HUMAN
I N F O R M A T I O N P R O C E S S I N G STYLES
AND THE
I N F O R M A T I O N SYSTEMS A R C H I T E C T
IN THE
PSC S Y S T E M E E R I N G M O D E L
Florida
William Taggart
International University
Miami, F l o r i d a
INTRODUCTION
In the N o r d i c c o u n t r i e s the term s y s t e m e e r i n ~ refers to the
c o m p r e h e n s i v e set of a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b u i l d i n g an
i n f o r m a t i o n system.
This term has b e e n a d o p t e d to focus
a t t e n t i o n on the broader, human and o r g a n i z a t i o n o r i e n t e d
concerns in the d e v e l o p m e n t of s y s t e m a t i z e d i n f o r m a t i o n and
data for users in o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
One v e r s i o n of the s y s t e m e e r i n g p h i l o s o p h y d e v e l o p e d at the
Institute of Data P r o c e s s i n g S c i e n c e at the U n i v e r s i t y of
Oulu is called the PSC s ~ s t e m e e r i n ~ model.
These initials
stand for three d i f f e r e n t s y s t e m e e r i n g types and for three
of four m a i n phases in the systems life cycle:
pragmatic,
semantic and c o n s t r u c t i v e .
These terms are d e r i v e d from a
g e n e r a l systems theory framework.
In the first s e c t i o n of this paper, we i n t r o d u c e the structure and d y n a m i c f u n c t i o n i n g of the model.
A t t e n t i o n focuses
on the d e f i n i t i o n of p r i m a r y roles and the c o m m u n i c a t i o n
needs among these roles in the systems d e v e l o p m e n t process.
Then in the second section of the paper, the PSC life cycle
is c o m p a r e d to t r a d i t i o n a l and e v o l u t i o n a r y views of this
process.
The p r i m a c y of the user in i n f o r m a t i o n systems d e v e l o p m e n t
is a basic tenet of the Nordic a p p r o a c h to the life cycle.
H o w e v e r the m a i n o b j e c t i v e in the PSC s y s t e m e e r i n g model is
to b a l a n c e the specific and often c o n t r a d i c t o r y interests
63
of the different groups concerned with systems development.
To help insure harmony and coordination in the development
process, the role of an information systems architect (ISA)
has been developed.
The third section of the paper explores
the idea of the ISA position.
In the four phases of the development process, the systems
architect position goes beyond the bounds of the traditional
systems analyst.
The scope of this position's responsibility
is analogous to that of the building architect in a physical
project except that in information systems product is a more
complicated combination of material and nonmaterial factors
than a building.
The work of the ISA can be understood in terms of human information processin@ (HIP) style.
Four styles of processing
range on a spectrum from left hemisphere to right hemisphere
oriented skills.
These are introduced in the fourth section
of the paper.
The styles that an ISA should exercise in
PSC systemeering imply a breadth and depth of coordinating
and harmonizing skills that argue for placing users in the
architect role in systems development.
In the absence of
an adequate educational c u r r i c u l u m for the preparation of
systems architects, assigning users to this role provides
a viable alternative.
We feel curricula should be d e v e l o p e d to educate ISA.
The
generally more narrow orientation of technical systems staff
usually precludes their being able to move freely among the
different HIP styles required in the main phases of the PSC
process.
Present United States academic programs provide
more limited educational opportunities than are required for
the ISA perspective.
The last two sections of the paper
discuss the meaning of HIP styles in the PSC main phases and
the important skills of the ISA in the development process~
Roles in the PSC S[stemeering Process
In the PSC systemeering model each main phase is concerned
with certain decision problems.
Solving these problems yield
a set of models at successively lower levels of abstraction
for each main phase (Kerola, 1979).
The highest level of
abstraction is ~ra~matic (P), the second semantic (S) and
the third constructive (C). Each main phase supports a
64
class of decision makers and is accomplished by appropriate
experts called systemeers.
The hierarchical order of the
model implies a basic structure among the roles that is illustrated in Figure i, The joint efforts of the people
occupying these roles are briefly described in the following
paragraphs.
