE HEALTHCARE DOMAIN

Paper I set the starting point for studying the early ISD phases specifically from the client’s perspective. It studies the AD approach in relation to Requirements Engineering (RE). Requirements Engineering activities are traditionally regarded

ZipIT

China-FinlandeHealth-Partner-

ship

SOLEA

INDEHELA-Education

PlugIT

PAPER VIAnalyzing Process Modeling

as a Work Activity

Proposes a AD concept for systemicanalysis of process modeling activities inorganizational settings; Conclusion: theconcept facilitates achieving a holisticpicture of process modeling and identfyingthe main development points within it;proposes the concept as a tool forenterprise architecting

PAPER IIResearch on Activity Driven

Information SystemsDevelopment

Describes the AD Approach to ISD:Definition of the approach, description ofthe main characteristics and the researchcontinuum from INDEHELA-Methods (late1990s’) till today

Studies the applicability of AD approachand methods to a new cultural context.Reflections aiming at improving the localapplicability of the approach; Conclusion:the approach is suitable for communicatingthe user needs and descriptive domainanalysis, but the maturity of the methodneeds improvement

Conceptual-analytical research creating aMap of Modeling based on the expressivefeatures of the models related to modelingmethods and approaches. Conclusion:Locates the AD approach in the Map ofModeling in relation to traditional andsocio-technical approaches.

Studies the teachablity of the AD approach;Conclusion: action learning including sitevisits is recommended as crucialeducational elements for teaching socio-technical ISD methods in additon tolectures and ’in-class exersices’

PAPER IImproving Requirements

Engineeringfrom the Client's Perspectivein the Health Care Domain

PAPER IVStudying the Applicability of

Methods. Activity DrivenNeeds Analysis Applied to

Maternity Pathway inPudong,Shanghai

PAPER VAssessing the Role of SiteVisit in Adopting Activity

Driven Methods

PAPER IIIModelling approaches in theearly phases of information

systems development

Studies requirements engineering throughthe cases of the ZipIT project;Conclusion: Two different viewpoints inrequirements engineering: the softwaredeveloper’s and the client’s

Summary of the original papers


as the meeting point of the users and the developers. It is assumed that the software provider company designs the software according to the jointly specified requirements.

The results of Paper I are based on the experience in action research with eight pilot projects in the years 2005–2006. The situations where user organizations were actually involved in RE activities were classified into three classes. None of the classes matched the traditional assumptions precisely. In all the cases, the RE processes of the software provider and the user organization were separate and did not coincide. In the light of the experience gained in the eight pilot projects, the software providers’ and user organizations’ perspectives on RE were distinguished.

Several types of participants were identified as stakeholders in user organizations’ RE process. In this thesis, user involvement is discussed in detail in Section 5.1.2.

The research revealed the lack of a shared holistic picture as being one of the most problematic points in user organization RE. The AD approach facilitated the identification of the participants and gathering the information needs of the participants. In the needs analysis, the viewpoint of the daily workflows was highlighted (different from the management’s viewpoint). The AD tools (diagrams, tables, and stories) enabled the inter-relationships of separate processes and the use of information within the processes to be shown in a way that advanced the obtaining of a holistic picture. The participants also regarded the AD tools as easy to understand and helpful in communication.

The recent exponential growth of computer use in organizations has made the development of information systems and software systems more complex. Ready-made applications that will be integrated into the organization’s legacy systems have replaced tailored (made from scratch) systems. The nature of requirements engineering has become more complex in both software developer organizations (Cheng and Athlee, 2007) and user organizations.



4.3 PAPER II. RESEARCHING ACTIVITY-DRIVEN APPROACH FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

Paper II has two main contributions concerning the AD approach. First, it defines the basic pillars and characteristics of the Activity-Driven approach for Information Systems Development (AD ISD). Second, it represents the long-term story of the interrelated research projects focused on the development of the approach. The theoretical underpinnings of the AD approach (Mursu et al., 2007), complemented by Paper II, form the main scientific summary of the AD approach.

Paper II collects the information about the research projects, their goals and focal points, the detailed description of the practical cases, and their impact on the development of the AD ISD approach. Thus it shows the essentials of the AD approach and also that the approach is well-grounded and justified as a socio-technical approach to ISD. As such a summary, Paper II also provides a strong justification for assumption (A3) of this thesis.

The principles of the AD approach are defined on the basis of the theoretical underpinnings (Mursu et al., 2007) and the requirements for an analytical framework for emancipator, work-oriented IS research and practice (Korpela et al., 2004), mainly rooted in the earlier work of Mikko Korpela and Anja Mursu, and the empirical results in the research projects between the years 2002 and 2011, by the main authors of Paper II. The definition consists of the following eight statements.

1. The theoretical basis of the approach draws from Activity Theory, the Activity Analysis and Development framework, a socio-technical view of information systems development, and user participation.

2. The approach is developed for the early phases of ISD (planning, data gathering, analysis, describing, and validation), with an emphasis on intertwined work and information systems development.

3. Information systems development starts by studying work activities as systemic entities.



4. Technology, including computer-based technology, is seen as a tool to facilitate work, embedded in the work system.

5. Both collective and individual aspects of work are taken into account.

6. Work systems are studied in their organizational context. 7. Participative and cooperative methods are used to

incorporate representatives of different professional viewpoints within the work activities under study.

8. Understandable tools and visualizations are used to enable domain workers and other stakeholders to articulate their views of subject matter.

The AD ISD process includes the phases of information

gathering, analysis, and description, focusing on the exploration of the as-is state and requirements for the possible to-be states. The two main frameworks for the AD approach are the Activity Analysis and Development framework, ActAD (Korpela, 1994; Mursu, 2002) and the Activity-Driven Information Systems Development Model (Mursu et al., 2007; Luukkonen et al., 2007; Toivanen et al., 2009). The frameworks are summarized in Paper II. The participatory and cooperative methods and tools that are used during the process are enriched with specific features derived from Activity Theory and the AD frameworks. Examples of the AD tools can be found in the project publications (e.g., Toivanen et al., 2007; Luukkonen et al., 2012) and in Appendix A.

4.4 PAPER III. MODELLING APPROACHES IN THE EARLY PHASES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

Paper III discusses modeling methods for the early phases of ISD, and presents a “map of modeling” as a means to show relations and features of different modeling approaches and techniques. The “map of modeling” is created on the basis of the literature concerning the quality of models, mainly relying on pragmatic quality. The map is based on two dimensions:



models’ content (elements) and the extent to which the elements are organized or structured. For each modeling method, certain models are typical. In the paper, traditional notation-based, goal-driven, established socio-technical approaches and the AD approach are compared. The different approaches are located on the map by studying the features of the typical models of the different approaches. In relation to the ISD process, the different approaches are best suited to use in different phases.

Notation-based approaches are rooted in software engineering disciplines (such as Unified Modeling Language, UML) or management (e.g., Business Process Modeling Notation, BPMN) and they feature mechanistic or technological views (Paper III), but neglect the social, human, and cooperative aspects of the functionality of organizations. The traditional socio-technical approaches also provide a means for studying the social, human, and cooperative aspects, but have less emphasis on the technical aspects, and, in addition, have less structured models than the notation-based approaches. The interlinkage between processes and information entities is not strongly supported in either approach.

Within the AD approach the ActAD framework provides the basis for modeling both the elements which should be modeled and the structure. The theoretical roots in AT and Developmental Work Research (DWR) form the basis for the solid structure and ensures that human cooperative aspects and work activities and information are interlinked within the very same model.

The paper contributes to the development of the AD approach by locating the AD approach in relation to well-known modeling approaches, and showing what interfaces are needed to interlink AD modeling to other modeling approaches. The results contribute to this thesis by providing discussion on the features of AD models.



4.5 PAPER IV. STUDYING THE APPLICABILITY OF METHODS - ACTIVITY DRIVEN NEEDS ANALYSIS APPLIED TO MATERNITY PATHWAY IN PUDONG, SHANGHAI

The case study presented in Paper IV put the applicability of AD approach to the test. The methods and models that were developed in our previous projects were used and applied in this case. The case was conducted in the China-Finland eHealthPartnership, which also had a Chinese sister project with the goal of regional information sharing in Shanghai. The focus of the paper is on the description of the field study flow.

The experiences in the case of referral feedback in the ZipIT project (see case 3a in Table 3 in Paper II) were particularly inspiring to the research design in this case. In both cases a cross-organizational healthcare service chain was in focus and similar participatory working principles and AD tools were used in both cases.

The research was conducted in two hospitals in the Pudong Area, in Shanghai. The multicultural research group included a Chinese researcher, who was an invaluable resource since the case context was new to most of the other group members. English was used as a common language within the research group.

The aim was to describe the cross-organizational care chain and the maternity path throughout the hospitals, and identify the needs for information sharing and requirements for a regional information systems architecture. The results that were obtained as the research developed supported the whole project by providing information about the target area. The fact that the case site was in Shanghai had some consequences for the scope of the analysis, the use of participatory methods, and the AD models.

It became obvious that first the context must be understood as being broader than the actual object, the maternity path. In this case it meant obtaining and analyzing information about the Chinese healthcare organization and service structure.



The context also influenced the research process by emphasizing the importance of advance planning. Participatory methods were applied on two levels: 1) amongst the research group, where the Chinese researcher took the role of the informant, and 2) in the fieldwork. Table 1 in Paper IV summarizes the research process and discussion. The language barrier between the Finnish researchers and Chinese healthcare workers on the case site imposed requirements on the use of participatory research methods. We maximized the use of graphic presentations and the Chinese researcher took on the role of interpreter in order to minimize the language barrier.

The case context and the goals forced us to use AD tools creatively, that is, to tune them to fit the local situation and requirements. A new diagram model, Activity Case (see Figure 4 in Appendix A), was introduced to map actors, information entities, mediating information tools, and information storage in the sequence of a work activity. Swim lane diagrams were used on the level of organizations (see Figure 3 in Appendix A) instead of the level of individual actors. Maternity stories (see Figure 1 in Appendix A) were a central tool during the research. The detailed results are reported in the case report (Luukkonen et al., 2008). Balancing between advance planning and improvisation is a delicate question. In this case, the advance planning was a prerequisite for the improvisation.