In the pragmatic main phase, the information system is studied
in terms of its influence on the environment and the influence of the environment on the information system.
All
three phases consist of a design and test cycle.
In the P
main phase, alternatives for an information systems solution are evaluated using a criterion of the net value of
the effectiveness versus all the costs incurred during the
life cycle.
At this broad level the evaluation is qualitatively oriented.
Effectiveness is a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l criterion taking into account such factors as economic, social,
technical, communicational, ecological and managerial components.
The models selected for the proposed system at
this level establish the solution space for moving into the
S main phase.
The development of alternative solutions is refined in the
semantic main phase as the focus turns to an evaluation of
the information content produced by the system in terms of
users' needs.
This refinement takes the laternative chosen
in the P main phase and develops alternatives at the next
lower level of information systems definition.
The design
and test criteria in this phase are more tangible than in
the P phase.
For instance we can evaluate alternative information sets in terms of informativeness, accessibility
and adaptability.
These factors can in turn be stated as
more explicit criteria for measurement.
Using the lowest
level criteria in this decision framework, the S level decision maker estimates net value based on cumulative user
satisfaction expressed as a function of these criteria less
the costs of providing that level of satisfation.
At the third constructive level of information systems development, the design and test responsibilities determine
the structure and performers for the system.
This identifies the man and/or machine components that will accomplish
each function required in the information system to satisfy
the information needs identified in the S main phase.
At
this level the decision criteria shift to the more
65
P Decision
S Decision
C Decision
B Decision
P Sys temeers
Make
S Systemeers
Makers
Makers
Systemeers
Processors
pl ementors
Figure
1
Roles and T h e i r H i e r a r c h i c a l
PSC S y s t e m e e r i n g Process
66
Relationship
in
t~
quantitative efficiency factors.
For instance at the most
general C level evaluation, the application can be designed
and tested in terms of the sum of design and implementation
costs, operations costs and maintenance costs.
These factors and their lower level expression provide the basis
for selecting a C level solution that achieves m a x i m u m efficiency for the total cumulative costs of the proposed information system during its life cycle.
For this presentation the fourth implementation (B) main
phase is not emphasized.
This life cycle actively is reasonable well developed in the literature and in practice.
The levels of decision above this phase in the pragmatic,
semantic and constructive phases are less well developed.
The emphasis on the more qualitative and user oriented criteria in the earlier and upper three levels presents a
greater challenge to the development of strategies and techniques for assisting in their accomplishment.
At the P and
S levels the inherent primacy of the user is apparent in the
criteria for alternative selection.
In the PSC model of the life cycle, the design resulting
from a given phase is analyzed in a preliminary fashion
using later phase criteria to determine the feasibility of
the given design.
For instance for the P main phase, the
S, C and B level implementations are tentatively developed
by the systemeers to see if the P level result is feasible
in terms of the highest S, C and B criteria.
After completing
all four levels of design in the P main phase, then the proposed information system is tested in reverse order.
The
solution proposed in the P main phase is tested at the B,
C, S and P levels respectively.
This highlights the iterative top down design and b o t t o m up test that is built into
each phase of the PSC life cycle.
Carrying the example one phase further, the solution developed in the S main phase is implemented in general terms at
the C and B levels.
The resulting S level solution is tested
successively in terms of B, C, S and P level criteria.
This
strategy indicates the two dimensional character of the PSC
model.
For the P, S, C B phases through time, there are P,
S, C and B levels of design and test within each.
This feature provides a robust approach to information systems
development.
67
Comparison
of Life Cycle Approaches
The PSC systemeering approach can be contrasted with the
more traditional and with the evolutionary systems development processes.
A composite of the traditional view of systems development phases has been defined as (Taggard, 1980):
Situation Review - Identification of the problem
or opportunity that presents a challenge to the
user.