4.6 PAPER V. ASSESSING THE ROLE OF A SITE VISIT IN ADOPTING ACTIVITY DRIVEN METHODS

With the experimental teaching case presented in Paper V we moved from action research to an action learning experiment in our research. Paper V presents the case and discusses the challenges of teaching AD or other socio-technical ISD methods. The teaching case was settled in relation to the INDEHELA-Education project, incorporating universities from South Africa, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Finland. The students were assigned to use the AD approach and make an overview analysis of the



information systems in use in a local healthcare center that was unfamiliar to all of the students. It was a group assignment and four multicultural groups were created.

In Paper V the teaching case is assessed on the basis of the student feedback. The students were provided with Paper IV and other articles and reports (Luukkonen et al., 2007; Korpela et al., 2008; Luukkonen et al., 2008; Tiihonen et al., 2010) as pre-materials. All students attended lectures at which examples of the AD tools were presented and discussion took place of how to take an AD approach during a site visit, and how to use the tools. The examples were gathered from the previous research projects. Appendix A contains examples of the lecture slides, focusing on the AD tools.

The site visit was the heart of the course, and it was valued as a crucial “eye-opener”. The visit revealed the socio-technical nature in a very tangible way, since the information system in the health center was mostly paper-based. The students had to re-think the concept of an information system. The AD tools that were provided to the students were used in data gathering and analysis.

The “fieldwork-driven-ness” and participatory ideas were considered as positive features within the AD approach. Both advantages and weaknesses of the AD tools were found. The rich graphical presentation, understandability, and hierarchical structure were identified as the positive features of the AD tools. The lack of a catalogue of the tools and a clear manual for using them were the main negative features. The main requirements for creating the catalogue can be categorized as follows. The catalogue must include an explanation of the basic notations, with the diagrams and tables preferably being explained together, and with illuminating examples. Guidelines for drawing diagrams, e.g., how to select elements for the diagrams and how to choose an appropriate level of detail, should accompany the catalogue.



4.7 PAPER VI. ANALYZING PROCESS MODELLING AS WORK ACTIVITY

Process modeling is a common way of producing descriptions of an organization’s functionality. The process models are used, e.g., for describing Business Architecture in relation to Enterprise Architecture or as a starting point for ISD. In this end, process modeling can be considered as a part of current practice of the early phase activities of ISD.

In Paper VI, the work development viewpoint is taken and process modeling is studied as the work activity that produces models for the construction of business architecture in organizations. This is done for obtaining understanding of the structure of such activities.

The AD approach is used as the theoretical framework aiming at improving the work of those who model the processes, or plan the process modeling activities. Such planning might be a concern of CIO (Chief Information Officer), an enterprise architect or business architect, for instance. In that sense, this study takes us a step back to the roots of the AD approach in developmental work research.

An Activity-Driven concept is elaborated and suggested for analyzing process modeling as a work activity. An example of such analysis is presented that is based on an experimental inquiry with 21 respondents, representing 14 organizations providing healthcare, industry, financial services and software. The original purpose of the data gathering and analysis was the need to understand process modeling activities and find the issues. The results, which are drawn from 21 responses from several organizations, form an insufficient basis for making conclusions that concern a general global- or even national-level “state of the art” in process modeling. However, the research provided information about the current practices and issues of process modeling in the organizations. The analysis helped us to focus the research efforts within the SOLEA project, and a guidebook for modeling activities and processes (Luukkonen et al., 2012) was written (currently, only in Finnish). The



anonymized research data will be published in UEF electronical publications (Luukkonen and Mykkänen, 2012).

It seems that the concept would be more suitable for use inside one organization. On the basis of our experience and the comments, it is reasonable to think that the concept is worth considering in organizations, for instance as part of enterprise architecting work. The concept can be used in analyses for understanding and improving process modeling efforts. However, empirical cases will be needed to see its appropriateness and validity in practice and academic debate to improve the scientific rigorous.

The concept includes a thematic question list, analysis tables, and an overview diagram as tools for the analysis. The concept was driven from the combination of the ActAD framework and process modeling literature. The tables and the overview picture are presented in Paper VI and the full question list is presented in Appendix B of this thesis.

The results contribute to this thesis by providing information concerning current practices and issues of modeling in user organizations, and by providing a concept for analyzing those activities. Paper III discusses the models in a more detailed way. Based on the two papers together, we can say that the AD approach and process approach are not contradictory, but they complete each other in analysis and modeling.


5 Putting it together

In this chapter the results of this study are constructed on the basis of the literature, research papers I–VI, and experiences and research data obtained during the research process (Action phases A1–4 in Figure 10). The user organization viewpoint is revisited (Section 5.1) and the potential benefits and problematic points of the AD approach in user organizations’ ISD is discussed in that context (Section 5.2).

5.1 USER ORGANIZATION REVISITED

The User Organization viewpoint is analyzed by discussing the following major concepts, and their relations with each other. An Acquisition Process (Paper I, research data from A1) of a software application and Enterprise Architecture (see Section 2.2) are considered as concepts that characterize the context for User Organization ISD. The stakeholders have their own concerns in ISD, and they participate in the ISD process in various roles and also in various phases. Modeling is an essential mediating activity in ISD, supporting the needs analysis and architecture descriptions. The purposes modeling and the participating stakeholders impose requirements for the features of modeling (Paper III).

5.1.1 Early phases of ISD

An acquisition process of a software application (Paper I) is a single-entry endeavor of specified focused development. The following phases of the acquisition process were identified: feasibility study, requirements engineering, invitation of tenders, purchasing, implementation, training, and use (Paper I, Figure 1). Enterprise Architecting means a continual holistic



development of business and IT within an organization, and it includes planning and implementing acquisition processes. Descriptions (for as-is and to-be states) are made throughout various analyses, using modeling as a means for grasping the understanding. Process modeling is related to business architecture descriptions.

At the beginning of this research it was assumed that the starting point of ISD is a fuzzy point, and the experiences from the action research confirm that assumption. But it became obvious that the concept of a ‘fuzzy starting point’ should be extended to concern not only ISD in general, or requirements engineering, but also other activities in user organizations’ ISD. The empirical research confirms that at least a feasibility study, implementation, deployment, and training (Paper I), enterprise architecting (Paper IV), and even process modeling (Paper VI) are activities in which some preliminary overview should be established, so that the actual phase could be planned on the basis of the shared understanding of the situation and the goals.

It is theoretically recognized as being beneficial to align the design of business processes and IT, but they are rarely integrated in practice. Aligning business and IT, or developing information systems that fit in with the work, requires the analysis of the information needs of the different actors within their daily work. The information needs may consider the form, the content, and the timing and availability of the information, for instance. But to understand these needs, the work itself must be understood.

5.1.2 Viewpoints and stakeholders

The information system in use should fit the work and support it. A shared understanding of the information needs must be obtained amongst the different professionals who cooperatively work in the workplace. But who should participate in information systems development? First we take a look of the different viewpoints, and then refine the viewpoint in relation to the ISD process.

Putting it together


The “User Viewpoint” is often used as the opponent for the “Developer Viewpoint” in the RE field, when discussing the need for and difficulties in obtaining a shared understanding as a basis for IT requirements. The User Organization Viewpoint is more complex than the User Viewpoint. The “shared understanding between stakeholders” is not only an issue between the provider’s view and user organization’s view, but it might also be an issue between the different kinds of stakeholders inside the user organization, or inside the provider organization.

The objectives of using the information and information system come from Work Activity (see Section 2.1. pp. 22–23). Thus the stakeholders’ concerns can be studied through their viewpoints.

The stakeholders who may have concerns regarding ISD in user organizations may be inside or outside the user organizations. Four categories of stakeholders are identified inside the user organizations. The stakeholders identified in our studies (see Table 3 in Paper II) can be categorized as belonging to greater groups representing the viewpoints of Management, IT, and Substance workers (e.g. nurse and doctor in Figure 12). Yet another stakeholder, the enterprise architect, has emerged as a consequence of the rise of EA in organizations. The viewpoint here indicates the relationship with the organization, whether it is to manage the organization, administer and manage the organization’s IT, do the core work of the organization (e.g., taking care of the patients), or develop and manage the overall enterprise architecture. In other words, the viewpoint indicates the work activity of the stakeholder. Here the main difference from the original understanding of the viewpoints that are needed is the difference between the “user/using viewpoint” and “substance worker/working viewpoint”. I come to this difference later in relation to modeling and models (see Section 5.1.3).

Two viewpoints are a little more complicated, that of the user of the information system and that of the client of the user organization. The viewpoint of the “user” or “information



system user” may involve stakeholders belonging to any, some, or all of the above-mentioned groups, depending what information system is under study. The client may have various viewpoints. In the case of self-service, the client has the user viewpoint, but also the viewpoint of management in the sense that the client makes the decisions regarding his/her own actions, which may be part of a work activity in the organization. In the case of a more traditional service, when the client is not using the information system directly, the client’s concerns about ISD, if they exist, may or may not be related to the viewpoints of the other stakeholders.

The stakeholders that are located outside the user organization can be grouped as the stakeholders in the IT provider organization (~ developer, manager, marketing), and the clients of the user organization.

A simplified example of the different stakeholder groups, examples of different individual professional roles of the representatives of those groups, and their major concerns (inside the block arrows) of groups, that were identified in this research are illustrated in Figure 12. The role of the “Enterprise Architect” is illustrated in gray, indicating that it was not identified in the major action research phase of this thesis, but rather in the literature and later discussions.

Putting it together


Figure 12. Stakeholders and their concerns

If we consider ISD as a process that has the above-mentioned phases (Section 5.1.1.), the question “Who should participate?” can be refined to concern the phases of ISD. Figure 13 shows a fictive, but reality-based, example of user organizations’ ISD process. The columns indicate the stakeholder groups in user organizations and the last column stands for the vendor organizations. The rows are the main phases. The phases can be characterized with a central question or statement, for example “What are our needs for an information system” in the requirements elicitation phase. The participants in each phase have an influence on the outcome of the phase, and thus the outcome of the whole process. In addition to the actors in user organizations, the representatives from the vendor organizations participate in the process in one phase or another.

Requirementsengineer

Designer

Manager

,

NurseDoctor

Departmentalsecretary

Work

flow

and

inform

ation

need

s

Workorganization

Immediatesuperior

InformationProcessing;Technical

Main user

Projectmanager

Help desk

Informationadministration

MarketingImproved work

activitiesImproved

information system

Improvedhealthcare service

Management

CItizen,healthcare

client

Design andimplementationprocess

Businessprofit

Customerrelations,

sales

EnterpriseArchitect

Economical,Political,

ProfessionalBusiness and ITalignment andimprovement

ISD

Features ofhealthcareservices(quality,

accessibilityetc.)

USERORGANIZATION

IT PROVIDERORGANIZATION

WORKERS

MANAGEMENT

IT



Figure 13. Example of stakeholder entry and participation in the ISD process phases

Enterprise architects’ work is planning in high granular level: taking account of requirements from business, management, work activities, and information systems, and building a holistic picture. An enterprise architect cannot be unambiguously claimed as belonging to one of the stakeholder groups (columns in Figure 13), but the enterprise architect may represent the financial management or information management or administration, depending on the organization.

Decision:”We need a new system”

Requirements elicitation: ”What are our information system needs?”

Requirements analysis: ”What do we need most? Restrictions?”

Requirements specification: ”These are our specified requirements”

Invitation of tenders: ”Offer us a solution which fulfils these requirements”

Selection: ”This solution fits our requirements best”

Purchase

Implementation: ”The new product is integrated into our system”

Training: ”This is how you can /should use this software”

Use: ”This is how we use this software,as part of the information system withinour work tasks”

Fina

ncia

lm

anag

emen

t

Info

rmat

ion

man

agem

ent

and

adm

inis

tratio

n

Use

rs

Ven

for

parti

cipa

nts

Putting it together


The research results give no “one size fits all” solution to the question of the participants, but rather the result is that the need for different participants depends on the situation and the goals of the process. The issue is brought up as an important matter to be thought of when planning the ISD work, for helping to consider the questions of who should participate in which phase, and what the consequences are of participating or not participating.

In the above the stakeholders are discussed in relation to the acquisition process. Paper VI studies process modeling as a common activity that is related to ISD in user organizations. The paper presents the stakeholder roles in relation to modeling: modeler, informant, and responsible for modeling. In modeling activity, the stakeholders often have different roles from those they have in their daily work.

5.1.3 Modeling

The thesis focuses on two main issues that are important when planning and conducting modeling: the models and the modeling activities by which the models are produced. In addition to Activity-Driven modeling, Process modeling is studied as an example of a typical contemporary modeling activity in user organizations. Paper VI presents an AD concept for analyzing process modeling as a work activity, and an example of such analysis is presented that is based on data gathered from 21 individuals (representing 14 organizations) who have participated in process modeling in one role or another.

Process models have been criticized in the literature (see e.g. Paper III) and empirical experiences during the research confirm that critique. Process models do not always correspond to the reality. For example, at one end, core business processes are typically modeled at a high level of abstraction, conceptualizing the way an organization conducts business, and at the other end, workflows depicting the interaction between the user and the computer are modeled at a detailed level, explicitly defining



process steps and the order of the steps. Despite the different amount of detail, the above-mentioned processes consider the process in a mechanistic manner with predefined steps and procedure, neglecting flexibility and dynamics (Melão and Pidd, 2000).

In between the two ends of general and highly detailed descriptions, there is a ‘gray area’ of the actual realization of the business activities in several process instances: the daily work of the workers. From the viewpoint of an individual worker, the daily work seldom follows one complete (business) process instance from end to end, but the daily work is rather about conducting tasks belonging to different situation-dependent instances. Complexity even grows when work is cooperative in nature. The nature of daily work is hard to capture in mechanistically hierarchical process models that are drawn rather from the management’s viewpoint than from the worker’s viewpoint. Thus processes become fuzzy and there is a mismatch between models and reality. The AD models provide a means to describe cooperative networked activities. In this sense, an activity network is closer to the workers’ viewpoint of daily work practices than a set of process models.

As a practical research result of the SOLEA project, a six-level framework for modeling activities and processes was developed (Luukkonen et al., 2012). The levels were labeled as Context, Overview, Process, Action, Task, and Operation. Each level has typical model types and some guidelines could be made for the procedure for how to create them. AD models are situated mainly on the levels of Context and Overview, and interfaced with traditional process modeling.

Modeling output consists of individual models that have selected elements describing a section of the reality. In a good case, the models are useful. In a bad case (which is unfortunately common in practice) the models are left ‘on the map’ and never really used. How, then, we can settle on good models which serve the purpose of modeling? Before and during modeling activities, important questions arise and choices have to be made that are related to models and their use.

Putting it together


These choices impact on the modeling outputs. For instance, what modeling method should we use? What elements should the individual models include?

Figure 14 sketches the interplay between the business and modeling. The left-hand side presents the business/work, and the right-hand side presents the modeling. The purpose of modeling should be the master guiding element of the modeling activities. The purpose guides the decision as to what viewpoints are needed (e.g., management, system design, or enterprise architecture). According to the viewpoint, the paradigm will be chosen to select the appropriate methodology. In order to understand the requirements for the models to be created, the viewpoints are refined by identifying the roles, the actual actors who are going to use the models. The users of the model have goals that are related to their work, and the goals define requirements for what information is needed, and further, where the information can be achieved from. Then an appropriate modeling technique should be chosen to correspond with the needs of the model users. Finally, the elements of individual models should correspond to the elements of interest. It should be noted that often one modeling methodology is not enough, but different kinds of models are needed.



Figure 14. Purpose guides decisions related to modeling

To obtain the big picture, representatives from the different stakeholder groups should cooperate in information gathering and modeling. The models should facilitate the cooperation; that is, they should be understandable for the participants. Furthermore, the models should facilitate interlinkage and traceability in several dimensions: time, granularity, and between items belonging to separate sub-architectures, information, information systems, technology, and business (or work activity). With the mainstream modeling the wholeness is hard to capture, because, e.g., process modeling can easily lead to a large number of details (Nurcan et al., 2005). The existing EA frameworks (e.g., TOGAF, Zachman) help by giving the categories of issues, but the frameworks leave open how the descriptions should be created, or how to restrict the amount of models to be created. Still, the enterprise architect’s work can be characterized as being largely of the “thinking self” kind of creative work. Suitable methods provide highly granular ideas of necessary models and guidelines for creative use and situational adjustment.

Modelingoutput

Elements ofmodels

Modelingtechniques

Goals of model

Modelingmethodologies

Why do westart

modeling?

For whom are weproducing models?

What kind of informationis needed? Who should

participate?

What detailsshould becaptured?

What paradigmsshould we follow?

Developmentin

organization

Viewpoints

Roles

Goals of work

Elements ofinterest

Purpose ofModeling

Putting it together


When it comes to the quality of the models, the need for pragmatic quality beats the need for formal quality in the early phases. Later on, the development of information systems needs more accuracy and explicit models for designing the solutions or implementing the integrations – then the formal quality is essential.

The requirements for the models that are needed in the early phases of ISD can be characterized as follows. The models should support getting

� a shared understanding between the different viewpoints

� a holistic ‘big picture’ revealing the essence and serving as a map for seeing the relations between the more detailed models

� an understanding of the information needs within the daily work.

5.2 ACTIVITY-DRIVEN APPROACH SUMMARIZED

The AD approach has theoretical and empirical roots that have influenced the features of the approach. By theoretical roots I mean those leaning on AT, IS, and Participatory Design (PD), summarized by Mursu et al. (2007), and promoting the rigorousness of the features. By empirical roots I mean the way in which the AD approach has developed during the past two decades. The development of the AD approach embedded in the research projects is presented both on a large temporal scale (Paper II), and in detail with regard to selected spots (Paper IV, Paper V). The multifaceted project collaboration made possible the development of the method through discussion and two-way learning between research and practice, promoting the practical quality (Recker, 2007) of the features.

The main theoretical frameworks, the ActAD and AD ISD models, and the participatory working principles form the essence of the AD approach together with the eight statements that are considered together as intertwined whole (Paper II). The



features of the AD approach instantiate in the AD tools that were used in the empirical research (Paper II, Table 3). Appendix A presents examples of AD tools used in relation to the empirical research (Paper VI and Paper V), and more examples can be found in other publications (e.g., Toivanen et al., 2007; Luukkonen et al., 2012). As an example of an AD analytical data-gathering tool, Appendix B presents a question list which was used in a web-based questionnaire (Paper VI). The interplay of activity-drivenness and participative working principles is described in Paper II in general and an example of such a research process is presented in Paper IV, Table I.

Paper III contributes to the debate on the features of the AD approach by comparing the features of AD models (content and structure) to those of traditional notation-based approaches, and to those of other socio-technical models. In this end, the paper clarifies one aspect of the relation of the AD approach and others. Paper VI presents a detailed analysis of process modeling work activity based on the ActAD framework. The analysis helps to gain an understanding of the process modeling issues but it might also help in gaining an understanding of the framework itself.

5.3 THE POTENTIAL USE OF AD APPROACH IN USER ORGANIZATIONS

In the empirical research, the AD approach has been proven to be useful in gathering the information needs within work activities and in the analyses that follow. Specifically, in situations in which there is a need to quickly clarify the essence of a previously unknown target area, the AD approach seems well suited. In the recent research the question of using an AD approach in relation to enterprise architecting has also been initially assessed.

In the early phases, in the preliminary studies that are supposed to clarify the fuzzy starting point, and preferably rather quickly, the most important view of the approach

Putting it together


matters. The most important view of the AD approach is the view of purposeful cooperative work activities. Thus the AD approach implies a certain ideological stance of starting the analyses with the work activities, and only then proceeding to technical or other issues, as opposed to traditional approaches, which are technically oriented or technique-driven. This is important, because the purposes of work activity set the purpose of using information.

Participatory methods in the data gathering and modeling phases are emphasized within AD methods. The actors in the target activity are important informants since they have the most relevant knowledge about the actual daily practices and what information is then needed and why. By identifying all roles in cooperative work activity, and facilitating their impact on the modeling results, a rich understanding of the wholeness can be achieved and different viewpoints can be taken into account. The broad participation of stakeholders creates demands for means of communication (Mayoux, and Chambers, 2005) when the purpose is to obtain a shared understanding. When the broad effective participation of different kinds of stakeholders is needed, practical quality is emphasized over and above formal quality (Kaisler, 2005; Recker, 2007); that is, the models need to be understandable rather than complete and adjustable to the situation at hand.