Requirements Identification - D e t e r m i n a t i o n
the information outputs that will alleviate
problem or capitalize on the opportunity.
of
the
Physical Design - S p e c i f i c a t i o n of the input,
process and storage modules that are required
to produce the indicated outputs.
Program P r e p a r a t i o n - Preparation of the instructions for the machine components of the
information system.
Procedure Preparation - Preparation of the
instructions for the people components of the
information system.
System C o n v e r s i o n - Parallel or direct cutover
from the current to the new capability developed
to replace it.
U t i l i z a t i o n - The ongoing use and m a i n t e n a n c e
of the information system to serve the purpose
for which it was developed.
Lucas has proposed an evolutionary approach to systems development in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h "creative design" strategies
(1978).
This view assumes user initiated systems to which
the systems department responds with p r o t o t y p e outputs to
serve as a basis for mutual discussion of the user need.
This stimulates ideas for other outputs.
In this way the
user and systems personnel engage in a collaborative problem-solving dialogue.
This dialogue is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a
series of design, program and test cycles.
As the system
evolves to an acceptable level of user support, the user
gradually assumes full r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for his or her
68
application.
Even when the application has matured, new ideas
for further development emerge but at a slower rate.
In
this approach there is no final product or "finished" application.
It is always an ongoing development efforts.
The traditional, evolutionary and PSC models of the systems
development life cycle can be compared and contrasted.
The
three versions of the life cycle are summarized in Figure 2.
The phases of the traditional model appear in the left column.
These terms are taken from the phase definitions above.
The five phases of the evolutionary model appear in the middle of the figure.
The inception and initial groping phases
correspond in part to situation review.
But part of the
intention of these two phases precedes what is normally encompassed in situation review.
However because of its experimental nature, some aspects of the first three traditional phases are covered by the evolutionary model.
Mutual
progress covers the situation review through procedure preparation phases.
Finally conversion and maturity correspond
approximately to the systems conversion and utilization
phases respectively.
The distinctive feature of the PSC model is the coverage of
all traditional phases in each phase of this approach.
The
P, S and C phases all involve the program preparation through
utilization phase on an experimental basis.
This feature of
the Lucas approach is built into the PSC model.
The comparison also highlights the greater emphasis placed on the early
systems development phases in the PSC approach.
The rationale for this heavier relative investment is that more conscious decisions in earlier phases reduce the investment
required to converge on the B level solution.
The additional investment in the earlier phases is compensated for by reduced resource demands in the C, B and utilization main phases.
The top down systematic reduction in
uncertainty for the design and test of the information system following the PSC model results in little or no net increase in the total development cost with a significant potential saving in user frustration.
Users will more likely
obtain an information system that will adequately respond
to the problems and/or opportunities they are confronted
with.
This comparison suggests the greater sophistication
of the PSC model in light of the traditional and the evolutionary models.
To coordinate and integrate the work in
69
Traditional
Evolutionary
Model
Model
~ccp~i
(not formally
recognized)
Situation
PSC
Model
1
r~if;ml
G.~p,~
Review
Requirements
Identification
Physical
Design
Program P r e p a r a t i o n
I I I
II
1
I
Procedure
Preparation
System C o n v e r s i o n
Y
!
Utilization
. . . . . . . .
Experimental
Figure
Only
2 - Comparison of L i f e
70
Cycle Models
the PSC approach requires a position that is more
cated than traditional systems positions.
The Information
sophisti-
Systems A r c h i t e c t
To complement the PSC systemeering view of the life cycle,
we need a distinctive title to identify the integrating and
coordinating role across phases and among levels of decision
makers in the PSC strategy.
The traditional data processing
position titles do not indicate the scope of this systems
responsibility.
The ACM Curriculum Committee recommended
the redefinition of the systems analyst position as two
specialists:
information analyst and systems designer
(Ashenhurst, 1972).
This recognizes the need to clearly
distinguish the activities of the S main phase and the C
main phase in systems development respectively.
However this
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n does not encompass the decision roles associated with the P main phase.
F r o m an integrated viewpoint
this most important phase deserves specific recognition in
information systems responsibility.
This deficiency in responsibility definition for systems
development is remedied by recognizing the position of an
information systems architect.
This position's scope of
responsibility encompasses that of the information analyst
and the systems designer as well as extends explicitly to
the P level design decisions that consider the relationship
between the information system and its environment.
The individual that fills this position can be either a data
systems staff person, a member of a user group or a specifically trained expert.
The rationale for an ISA curriculum
has been described by Koskela, Nuutinen and Iivari (1980).
Comparing a data systems staff to a user assignment, an
argument can be made that the ISA role should be filled by
a user to avoid the narrow v i e w p o i n t that often accompanies
technical competence.
On the other hand one can argue that
the user may be technically incapable of discharging the
architect's responsibility.
In our view it is generally
easier to provide the nontechnical person with adequate technical support than it is to broaden the oftan narrow viewpoint of a technical person.
71
On balance we weigh the argument in favor of the user as
the ISA until individuals w i t h specific education in the
area are available.
This person can be selected from among
the principal users of the information system.
The individual should represent the user groups and also have an appreciation of the technical aspects of systems development.
Assuming user primacy, as we do, the first criterion is more
important than the latter.
If the person is weak in technical matters, we can provide advice and counsel from the data
systems staff.
Human
Information
Processing
Styles
The w o r k of the ISA in the PSC life cycle can be enhanced
through an u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p l i c a t i o n of differences and
similarities in information processing styles interpreted
in terms of hemispheric s p e c i a l i z a t i o n (Taggart and Robey,
1980).
Processing style refers to the ways that people
perceive and make judgements w i t h information.
Using personality types developed by Carl Jung, we can identify a
person as sensing (S) or intuitive (N) in their p e r c e p t i o n
and as thinking (T) or feeling (F) in their judgement (Jung,
1971).
Selecting one dominant mode of perceiving and one
dominant mode of judgement, we have four typical styles for
human information processing:
ST, NT, SF and NF.
Preferences in brain u t i l i z a t i o n can be associated w i t h these
four styles.
An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of left and right hemisphere processing
specialization has d e v e l o p e d out of work done w i t h split
brain patients who have been surgically treated for a severe
form of epilepsy (Ornstein, 1977).
Experiments w i t h these
individuals after their surgery indicates the d i s t i n c t i v e
processing characteristics of the two hemispheres of our
brain.
While the left hemisphere is a logical, sequential
processor, the right proceeds n o n l o g i c a l l y and simultaneously.
Where the left is causal and analytic in its p e r c e p t i o n and
judgement of situations, the right is acausal and holistic.
The left hemisphere has a structured p r o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n
while the right has a n o n s t r u c t u r e d outlook.
These skills
complement each other to provide an integrated p r o c e s s i n g
style for individuals that have d e v e l o p e d an ability to
exercise the range of right and left hemisphere skills.
72
The sensing/thinking (ST) person focuses on facts using an
impersonal analysis m e t h o d of handling things.
STs have a
tendency to be practical and m a t t e r - o f - f a c t and objects.
This dominant style can be associated with the logical, sequential characteristics of left hemisphere processing.
An
intuitive/thinking (NT) person that leans to left dominance
with a degree of right hemisphere skill will focus attention
on possibilities and use impersonal analysis for handling
things.
NTs tend to be logical and ingenious and to express
their abilities in theoretical and technical developments.
Then the s e n s i n g / f e e l i n g (SF) person who leans toward right
hemisphere dominance with some skill in left hemisphere
style has a facts focus of attention and uses personal warmth
for handling things.
They have a tendency to be sympathetic
and friendly and express their abilities in practical help
and service for people.
Finally the right hemisphere dominant intuitive/feeling (NF) person has a possibilities focus
of attention and handles things with personal warmth.
They
have a tendency to be enthusiastic and insightful and to
express their abilities in u n d e r s t a n d i n g and communicating
with people.
This framework offers insight into the personal information
approach of the ISA.
The architect's awareness of his or
her own processing style dominance will highlight situations
where a style is required that is a weakness for the architect.