Structured and illustrative but still informal notations have been tested in several pilot projects with a broad range of participants (see Table 3 in Paper II). AD tools include understandable visualizations in the form of diagrams, tables, and storytelling. The tools can be used for data collection and analyses, as well as means of communication between the different stakeholders. The approach allows the creative use of the tools according to the situational needs for modeling. In the light of empirical experience, the AD-specific tools are adaptable both in theoretical analysis as a thinking tool, and to practical use as a communicative and descriptive tool. In particular, graphic illustrations and structured story-telling have shown their power as means of communication.



Various methods, e.g., semi-structured interviews, group interviews, and workshops, can be used for collecting data and mutually agreeing on it. The AD frameworks can be used as a guiding mental mindset in finding the relevant questions.

In order to analyze one understandable piece at a time, Activity-Driven descriptions are basically structured on three levels. A phenomenon on a lower level can be localized on the next level up in order to see the “zone of effect”. For example, if an action of an individual worker is changed in his process, how will it affect cooperative work, or, further, the networked level of activity? Figures 5 and 6 in Appendix 1 illustrate the zooming between the different leveled models. This is a necessary feature in order to avoid solutions which ease the work of one individual but have negative effects on the holistic level. This supports the requirement of traceability and moving between the different levels. The “big pictures” are important for mapping the detailed descriptions.

AD methods offer means to create informative and purpose-oriented sets of holistic pictures. It is possible to draw several high-level descriptions to explain the most important subjects, e.g., a map of activities, a map of the information system, or a map of the geographical locations of activities. The elements of the maps can be related with each other in purposeful ways by, e.g., drawing the main information flows between the activities. When a scope that is larger than the organizational one is needed, the Landscape methodology (Korpela et al., 2008) provides a comprehensive tool to sketch circumstances which may influence the problems and the possible solutions, but which are not decisionable in the target organization.

The study of the relationship of the AD approach and Enterprise Architecture was not part of the original research plan. However, the Enterprise Architecture is an important perspective on user organizations’ ISD that emerged during the research process and could not be disregarded. AD and EA represent different perspectives on ISD in user organizations. The AD approach focuses on the work activities, and information needs within them, thus dealing with the grassroots

Putting it together


of the fit between the information system and work. From the EA perspective the issues important to management and business improvement are emphasized. It is too soon to claim that the AD approach as it is at the moment is suitable for use for enterprise architecting purposes. But the following statements serve to further elaborate the idea. The AD approach is built on the postulate of the parallel development of information systems and work, and thus it supports the alignment of business and IT from the work activity perspective. The AD approach reveals the structure of the activity system, thus representing the constructive view of the socio-technical system (cf. “white box” in relation to EA; Hoogervorst, 2006). The business architecture is commonly built on process models. AD modeling is possible way to complement the process models. The high-granularity AD overview descriptions provide means of describing the Activity Architecture, as a complementary view to Business Architecture.

5.4 NEEDS FOR IMPROVEMENT

The AD approach has been researched and developed for two decades now. We have established the frameworks comprising the essence of the approach, and developed a set of tools to be used. However, the actual use of the approach has mainly taken place in research projects where the researchers have been in an active role. Although the models have been proved to be understandable for the participants, they have not been proven to have been adapted, or not been adapted into the participants’ later projects. This is a question which is worth of further studies.

In order to distribute the approach into use in real environments, the steps that must be taken can be described as follows. Training the potential users to adapt the approach is one step. For training we need educational artifacts (course outlines with lectures and exercises, and evaluation criteria), and approval of the adoption of the approach in educational



programmes. The discussion of the participants in the ISD process in user organizations gives us a clue as to who the users of the AD approach might be, and in this end, sets requirements for designing the educational materials.

Both academic debate and empirical studies are needed for clarifying, assessing, and developing the approach further. The approach as a whole would benefit from academic discussion of the approach in terms of the features of the approach. In this discussion of the goals, guiding principles and beliefs, fundamental concepts, and principles of the ISD process as the set of features to be discussed (Iivari et al., 2001), it would be suitable, for example, to clarify the intertwined relationship of the eight statements (see Paper II) and the impact of that on methods, respectively.

Regarding to the AD models, clear interfaces are needed in both directions, that of detailed models which are essential in engineering, and that of general models which are currently used in enterprise architecting. Some tentative steps towards utilizing the approach in enterprise architecting have been made. AD models are suggested to be used, in relation to process models, in overview-level (Luukkonen et al., 2012). An AD concept is suggested to be used for understanding and improving process modeling work activity as a part of enterprise architects’ work (Paper VI).

Utilizing the approach was not without challenges. Some of the problems were addressed during the research, but some remained open. The problems that can be considered general, such as difficulties in timetabling or lack of English-language material, are not discussed here. Instead, the main problems that are directly related specifically to the AD approach and its features are raised. At the start we had the frameworks from the earlier research, but no guidelines as to how to combine and adjust them so that they would be applicable. To address this problem, the AD ISD Model was developed on the basis of the action research in the ZipIT project, and a guidebook for AD ISD in healthcare was written (Toivanen et al., 2007).


6 Discussion and future research

In this chapter the research is discussed in terms of research questions, research approach and research process, theoretical and practical contributions, and limitations of the study and the relevant options for future research.

6.1 RESPONSES TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Two major concepts, the ISD process in user organizations and the AD approach, were addressed in the research, both as separate phenomena and intertwined in relation to each other. This section discusses how the research results respond to the research questions. The discussion starts with the sub-questions, and ends up by summarizing the response to the main research question.

SQ1: What are the main phases in the process of information systems development in user organizations, who are the stakeholders, and what are their concerns regarding ISD?

Acquisition processes and enterprise architecting are identified as activities that frame information systems development in user organizations and they consist of several sub-activities. It seems that there is a need for methodological support for the starting points of the different sub-activities that form the ISD process (see Figure 13) and enterprise architecting, instead of only at the starting point of a major ISD process. The empirical research confirms that at least a feasibility study, implementation, deployment, and training (Paper I), enterprise architecting (Paper IV), and even process modeling (Paper VI)



are activities in which some preliminary overview should be established, so that the actual phase could be planned on the basis of the shared understanding of the situation and the goals. Stakeholders that were identified through the research (e.g., Paper II, Table 3), were categorized and their concerns were discussed through their viewpoint and in relation to modeling and the acquisition process.

SQ2: How can we define the AD approach and what are its main

features, and what are the typical methods of the AD approach like? What distinguishes it from other approaches?

AD approach is defined in Paper II with eight statements and

by describing the main frameworks and what is typical for AD participatory methods and tools. The discussion is deepened in the summary part (2.4.3 and 5.2). However, the academic discussion of the approach as a whole is at an insufficient level at the moment. Examples of the tools are collected in Appendices A and B and more can be found in the case-specific reports and in the guidelines. The approach is distinguished from some other well-known approaches by using the typical models of each as distinctive feature (Paper III). Another distinctive feature is that Activity Theory and the frameworks by Korpela and Mursu have had direct impact on the AD participatory working principles and methods.

Research question SQ4 refines SQ3. Therefore they are

responded to together here.

SQ3: In what phases and for what purposes can the AD approach be applied in user organizations ISD and what problems are there with the utilization? SQ4: What features of the AD approach need to be improved in order to enable it to be applied practically in user organizations?

The situations when the AD approach was researched in user organizations are listed in Paper II, Table 3. Primary data for this research (that is, the researcher participated personally in

Discussion and future research


the data collection and analysis) were collected in the cases 2a, 3a, 3b, 3d, 3e, 3f, and 4a. The data from the other cases were used as secondary data. The advantages of the approach are presented in Section 5.3. and the needs for improvement of the approach in Section 5.4.

After the responses to the sub-questions have been collected,

the main research question can be responded to on the basis of these.

RQ. What are the potentials and weaknesses of utilizing the AD approach in user organizations’ ISD?

The research on the relationship of the ISD in user organizations and the AD approach revealed the practical relevance of the Activity-Driven approach as a realistic option in front-end activities preceding those phases which are traditionally considered as forming the information systems development process in user organizations’ information systems development. Specifically, the AD approach fits the information needs analysis by providing theoretically sound, practically adaptable, and understandable

- models that support the modeling and analysis of cooperative human activity and the use of information within it

- frameworks for guiding participatory AD work in such analysis

The research increased the understanding of the AD approach as a whole, particularly via the empirical research and practical outcomes. However, the research revealed that the academic debate on the AD approach as a whole has not been on a sufficiently high level. Scientific qualification through academic debates is needed to place the approach properly into the traditions of Information Systems, Participatory Design, and Activity Theory. Educational artifacts are also needed to improve its practical applicability.

The research on the relationship of the ISD in user organizations and the AD approach revealed the practical



relevance of the Activity-Driven approach as a realistic option in front-end activities preceding those phases which are traditionally considered as forming the information systems development process in user organizations’ information systems development. Specifically, the AD approach fits the information needs analysis by providing theoretically sound, practically adaptable, and understandable

6.2 ASSESSING THE RESEARCH APPROACH AND PROCESS

The goal of this research was both to develop the methods of the AD approach and, at the same time, investigate the possible potentials as well as the problematic points of utilizing the AD approach in ISD early phases from the user organizations’ viewpoint. The interpretive nature of this research, the multi-faceted research environment as well as the practical emphasis, and the emphasis on the development of the approach impose some limitations on how this research can be evaluated.

According to the interpretive research philosophy, the subjectivity and individual values must be taken account of, and thus proving the results of this study to be either “right” or “wrong” is impossible.

Several research projects set the actual research scene for this study. The projects had their originally predefined objectives and goals of their own that were cooperatively refined during the research. The projects included researchers and participants from a variety of disciplines, who brought in their own backgrounds, capabilities, and assumptions. In cooperative participative research, diversity of that kind can be considered as a feature that both strengthened and hindered the research and the reporting on the results. Certainly no factor can be seen as being unambiguously negative or positive.

The diversity of projects and project-related goals helped the researcher to consider the applicability and usability of the AD approach to several target areas. Hence the research that was realized was broader than the originally planned research and



also incorporated international cooperation, an educational perspective, and the Enterprise Architecture viewpoint. The process cumulatively increased the understanding of the object of the research.

Because of the diversity of the backgrounds of those involved the researcher was “forced” to understand the variety (that is, the variety itself) and the viewpoints of the participants from different disciplines. Actually, it can be claimed that without so diverse a research group a research study of this kind would have been much poorer and more incomplete. Explaining the features of the AD approach to other researchers from different disciplines made it necessary to consider the understandability of the building blocks.