A special effort can then be made by the architect to
activate the latent style to meet the decision needs of that
situation.
In addition to this awareness, the framework helps the ISA
appreciate the dynamics of the interpersonal relationships
among users and other participants in the development process.
One technique that we are experimenting with uses a
survey instrument to classify individuals into one of the
four processing styles.
With a knowledge of the participants'
processing styles, the ISA achieves a better understanding
of user information needs as well as the internal information needs of the development process.
This facilitates the
handling of the coordination and communication problems
that are the responsibility of the ISA in PSC systems development.
73
Processing
Style
in the PSC M a i n
Phases
The p r i m a r y p r o c e s s i n g style implied in each m a i n phase
varies.
In g e n e r a l as we m o v e from the p r a g m a t i c m a i n phase
t h r o u g h the semantic to the c o n s t r u c t i v e m a i n phase, the emphasis shifts from e v a l u a t i o n in terms of e f f e c t i v e n e s s to
e v a l u a t i o n in terms of efficiency.
The i n f o r m a t i o n p e r c e p tion and j u d g e m e n t p r o c e s s e s for these e v a l u a t i o n s vary from
a right to a left h e m i s p h e r e o r i e n t a t i o n .
This m e a n s that
as the ISA c o o r d i n a t e s each phase he or she should c o n s c i o u s l y
adapt i n d i v i d u a l and g r o u p style as s u c c e s s i v e d e c i s i o n stages
are e n c o u n t e r e d .
For e x a m p l e in e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of an i n f o r m a tion system, the i n t u i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n / f e e l i n g j u d g e m e n t (NF)
a p p r o a c h will be m o s t p r o d u c t i v e .
These b r o a d d e c i s i o n s rely
on i m p r e s s i o n s m o r e than facts.
I m p r e s s i o n s are d e r i v e d int u i t i v e l y from the c o n t e x t of the i n f o r m a t i o n system, and
NF skills are m o s t h e l p f u l for the ISA in these d e c i s i o n s .
The a r c h i t e c t m u s t focus on p o s s i b i l i t i e s and h a n d l e the
s i t u a t i o n w i t h p e r s o n a l warmth.
Users will be the p r i m a r y
c o n t a c t s for inputs to the evaluation.
A p p r o a c h i n g them in
a p e r s o n a b l e fashion w i l l m o r e likely e l i c i t the p o s s i b i l i ties that are so i m p o r t a n t in s e l e c t i n g a P level systems
alternative.
The a b i l i t y to u n d e r s t a n d and c o m m u n i c a t e
w i t h d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e is m o r e i m p o r t a n t in the P m a i n phase
than in any other p h a s e of the systems d e v e l o p m e n t process.
An e n t h u s i a s t i c and i n s i g h t f u l a r c h i t e c t m a k e s the d i f f e r e n c e
in s u c c e s s f u l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s .
In the B m a i n phase of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a s e n s i n g p e r c e p t i o n /
t h i n k i n g j u d g e m e n t (ST) style is more p r o d u c t i v e in m a k i n g
decisions.
Here the t e n d e n c y to be p r a c t i c a l and m a t t e r of
fact is an a p p r o p r i a t e o r i e n t a t i o n for m a k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n
system implementation decisions.
The a r c h i t e c t e x p r e s s e s
his or her a b i l i t i e s as t e c h n i c a l skills w i t h facts and objects.
In this as in the other phases, the a r c h i t e c t has
a c o o r d i n a t i n g role since the d i f f e r e n t s y s t e m e e r s p e r f o r m
the actual tasks of the B m a i n phase.
It is e s s e n t i a l that
the a r c h i t e c t p r o v i d e this c o o r d i n a t i o n to insure the real i z a t i o n of the d e s i g n features chosen in the p r e v i o u s three
main phases of the process.
In b e t w e e n P and B main phases, the s e m a n t i c and the cons t r u c t i v e m a i n phases are b e s t served by the i n t e r m e d i a t e
74
styles of the sensing p e r c e p t i o n / f e e l i n g judgment (SF) and
intuitive perception/thinking judgement (NT) respectively.