The understanding obtained of the subject matter was broad rather than deeply focused. The study straddled the borders between several fields during the research process: Software Engineering in the pre-PhD phase, Socio-technical Information Systems Development as the starting point, healthcare information systems development as the domain for empirical study, and Enterprise Architecture and Process Modeling in the later parts of the research. The moving between and across the different disciplines, with Activity-Driven thoughts, posed some challenges for reporting the research in academic publications.

In research that is deeply focused and planned beforehand, a systematic literature survey is a rational way of obtaining theoretical background information as a starting point for the research. In emergent interpretive research it is impossible.

Information systems development in the user organizations, together with the application and elaboration of the AD approach, formed a thread that ran throughout the research. The binding force during the research as it dealt with the different disciplines was the practical intention of studying the AD approach, and asking the questions: what is the possible use of this approach and how can it be improved?



6.3 CONTRIBUTION OF THE THESIS

The contribution of this thesis has a dual focus: the Activity-Driven approach for ISD is one, and ISD in user organizations is the other. The empirical research linked the two focuses. The research results contribute to both theory and practice.

The theoretical contribution of the research is mainly addressed to the research community that develops the AD approach to ISD. The research communities on the borders of the research might also be interested in the results, namely researchers on health information systems, particularly the INDEHELA network researchers, but also those who research process modeling and enterprise architecture. The practical contribution is addressed to the professionals who develop information systems in user organizations, but possibly also in provider organizations.

In this thesis, the user organization ISD was clarified by researching the situations of user organization involvement in Requirements Engineering (Paper I), the viewpoints, participants, and modeling in the early phases of ISD (Section 5.1), and process modeling activities as a common front end activity for ISD in organizations (Paper VI). In addition, the other publications that were produced in the research projects provided knowledge of the ISD in user organizations (see Section 6.3.2).

The AD approach and its features were researched and developed during the research (see also Sections 2.4.3 and 6.3.1). In this theses the AD approach is particularized by summarizing the approach in Paper II, defining the relations between the AD approach and selected other ISD approaches and methods, researching the applicability (Paper IV) and teachability (Paper V) of the approach, and using the AD approach in studying process modeling activities in organizations and presenting the analysis of process modeling as work activity as an example of such an analysis (Paper VI).



6.3.1 Theoretical contribution

The research increased the understanding of the AD approach as a whole. Paper II provides the definition of the approach and, presents the main analytical frameworks and the story of its development. The analytical frameworks, particularly the AD ISD Model, as joint research result; Activity Driven Needs Analysis (described in Paper IV); and practical AD tools were developed in the research. The relation between AD modeling, traditional process modeling and socio-technical modeling is clarified in Paper III by using the models of each as distinctive matter (Paper III), and AD models are suggested to complement process models. The research brought up also needs for further development (see Section 5.4).

6.3.2 Practical contribution

As a part of the research results, we (I refer here to the different research groups that I was part of in the different research phases) produced several case-specific open access documents providing knowledge that is relevant to the project partners’ information systems development, but also to other user organizations that face corresponding situations. The documents can be found on the project websites (www.uku.fi/zipit/; www.uku.fi/ehp/cn-fi/; http://www.uef.fi/solea/). The case-specific documents can be used as illustrative practical examples when ideas for someone’s own project are being sought or, in education. We also produced guidelines for AD ISD in healthcare (Toivanen et al., 2007) and for process modeling (Luukkonen et al., 2012).

The action research, with the close involvement and cooperation of the project participants, may have been a two-way learning experience for both the researcher and the other participants. On a small scale the research results have also been transmitted to students who will be the designers of tomorrow.



6.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The research suffers from the following general limitations. Some of the limitations that have been identified open directions for further research.

In reporting the research, the minimum set of original research data is included in the summary part and the publications. However, references to the non-scientific publications, the case-specific reports, and the guidelines, where more information can be found, are provided.

As mentioned in Section 5.4., the use of the AD approach in project participants’ later projects is not addressed in the research. Such a follow-up would have increased the validity of the results here and probably provided new information for improving the approach.

The balance between the empirical and theoretical work within the projects was practice-oriented. This can be considered as a limitation of the study in the sense that the work involved in producing the project-specific reports and practice-oriented guidelines took away time from academic publications. This is a feature of action research that has been criticized (Simonsen, 2009). Academic debate in high-quality IS journals, aiming at 1) making the AD approach itself explicit and clear (improving the core of the approach), and 2) improving the connectivity of the approach to other methodologies and approaches (expanding the approach) is still needed. These are issues that are also brought up as an important objective for future research (see Sections 5.4 and 6.4).

Further research efforts, aiming at increase the practical applicability of the approach, are needed to develop the teachability of the approach. Incorporating pedagogical knowledge is necessary for the creation of the required educational artifacts. In the long run, the teachability should have a positive impact on the adaptability.

Both empirical and theoretical research on the work of enterprise architects and the development of enterprise architectures in organizations is necessary for expanding the



approach to interface architecture and context modeling. It is obvious that such research requires multi-disciplinary research groups.


7 Conclusion

In this thesis, the viewpoint of user organizations on ISD was studied in relation to the activities that relate to ISD: an acquisition process and enterprise architecting as the main contexts of ISD, and modeling as an important supportive activity. The investigation of process modeling was used as an example of a traditional early-phase ISD approach and both the models and modeling efforts were discussed. The different viewpoints and stakeholders were identified and their concerns and demands for modeling were discussed. The Activity-Driven approach was studied and developed in terms of the associated models and working principles, including research on the applicability and teachability of the approach, as well in terms of the development process of the approach.

The research on the relation of the ISD in user organizations and AD approach revealed the practical relevance of the Activity-Driven approach as a realistic option in front-end activities in user organizations’ information systems development. Specifically, the AD approach fits the information needs analysis by providing theoretically sound, practically adaptable, and understandable

- models that support the modeling and analysis of cooperative human activity and the use of information within it

- frameworks for guiding participatory AD work in such analysis

The research increased the understanding of the AD approach as a whole, particularly via the empirical research and practical outcomes. However, the research revealed that the academic debate on the AD approach as a whole has not been on a sufficiently high level. Scientific qualification through academic debates is needed to place the approach properly into the traditions of Information Systems, Participatory Design, and



Activity Theory. Educational artifacts are needed to improve the practical applicability.

Despite the emphasis was in user organization perspective, it is not excluded that the approach may be beneficial to the software developers as well.

The thesis contributes to the scientific community by expanding on the previous research results on the AD approach, indicating spots for further research, and by assessing the potential of the AD approach in user organizations’ information systems development.

References


References

ACM Computing Curricula 2005 (2006). The Overview Report covering undergraduate degree programs in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Information Systems, Information Technology, Software Engineering. ACM and IEEE.

Alexander, I. and Robertson, S. (2004). Understanding Project Sociology by Modeling Stakeholders. IEEE Software 21(1), 23–27.

Alter, S. (2008). Defining Information Systems as Work Systems: Implications for the IS Field. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 448–469.

Alter, S. (2009a). Metamodel for Understanding, Analyzing, and Designing Sociotechnical Systems. Proceedings > Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development Workshop . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(59).

Alter, S. (2009b). Project Collaboration, not just User Participation. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings. Paper 658.

Alter, Steven (1999). A General, Yet Useful Theory of Information Systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1, Article 13.

Asaro, P.M. (2000). Transforming Society by Transforming Technology: The Science and Politics of Participatory Design, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (10), 257–290.

Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., and Nielsen, P. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97.

Baskerville, R. and Myers, M.D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword. MIS Quarterly 28(3), 329–335.

Baskerville, R.L. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2, Article 19.

Bertelsen, O.W., and Bødker, S. (2000). Introduction: Information technology in human activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1) 3–14.



Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1995). User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 73–98.

Bødker, K., Kensing, F. and Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT Design. Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. London, England: The MIT Press.

Bødker, S. (1991). Activity theory as a challenge to systems design. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Nissen, H.-E. et al. (eds.) pp. 551–564, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Bødker, S. and Andersen, P.B. (2005). Complex mediation. Human–Computer Interaction, 20(4), 353–402.

Bødker, S., Ehn P. Sjögren, D., and Sundblad, Y. (2000). Cooperative Design — perspectives on 20 years with “the Scandinavian IT Design Model”. In Proceedings of the First Nordic Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (NordiCHI 2000). Gulliksen, J., Lantz,A., Oestreicher, L. and Severinson-Eklundh, K. (eds). Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. 23–25 October 2000.

B dker, S., Klokmose, C.N. (2011). The Human–Artifact Model: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Artifact Ecologies. Human–Computer Interaction, 26(4), 315–371.

Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer 21(5), 61–72.

Bray, I.K. (2002). An Introduction to Requirements Engineering, Addison-Wessley.

Brown, R.B.K., Hyland, P., and Piper, I.C. (2006). Specifying System Requirements Using the 5S Method. In ACIS 2006 Proceedings. Spencer, S. and Jenkins, A. (eds.) Paper 100. Australasian Association for Information Systems.

Carmel, E., Whitaker, R.D., George, J.F. (1993). PD and Joint Application Design: A Transatlantic Comparison, Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 40–48.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (2005). Soft systems methodology in action, England, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

References


Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology in action: a 30-year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 17(S1), S11–S58.

Cheng, B. H. and Atlee, J. M. (2007). Research Directions in Requirements Engineering. In 2007 Future of Software Engineering (May 23–25, 2007). International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 285-303. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.

Davis, G.B. (2000). Information systems conceptual foundations: looking backward and forward. In Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology. Baskerville, R., Stage, J. and Degross, J.I. (Eds), pp. 61–82. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

Davison, R. and Martinsons, M. (2011). Methodological practice and policy for organisationally and socially relevant IS research: an inclusive–exclusive perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 26(4), 288–293.Dittrich Y., Rönkkö, K., Eriksson, J., Hansson, C., and Lindeberg, O. (2008). Cooperative Method Development. Combining qualitative empirical research with method, technique and process improvement, Empirical Software Engineering 13 (2008), 231–260.

Dorn, J., Grun, C., Werthner, H. and Zapletal, M. (2007). A Survey of B2B Methodologies and Technologies: From Business Models towards Deployment Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07). p. 143. IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA.

Ehn, P. (1993): Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill. In D. Schuler and A. Namioka (eds.): Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 41–78.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta konsultit, Helsinki, Finalnd.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punamäki, R. (Eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. 19–38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work, Journal of Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. Elsevier.



Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Sage, London.

Erol, S. (2011). Practical insights into collaborative drafting of organizational processes. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Collaborative Usage and Development of Models and Visualizations at the ECSCW 2011 (CollabViz 2011), Nolte, A., Prilla, M., Lukosch, S., Kolfschoten, G. and Herrmann, T. (Eds.), pp. 45–51.

Fischer, C., Winter, R., and Aier, S. (2010). What is an Enterprise Architecture Design Principle? Towards a consolidated definition. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Architecture Challenges and Responses, Yonezawa, Japan.

Foorthuis, R.M., Brinkkemper, S., and Bos, R. (2008). An Artifact Model for Projects Conforming to Enterprise Architecture. In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. Proceedings of PoEM 2008, IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, LNBIP 15, Stirna, J., Persson, A. (Eds.) pp. 30–46., Springer, Berlin.

Foorthuis, R.M., Hofman, F., Brinkkemper, S., Bos, R. (2009). Assessing Business and IT Projects on Compliance with Enterprise Architecture. In Proceedings of GRCIS 2009, CAISE Workshop on Governance, Risk and Compliance of Information Systems.

Germonprez, M. and Mathiassen, L. (2004). The Role of Conventional Research Methods in Information Systems Action Research, In Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice, Kaplan, B., Truex, D., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, T., and DeGross, J. (Eds.), pp. 335–349. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

Giaglis, G.M. (2001). A taxonomy of business process modelling and information systems modelling techniques. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 13(2), 209–228.

Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS), pp.13–26, Linköping University.

Goldkuhl, G. (2008). Practical Inquiry as Action Research and Beyond. ECIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 118.

References


González, V.M., Nardi, B., and Mark, G. (2009). Ensembles: understanding the instantiation of activities. Information Technology & People, 22(2), 109 – 131. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Gregor, S., Bunker, D., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Metcalfe, M., and Underwood, J. (2007). Australian Eclecticism and Theorizing in Information Systems Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 11–38.

Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design. International Journal of Engineering Education 19(1), 62–74.

Häkkinen, H. and Korpela, M. (2007). A participatory assessment of IS integration needs in maternity clinics using activity theory. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(11–12), 843–849.

Hannola, L. (2009). Challenges and means for the front end activities of software development. Academic dissertation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Digipaino.

Hansen, S., Lyytinen, K., and Jarke, M. (2010). Interview with Fred Brooks on “Building Effective Large-Scale Requirements”. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(3), 191–200.

Hansen, S., Berente, N., and Lyytinen, K.J. (2009). Requirements in the 21st Century: Current Practice & Emerging Trends. In: Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective, Lyytinen, K.J. Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., and Robinson, W. (Eds.), pp. 44–87. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.

Hedegaard, M., Chaiklin, S. & Jensen, U.J. (1999). Activity theory and social practice: An introduction. Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., and Jensen, U. J. (Eds.), Activity Theory and Social Practice: Cultural-Historical Approaches, pp. 12–30. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark.

Heeks R. (2006). Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75(2), 125–137.

Hirschheim, R. (1985). Information systems epistemology: An historical perspective. In Research Methods in Information Sysfems. Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzberald R. et al. (Eds.) pp.13–38. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Neatherlands.



Hoogervorst, J. (2004). Enterprise Architecture: Enabling Integration, Agility and Change. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(3), 213–233.

Häkkinen, H. and Korpela, M. (2007). A participatory assessment of IS integration needs in maternity clinics using activity theory. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(11–12), 843–849.

IEEE (2000). IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 14712000), IEEE Computer Society, New York, NY.

Iivari, J. and Hirschheim, R. (1996). Analyzing information systems development: A comparison and analysis of eight is development approaches, Information Systems, 21(7), 551–575.

Iivari, J., Hirschheim R., and Klein, H. (1998). A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research 9(2), 164–193.

Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H.K. (2004).Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for Information Systems experts: coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal 14, 313–342.

Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., and Klein, (2001). A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches. Journal of Management Information Systems 17(3), 179–218.

Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Kaisler, S.H., Armour, F., and Valivullah, M. (2005). Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS '05).

Kaptelinin, V., Kuutti, K., and Bannon, L. (1995). Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications. In Blumenthal et al. (Eds.) Human-Computer Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. pp. 189–201. Springer, 1995.

Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B.A. (2006). Acting with technology Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press.

References


Kensing, F. and Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: issues and concerns. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167–185.

Klein, H. and Myers, M. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.

Korpela, M. (1994). Nigerian practice in computer systems development. A multidisciplinary theoretical framework, applied to health informatics. Doctoral dissertation. 1994. Helsinki University of Technology. Department of Computer Science. Reports TKO-A31. 273 p.

Korpela, M., Soriyan, H.A., and Olufokunbi, K.C. (2000). Activity Analysis as a Method for Information Systems Development: General Introduction and Experiments from Nigeria and Finland, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), Article 8.

Korpela, M., de la Harpe, R., and Luukkonen, I. (2008). Depicting the landscape around information flows: Methodological propositions. In: SIG GlobDev Workshop Proceedings, Paris, France, 13 December 2008. Association for Information Systems.

Korpela, M., Mursu, A., and Soriyan, H.A. (2001). Two times four integrative levels of analysis: a framework, in Russo, N.L., Fitzgerald, B., and DeGross, J.I. (eds.), Realigning research and practice in information systems development: the social and organizational perspective, pp. 367–377, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Korpela, M., Mursu, A., Soriyan, H.A., de la Harpe, R. and Macome, E. (2006). Information systems practice for development in Africa: results from INDEHELA. Trauth, E.M., Howcroft, D., Butler, T., Fitzgerald, B., and DeGross, J.I. (Eds.), Social Inclusion: Societal and Organizational Implications for Information Systems. IFIP TC8 WG8.2 International Working Conference, pp. 15–36. Springer, New York.

Korpela, M., Mursu, A., Soriyan, A., Eerola, A., Häkkinen, H., and Toivanen, M. (2004). I.S. research and development by activity analysis and development – dead horse or the next wave? In Kaplan B., Truex III D., Wastell D., Wood-Harper A.T. and DeGross J.I. (Eds.), Information systems research – relevant theory and informed practice, pp. 453–471. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.



Korpela, M., Mursu, A., Soriyan, H.A. and Olufokunbi, K.C. (2002), Information systems development as an activity, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1–2), 111–128.

Kuutti, K. (1991). Activity Theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In Nissen, H.E., Klein, H.K., and Hirschhem, R. (Eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, pp. 529–549, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Lankhorst, M. and van Drunen, H. (2007). Enterprise Architecture Development and Modelling – Combining TOGAF and ArchiMate, Via Nova Architectura, 21 March 2007.

Lee, A.S. (2004). Thinking about social theory and philosophy for IS. In Mingers, J. and Willcocks, L.P. (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems, pp. 1–26. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Sussex.

Leontiev, A.N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Luukkonen, I., Jiang, J., Korpela, M., Mursu, A., Mykkänen, J., Mäkinen, J., Nykänen, P., Seppälä, A., Ruonamaa, H., Virkanen, H. (2008). Describing the current state of health information management and sharing. The case of maternity pathway in Weifang Community Health Centre and East Hospital, Shanghai, in 2007. Kuopio, Finland: University of Kuopio, China-Finland e-Health Partnership, 2008. 56 p.

Luukkonen, I., Mykkänen, J., Itälä, T., Savolainen, S., and Tamminen, M. (2012). Toiminnan ja prosessien mallintaminen – tasot, näkökulmat ja esimerkit. Itä-Suomen yliopisto, Aalto yliopisto. (Modeling Activities and Processes – Levels, Perspectives and Examples; in Finnish) Available at project web-site http://www.uef.fi/solea/tulosdokumentit.

Luukkonen, I. and Mykkänen, J. (2012). Prosessimallintamisen nykytila ja kehityskohdat organisaatioissa. Kyselytutkimusaineisto 2009. [elektroninen aineisto]. Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 11.4.2012.

Luukkonen, I., Toivanen, M., Mursu, A. (2007). Toward planned changes: an activity-driven ISD model. In: Proceedings of the 30th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia IRIS 2007. Models, Methods, and new Messages, Murikka, Tampere, Finland, August 11–14, 2007.

References


Lyytinen, K. and Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model European Journal of Information Systems 17, 589–613.

Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative Practice Research, Information Technology and People 15(4), pp. 321–345.

Mathiassen, L. and Nielsen, P.A. (2008). Engaged Scholarship in IS Research — The Scandinavian Case. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 20, 3–20.

Mayoux, L. and Chambers, R. (2005), Reversing the paradigm: quantification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment. Journal of International Development, 17(2), 271–298.

Melão, N. and Pidd, M. (2000). A conceptual framework for understanding business processes and business process modelling. Information Systems Journal, 10(2), 105–129.

Mendling, J., Reigers, H.A. and Cardoso J. (2007). What makes process models understandable? Alonso, G., Dadam, P., and Rosemann, M. (Eds.), Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2007, pp. 48–63. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg.

Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology, Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.

Minkkinen, I., Toivanen, M., and Eerola, A. (2005). Importance of the approach to requirements engineering. In: Husrad, E., Munkvold, B.E., Rolland, K., and Flak, L.S. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia. IRIS 28, Kristiansand, Norway, August 6–9 2005. Adger University College.

Minkkinen, I. (2004). Vaatimusmäärittelymenetelmät komponenttituotannon tukena – havaintoja soveltamisesta. Pro Gradu -tutkielma, Kuopion yliopisto, Informaatioteknologian ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta, Tietojenkäsittelytieteen laitos. 113 p.

Morgan, D. L. (2006). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.

Mumford, E. (1993). The ETHICS approach. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 82–83.

Mumford E. (2000). A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering, 5(2),125–133.



Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Information Systems Journal 16 (4), 317–342.

Mursu, A. (2002). Information systems development in developing countries risk management and sustainability analysis in Nigerian software companies. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. (Doctoral dissertation, Jyväskylä studies in Computing 21).

Mursu, A., Luukkonen, I., Toivanen, M. and Korpela, M. (2007). Activity theory in information systems research and practice: theoretical underpinnings for an information systems development model. Information Research 12(3), paper 311.