For the evaluation of information content in the S main
phase, the SF style which focuses on facts with a personal
warmth that considers the information user provides an appropriate blend of right and left hemisphere orientations.
The
tendency to be sympathetic and friendly and to express one's
abilities in practical help and services for people supports
the careful consideration of user information needs in the
S main phase.
Then in the structure and performer selection evaluation of
the C main phase, the skills of the NT systems architect
offer the most effective orientation.
This mode focuses on
the possibilities of performers to accomplish information
system tasks while handling the selection with impersonal
analysis.
The tendency to be logical and ingenious and to
express abilities in theoretical and technical developments
increases the probability that the most appropriate choice
of performers will be made.
Coordination
in the PSC Process
The variety of activities and people encompassed in the PSC
approach to the development of an information system implies the need for high degree of coordination and integration.
These responsibilities go beyond what the traditional
view suggests for project management.
In addition to the
recognized responsibilities of planning, scheduling and control of the life cycle activities, the need for coordination
and integration stands out due to the number of elements involved and their relationships.
At each level in the process, decision makers select the information system alternative for that phase:
P level decision makers, S level decision makers, C level decision makers and B level decision
makers.
In addition to the people who select the system alternatives for that level of development are the people that
carry out the tasks in each phase.
The work responsibilities in the PSC systemeering process
are performed by the systemeers identified in Figure i.
This
position title identifies all of the roles that are associated
with accomplishing the tasks of the PSC process.
The traditional positions m e n t i o n e d earlier perform some of the
75
s p e c i f i c s y s t e m e e r i n g tasks.
The p o s i t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n
analyst, s y s t e m s d e s i g n e r and p r o g r a m m e r are a s s o c i a t e d res p e c t i v e l y w i t h the S, C and B levels of s y s t e m e e r i n g .
The
c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n t y p o l o g y does not i d e n t i f y a s y s t e m e e r for
P level task p e r f o r m a n c e .
The c o m p l e x i t y of the p r o c e s s and the n u m b e r of roles inv o l v e d in its a c c o m p l i s h m e n t r e q u i r e s h i g h l y skilled c o o r d i n a t i o n that can be p r o v i d e d by the ISA p o s i t i o n as d e f i n e d
here.
In terms of HIP style, the a r c h i t e c t and the PSC
g r o u p need to have the f l e x i b i l i t y to a d o p t a n y o n e of the
four styles as a p p r o p r i a t e to the level and phase of the PSC
process.
I n d i v i d u a l s that are left or right d o m i n a n t in
their style w o u l d not be as s u c c e s s f u l in the ISA p o s i t i o n
as a p e r s o n w i t h an i n t e g r a t e d p r o c e s s i n g style.
As a w h o l e
the PSC g r o u p s h o u l d also e x p r e s s an i n t e g r a t e d style.
In s e l e c t i n g c a n d i d a t e s to fill the ISA p o s i t i o n in an org a n i z a t i o n , the user g r o u p s o f f e r a m o r e f e r t i l e g r o u n d for
f i n d i n g p e o p l e since t e c h n i c a l p e r s o n n e l are m o r e likely to
e x p r e s s the left d o m i n a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of d a t a p r o c e s s i n g
professionals.
In c o o r d i n a t i n g h i g h e r level tasks, the left
d o m i n a n t style may be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e as the a s s o c i a t i o n
of the NF to ST styles w i t h the four levels P t h r o u g h B has
shown.
S u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s are a v a i l a b l e to c l a s s i f y an ind i v i d u a l into a style c a t e g o r y .
W i t h a p e r s o n ' s HIP style
p r o f i l e s , t h e i r skill as an ISA c o o r d i n a t o r and i n t e g r a t o r
can be a s s e s s e d in b r o a d terms.
A s u m m a r y s t a t e m e n t of the skill r e q u i r e m e n t s for the ISA
is p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t c a p a b i l i t y w i t h an i n t e g r a t e d i n f o r m a tion p r o c e s s i n g style.