Mursu A., Korpela M., Soriyan A. (2004), Generic framework for sustainability analysis of Information Systems, In Romano, N.C. Jr (ed.), Proceedings of tenth americas conference on information systems, New York, August 6–8, Conference website, http://aisel.isworld.org/proceedings/amcis/2004/home.asp.

Myers, M.D. (2004). Hermeneutics in Information Systems Research. In J. Mingers and Willcocks, L.P. (Eds.), Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems, pp. 103–128. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Myers, M.D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 21(2), June 1997, 241–242. MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/supplements/. MISQ Discovery, updated version, last modified: November 12, 2011 www.qual.auckland.ac.nz (retrieved May 8th, 2012).

Myers, M.D. and Klein, H.K. (2011). A Set of Principles for Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 17–39.

Mykkänen, J. and Virkanen, H. (2012). Governance in Extended Lifecycle of Large-Scale eHealth Initiatives: Analyzing Variability of Enterprise Architecture Elements. The 25th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS 2012)(Submitted).

Mwanza D. (2002), Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice, PhD Thesis, United Kingdom: Open University.

References


Nakakawa, A., Bommel, P., and van and Proper, H.A. (2010). Challenges of Involving Stakeholders When Creating Enterprise Architecture. In van Dongen, B.F. and Reijers, H.A. (Eds.), Procedings of the 5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, 43–55.

Nightingale, D.J. and Rhodes, D.H. (2004). Enterprise Systems Architecting: Emerging Art and Science within Engineering Systems. In: Proceedings of the ESD External Symposium. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Nurcan, S., Etien, A., Kaabi, R., Zoukar, I., and Rolland, C. (2005). A strategy driven business process modeling approach. Business Process Management Journal, (11)6, 628–649. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463–7154.

Nuseibeh, B. and Easterbrook, S. (2000). Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In Finkelstein, A. (Ed.), The Future of Software Engineering, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 35–46. ACM and IEEE Computer Society Press.

Oxford Dictionary. Third edition, September 2011; online version March 2012. www.oed.com.ezproxy.uef.fi (retrieved May 8th, 2012).

Pawlak, Z. (2002). Rough sets, decision algorithms, and Bayes’ theorem. European Journal of Operational Research, 136, 181–189.

Perko, J. (2008). IT Governance and Enterprise Architecture as Prerequisites for Assimilation of Service-Oriented Architecture. An Empirical Study of Large Finnish Companies. Doctoral Dissertation. Tampere University of Technology, Publication 788.

Pulkkinen, M. (2008). Enterprise Architecture as a Collaboration Tool. Discurseve Process for nterprise Architecture Management, Planning and Development. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Jyväskylä Faculty of Information Technology. Jyväskylä studies in Computing 93.

Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three Dilemmas in Action Research. Human Relations, 23(6), 499–513.

Recker, J. (2007). Understanding Quality in Process Modelling: Towards a Holistic Perspective. In Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 43–63.



Robertson, S. and Robertson, J. (1999). Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley, Harlow.

Rosemann, M. (2006a). Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Business Process Management Journal, 12(2), 249–254.

Rosemann, M. (2006b). Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Business Process Management Journal, 12(3), 377–384.

Ross, J.W. (2006). Enterprise Architecture: Driving Business Benefits from IT. MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper No 4614–06.

Royce, W.W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems. IEEE Westcon, Los Angeles.

Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. and Booch, G. (1999). The Unified Modelling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley.

Ryan, A.B. (2006). Post-positivist approaches to research. In Ryan, A.B. Research and writing your thesis: A guide for post-graduate students, pp. 12–26. MACE, Maynooth.

Schekkerman, J. (2004). How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework, 2nd Ed., Trafford Publishing, Victoria, British Columbia.

Schöenherr, M. (2009). Towards a Common Terminology in the Discipline of Enterprise Architecture. In Feuerlicht, G. and Lamersdorf, W. (Eds), Service-Oriented Computing --- ICSOC 2008 Workshops: ICSOC 2008 international Workshops, Sydney, Australia, December 1st, 2008, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes In Computer Science 5472, pp. 400–413. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Sessions, R. (2007). A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies. Architecture. Microsoft Developer Network. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx (retrieved May 6th, 2012).

Sims, O. (2005). Purpose of Enterprise Architecture. Executive Update 8(6). Cutter Consortium.

Sommerville, I. and Sawyer, P. (1997). Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Soriyan, H.A. (2004), A conceptual framework for information systems development methodology for educational and industrial sectors in Nigeria, PhD thesis, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

References


Stelzer, D. (2010). Enterprise Architecture Principles: Literature Review and Research Directions. In Asit, D., Gitter, F., and Toumani, F. (Eds.), Service-Oriented Computing. ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009 Workshops Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 21–35.

Tamm, T., Seddon, P., Shanks, G., and Reynolds, P. (2011). How Does Enterprise Architecture Add Value to Organisations?," Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28, Article 10.

Taxel, L. (2007). Activity Modalities – A Multi-dimensional Perspective on Coordination, Business Processes and Communication. Systems, Signs & Actions. An International Journal on Communication, Information Technology and Work, 3(1), 93–133.

TOGAF. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/ Tiihonen, T., Luukkonen, I., and Korpela, M. (2010). Modelling the

Context of Information Systems. In IST-Africa 2010 Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM), Durban, 19–21 May 2010. Ireland: IIMC International Information Management Corporation Ltd, 2010.

Toivanen, M., Luukkonen, I., Ensio, A., Häkkinen, H., Ikävalko, P., Jaatinen, J., Klemola, L., Korhonen, M., Martikainen, S., Miettinen, M., Mursu, A., Röppänen, P., Silvennoinen, R., Tuomainen, T., and Palmén, M. (2007). Kohti suunnitelmallisia muutoksia . Opas terveydenhuollon tietojärjestelmien toimintalähtöiseen kehittämiseen. Kuopion yliopiston selvityksiä E. Yhteiskuntatieteet 39. 80 s.

Toivanen, M., Eerola, A. and Korpela, M. (2003). From information systems requirements to software components — home care case. S. Laukkanen, S. and Sarpola, (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the 26th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia IRIS.

Toivanen, M., Häkkinen, H., Eerola, A., Korpela, M., and Mursu, A. (2004). Gathering, structuring and describing information needs in home care: a method for requirements exploration in a ”gray area”, In Fieschi, M., Coiera, E., Li, Y.-C. (Eds.), MEDINFO 2004: building high performance health care organizations, pp. 1398–1402. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Toivanen, M., Luukkonen, I., Mykkänen, J. (2009). Three-level analysis for shared understanding of information systems development. In Breu, R. (Ed.) Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering, SE 2009, pp. 43–48. ACTA Press, Anaheim.



Truex, D. P., Baskerville, R., and Klein H. K. (1999), Growing Systems in Emergent Organizations, Communications of the ACM, 42(8), 117-123.

Uden, L., Valderas, P., and Pastor, O. (2008). An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements, Information Research, 13(2) paper 340.

Van Lamsweerde, A. (2001). Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–263.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Compiled from several sources and edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., and Scribner, S. Harvard University Press, Harvard, MA.

Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 74–81.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 320 – 330.

Wegmann, A. (2003). On the Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM). In: Camp, O. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems 2003 (ICEIS 2003) (3), pp. 483–490. Angers, France.

Westbrook, J.I., Braithwaite, J., Georgiou, A., Ampt A., Creswick N., Coiera E., Iedema R. (2007). Multimethod Evaluation of Information and Communication Technologies in Health in the Context of Wicked Problems and Sociotechnical Theory. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(6), 746–755.

Wilson, T.D. (2000). Recent trends in user studies: action research and qualitative methods. Information Research, 5(3).

Winter, R. and Fischer, R. (2006). Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture, In Proceedings of the EDOC Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2006) —The Tenth IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2006), Hong Kong.

Yourdon, E. (1989). Modern Structured Analysis, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1989.

Zachman, J.A. (1997). Enterprise Architecture: The Issue of the Century. Database Programming and Design, pp. 2–5.

Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences No 74

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. EXAMPLES OF AD TOOLS

The example stories, diagrams, and tables were used in the China-Finland eHealthPartners project. The figures are excerpts from the author’s lecture slides used in Bilene, Mozambique, 27th Nov –4th Dec 2010.

The first two figures enlighten the communicative aspect of AD tools. Cooperative writing and storytelling were used before the actual site visit in order to obtain an initial understanding of the maternity pathway in China, so that the fieldwork could be planned. Figure 1 contains an authentic excerpt of a worksheet that was written cooperatively by the different researchers. The diagrams were translated into Chinese (Figure 2) and used as a communicative tool in the validation workshop held on January 25th 2008 in China. The next two figures illustrate the modifications that were made to the basic AD diagrams according to the needs of the situation. The swim lane diagram was applied in describing the maternity pathway on the organization level (Figure 3). A new diagram type, the Activity Case Diagram, was developed (Figure 4). Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the zooming between the different types of diagrams. Figures 7 and 8 represent the tables for information gathering.



Authentic project materials

Figure 1. Example of interactive writing before field studies

Figure 2. The diagrams were used as means for communication

Appendix A


Figure 3. Swim lane diagram on the organizational level explained

Figure 4. Activity Case Diagram explained



Figure 5. Zooming from the maternity pathway overview level to the

organizational level

Figure 6. Zooming in from the organization level to a sequence of

workflow

Appendix A


Figure 7. Table for gathering information for overview-level

description

Figure 8. Table for gathering information for Work Activity-level

description


APPENDIX B. THE QUESTION LIST USED WITH EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY FOR ANALYZING PROCESS MODELING AS A WORK ACTIVITY

*0.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Respondent’s branch(es) (multiple-choice) Industry Healthcare Software Other: *0.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. The size of the respondent’s home organization: What is the number of employees in the whole organization? (narrative) *0.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. The size of the respondent’s home organization: What is the number of employees in the respondent’s own unit? (narrative) *0.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. How often are process modeling projects conducted in the respondent’s home organization? (multiple-choice) 1–2 times a year 3–4 times a year more often than 4 times a year occasionally 0.5 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Respondent’s e-mail address (optional) (narrative) *0.6 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Evaluate how many process modeling projects you have participated in (narrative) *0.7 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. In what role have you participated? (multiple-choice) Project client Project leader



Modeler Informant Other: What? 1. PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES, PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MODELING: What happens before the start of a process modeling project? What are the purpose and requirements for modeling? 1.1. Preceding activities have an impact on the whole modeling project. Select the three most common activities conducted in your organization before the actual modeling project. (multiple-choice) Management’s decision about starting the project Purchasing tools for the modeling project Selecting notations to be used in modeling Selecting and creating a project team (inside the organization) Preliminary exploration of the target area Producing a project plan Recruiting people for specific modeling tasks (from outside the organization) Meeting the client or partners Hiring a consultant Other, what? 1.2 Which of the following activities should be emphasized more? (multiple-choice) Management’s decision about starting the project Purchasing tools for the modeling project Selecting notations to be used in modeling Selecting and creating a project team (inside the organization) Preliminary exploration of the target area Producing a project plan Recruiting people for specific modeling tasks (from outside the organization) Meeting the client or partners Hiring a consultant

Appendix B


Other, what? 1.3 For which purposes are modeling efforts commissioned? (multiple-choice) For preliminary study before starting a larger project For defining or designing a new software product For finding out the bottlenecks and development points in present processes/activities in the organization For purchasing a new software product For introducing a new application in the organization For designing a tailored application For organizational change (e.g., merging, changes of ownership) For designing a new product or service in the organization For fulfilling the legal requirements For creating or developing a quality management system For improving the quality of services or products (other work than the organization’s quality management system) For introducing a process or workflow engine For measuring and rationalizing processes 2. DESIRED GOALS AND OUTCOMES OF MODELING PROJECTS: What are the desired outcomes? Who sets the goals for a modeling project? Are the goals explicit? 2.1 How often are the following kinds of outputs desired? (Likert, scale 1 = never… 5 = always) a) Process map b) Process diagram c) Narrative description of a process d) Event description e) Use case diagram and description f) Information flow diagram g) Data specification h) Software architecture description i) Description of the variables which are used in following up or measuring the process



2.2 Who or what institute sets the goals for the modeling? (narrative) 2.3 Are the purpose and the goals of the modeling project articulated clearly to all of the project participants? Is a clear definition provided at the beginning of the project of what the desired outputs are? (Likert, scale 1 = never…5 = always) 2.4 If your answer to the previous question was 1–4, give an example of something which should be specified in more detail. (narrative) 3. OBJECTS AND CONTENT OF THE MODELS: What kinds of processes are modeled? What else other than processes is modeled? Why particularly them? 3.1 How often are the following viewpoints taken in modeling: (Likert, scale 1 = never…5 = always) a) Management of the organization b) Work activities c) Information-processing activities d) Client process 3.2 Which of the following process types are modeled? (multiple-choice) Between organizations (cross-organizational process) Within an organization but between units Within organization units Cooperative process of team or working group Process or workflow of an individual person/role Human-computer interaction Between software applications Within software applications (processes inside an application) Other, what? (narrative) 3.3 Why are those process types selected? (narrative)

Appendix B


3.4 How often are the following things modeled in the very same project? (Likert, scale 1 = never…5 = always) a) Organizational structure b) Facilities and locations (rooms, buildings) c) Tools d) Technical infrastructure 3.5 How are the process models linked with other models? (narrative) 4. PARTICIPANTS IN MODELING ACTIVITIES AND THE ROLES OF THE PARTICIPANTS: Who participates in modeling activities and in which roles? 4.1 How many modelers and informants participate in a process modeling project, on average? (multiple-choice) a) Modelers

1 person 2–3 persons 4–5 persons more than 5 persons

b) Informants 1 person 2–5 persons 6–10 persons 11–20 persons more than 20 persons

4.2 What roles do the following organizational actors play in modeling projects? You can select from the following lists. (multiple-choice) Organizational actor a) Managers of the organization b) Process owner c) The sponsor of the project d) Process client



e) Process performer (worker who participates in the process) f) Immediate superior of the worker g) ICT expert in organization h) Software developer i) Consultant Role in modeling Is in charge of modeling activities Informant (information source) Information gatherer Modeler Information user No specific role in modeling Other, what? 4.3 Who else should participate and in which role? (narrative) 4.4 How are the participants selected? On what grounds? (narrative) 5. INFORMATION SOURCES AND MEANS OF GATHERING INFORMATION: Where is the information gathered from and by what means? 5.1 How often are the following methods used in information gathering? (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always) a) Study of the existing documents b) Study of the technical event data c) Interviews d) Observation of work activities e) Workshop and brainstorming f) What other methods are used? 5.2 a) Reuse of specifications previously created in your own organization

Appendix B


i) How often are these kinds of previously created process or workflow specifications reused? (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always) ii) Where are the above-mentioned specifications gained from? (narrative) iii) How beneficial/useful are the above-mentioned specifications? (Likert, scale 1= No importance…5= Fundamental) 5.2 b) Reuse of specifications previously created in the client’s organization i) How often are these kinds of previously created process or workflow specifications reused? (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always) ii) Where are the above-mentioned specifications gained from? (narrative) iii) How beneficial/useful are the above-mentioned specifications? (Likert, scale 1= No importance…5= Fundamental) 5.2 c) Reuse of descriptions previously created somewhere else by a third party (e.g., general specifications, standards) i) How often are these kinds of previously created process or workflow specifications reused? (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always) ii) Where are the above-mentioned specifications delivered? (narrative) iii) How beneficial/useful are the above-mentioned specifications? (Likert, scale 1= No importance…5= Fundamental) 6. THE USE AND USEFULNESS OF SOFTWARE TOOLS: What tools are used for modeling? How useful are the tools? 6.1 How often are the following computer-based tools used in modeling tasks?



a) i) Process modeling software (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always)

ii) What software do you use? (narrative) b) i) Drawing software tool (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always)

ii) What software do you use? (narrative) c) i) Text editor (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always)

ii) What are the other electronic tools used in modeling? (narrative) 6.2 To what extent can all the desired specifications be created with the process modeling tool you use? (Likert, scale 1= Not at all…5= All) 6.3 a)Which of the following manual tools are used? (multiple-choice) Paper and pen

Wall technique Other, what

b) If used, in what phase and for what purpose they are used? (narrative) 6.4 What issues should be considered in the development of modeling tools? (narrative) 7. MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION AND RELATED PROBLEMS: What means are used for communication and cooperation during the modeling? What problems in communication are identified? 7.1 How important are the following communication channels in the elaboration phase? (Likert, scale 1= No importance…5= Fundamental) a) Meetings b) Email c) Document sharing d) Videoconferencing

Appendix B


e) What else is used for communication? (narrative) 7.2 How important are the following communication channels in the reviewing or feedback phases? (Likert, scale 1= No importance…5= Fundamental) a) Meetings b) Email c) Document sharing d) Videoconferencing e) What else is used for communication? (narrative) 7.3 What is most challenging in communication? (narrative) 8. MOST PROBLEMATIC ISSUES IN MODELING PROJECTS: What issues are the most problematic in modeling projects? 8 What are the most problematic points in process modeling projects? Choose the most important ones. (multiple-choice) Selecting informants and information sources Communication Defining the scope Timetables Acquiring existing documents Modeling tool problems Lack of motivation Lack of know-how about modeling Lack of know-how about modeling tools or using them Lack of domain-intensive knowledge Other, what 9. VALIDATION OF ACCURACY AND SUFFICIENCY OF MODELS: How it is made sure that the models that are created are accurate and sufficient? 9.1 How are the outputs of the modeling project checked to ensure that the models match reality/practices in reality? (narrative)



9.2 How is the shared understanding of the goal state descriptions ensured? (narrative) 10. FACTORS IMPACTING ON OUTCOMES AND DELIVERY OF OUTPUTS: What factors impact on the outcomes? What are the typical outputs? In what form are the outputs made available? To whom are they delivered and how? 10.1 How strongly do the following impact on the outcome of the modeling project? (Likert, scale 1= Not at all…5=Dominates the outputs) a) The know-how of the modeler b) Available information sources c) Available modeling tools d) Inhouse modeling practices in the organization e) Literal guidelines f) What other factors have an impact on modeling? 10.2 How often are the outputs published in the following format? (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always) a) Electronic document b) Paper document c) Description which is executable with software 10.3 How often are the outputs delivered to the following: (Likert, scale 1 = Never…5 = Always) a) The topmost management of the organization b The management of all the units in which processes are modeled c) The owner of the process that is described d) The client of the process that is described e) The actor of the process that is described f) The immediate superior of the actor of the process that is described g) The ICT personnel in the organization h) The process modeling experts in the organization

Appendix B


i) The architecture designers j) Software developers k) Software application which uses the process description 10.4 How are the outputs made available? (narrative) 11. RECENT CHANGES IN MODELING PRACTICES: What changes have taken place in the modeling activities during the past year? 11.1 How have the following changed in your organization during the last year? (multiple-choice) a) Process modeling tasks

Increased Decreased Become easier Become more complicated No changes

b) Employees involved with process modeling tasks Increased Decreased Improved (skills, know-how) Changed (new persons) No changes

c) Process modeling tools Increased Decreased Improved Getting worse No change

d) The goals of process modeling Same as before Changed, how? (narrative)

11.2 In your opinion, what issues most need development in process modeling? (narrative)



11.3 In your opinion, what has succeeded well? (narrative) For feedback 12. WHAT VIEWPOINTS OR METHODS OF PROCESS MODELING ARE YOU INTERESTED IN, OR WANT TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT? (narrative) 13. FEEDBACK ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE (narrative)


Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences

isbn 978-952-61-0831-5

Irmeli Luukkonen

Activity-Driven Needs Analysis and Modeling in Information Systems Development

Activity-Driven (AD) information

systems development (ISD) starts

by analyzing and modeling the work

activities where the information

systems are and will be used. In this

thesis, AD needs analysis and mod-

eling, as part of the development of

the AD approach, were studied in

relation to ISD in user organizations.

Empirical studies were carried on in

healthcare organizations in Finland,

China, and Mozambique. The re-

search increased the understanding

of the AD approach as a whole. The

results show that the AD approach is

well suited to starting-point analysis

to capture a shared overview and

understanding.

dissertatio

ns | 074 | Ir

meli L

uu

kk

on

en | A

ctivity-Driven

Need

s An

alysis a

nd

Mo

delin

g in In

form

atio

n S

ystems D

evelopm

ent

Irmeli LuukkonenActivity-Driven Needs Analysis

and Modeling in InformationSystems Development

activity-driven needs analysis - connecting repositories · 2014. 1. 8. · irmeli luukkonen...

Documents