This p e r s o n s h o u l d h a v e the experienc~
to m a n a g e the p l a n n i n g , s c h e d u l i n g and c o n t r o l r e s p o n s i b i l i ties for the s y s t e m s p r o j e c t and the b r e a d t h of style to
s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e r a c t w i t h the d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n m a k e r s and
s y s t e m e e r s at all four levels of the PSC p r o c e s s .
In this
role the ISA can be c o m p a r e d to the c e n t r a l hub in a hiera r c h i c a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n network.
The hub c o m m u n i c a t e s w i t h
and c o o r d i n a t e s the c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a m o n g the o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s in the process.
This r e s p o n s i b i l i t y d e m a n d s a p e r s o n
w i t h m a n a g e r i a l skill and the b r e a d t h of p e r s p e c t i v e that an
i n t e g r a t e d HIP style b r i n g s to a s i t u a t i o n .
As c o o r d i n a t o r
the a r c h i t e c t needs to e x p r e s s the skills of an NF, SF, NT
or ST p r o c e s s i n g style as the s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e s .
Such peopl~
are rare in our o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
We need to i d e n t i f y and
76
cultivate them for these major positions of responsibility
in organizations that desire to move ahead in the development of truly effective and efficient information systems.
SUMMARY
Information systems development for the 1980s requires
greater attention than ever to the concerns of the user.
This concern should be expressed as an integral part of the
development life cycle.
In contrast to typical United States
practice, the Nordic countries assume user primacy as a
basic tenet in their systems development strategies.
The
PSC systemeering model presents a representative version of
this emphasis.
The phases of the process are coordinated
and integrated by an ISA who has a broader perspective than
the typical information analyst or systems designer.
The architect works from a framework that recognizes a variety of HIP styles for the people participating in the PSC
process.
The styles range on a spectrum from a sensing/
thinking (ST) person with left hemisphere decision characteristics to the intuitive/feeling (NF) person with a right
hemisphere style.
An awareness of and a flexibility in using
these styles enables the architect to competently discharge
the c o o r d i n a t i o n responsibilities implicit in a user oriented
PSC approach to information systems development.
The use of HIP style in the PSC systemeering model by the
ISA yields a more effective and efficient information systems product.
The system users will more likely receive
information outputs that meet their needs and the PSC participants will make a more valuable contribution to the
development process.
F o l l o w i n g the ideas suggested here sets
the stage for a humanistic s~stemeering methodology.
References
i.
Robert Ashenhurst, "Curriculum Recommendations for
Graduate Professional Programs in Information Systems,"
Communications of the ACM 15, 5 (May 1972), pp. 368-369.
2.
Carl Jung, Psychological Types, trans. R.F.C. Hall
(Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1971),
pp..542-555.
77
3.
Pentti Kerola, "On Infological Research Into the Systemeering Process," Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 Working Conference Bonn, Germany (June 1979), pp. 6-13.
4.
Erkki Koskela, Risto Nuutinen and Juhani Iivari, "The
C u r r i c u l u m of 'Data System Architects' - Premises,
Development Process and Educational Plan," University
of Oulu Institute of Data Processing Science Working
Paper, 1980.
5.
Kurt Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science
Harper Brothers, 1951), pp. 238-240.
6.
Henry Lucas, "The Evolution of an Information System:
From Key-Man to Every Person," Sloan Management Review
19, 2 (Winter 1978), pp. 39-52.
7.
Robert Ornstein, The Psychology of Consciousness
(New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977), pp. 16-39.
8.
An Introduction
W i l l i a m Taggart, Information Systems:
Allyn and
to Computers in Organizations (Boston:
Bacon, Inc., 1980), pp. 330-332.
9.
W i l l i a m Taggart and Daniel Robey, "Minds and Managers:
On the Dual Nature of Human Information Processing and
Management," Florida International University Division
of M a n a g e m e n t Working Paper, 1980.
78
(New York: