# Learning for Professional Competence in an IS Context

Peter M. Bednar, Christine Welch

► To cite this version:

Peter M. Bednar, Christine Welch. Learning for Professional Competence in an IS Context. 7th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems (SCIS), Aug 2016, Ljungskile, Sweden. pp.163-175, 10.1007/978-3-319-43597-8_12. hal-01771703

HAL Id: hal-01771703

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01771703

Submitted on 19 Apr 2018

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Learning for Professional Competence in an IS Context

Peter M Bednar¹, Christine Welch²

¹ School of Computing, University of Portsmouth, UK

²Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, UK

{christine.welch, peter-bednar}@port.ac.uk

**Abstract.** This paper considers the nature of professionalism as an expression of more than technical competence. This is related to the incidence of failure in IS change projects. We discuss how professionalism may be displayed, relating this to learning processes. The essential qualities of desire, exercise of will and their role in professional judgment are considered in relation to transcendent values espoused by professionals. We note that organizational consumers of information are also professionals, and not simply passive ‘users’ of systems. We relate this to the environment of Information Systems research and practice, including recognition of the importance of contextual dependencies.

**Keywords:** professional competence; extra-role behavior; organizational learning; Information Systems; IS failures.

## 1 Introduction

The main concern of this paper is to highlight some key concerns that must be considered by IS professionals/analysts. In the IS community, we need to prioritize a perspective on human activity systems as integrated wholes, and the needs of unique individuals within them, rather than focusing blindly on ‘model users’ [1]. We reflect upon the high incidence of reported failures of Information Systems innovations in organizations over recent decades, relating this to the nature of professional competence in IS development practice and the learning which underpins it. The discussion draws upon secondary material reporting on failures, including one particular case that has received much public attention in the UK – attempts to introduce Computer Aided Dispatch systems in the London Ambulance Service.

We begin by examining the nature of organizations as dynamic, open systems. This is relevant to the nature of professional IS practice and the requirements for professional competence, discussed in the next section. The paper goes on to examine instances of failure in IS innovation projects, before returning to consideration of appropriate learning to underpin improved professional competence and attempting to draw some conclusions.
1.1 Organization as a System

Figure 1 shows an organization as a system, with a hierarchical structure of functioning sub-systems, interrelated via channels for monitoring, feedback and communication. A boundary has been set, differentiating this system from its environment, i.e. those aspects of the world which influence system behavior but cannot be controlled from within it. This is effectively a closed systems view, within certain parameters.

Let us imagine a systemic model of a health center for example. Sub-systems include operational systems for patient consultations, therapy sessions, booking appointments, etc. A practice management system resources the center, provides for rule setting to regulate its use, and ensure effective staffing and materials/equipment. A monitoring system measures levels of supplies, wear-and-tear on equipment, waiting times, etc. and alerts the management system to a need for further resources or actions to ensure continued effective functioning. The environment [forces affecting the system but not controlled by it] include local demographics, patient demands, policies of the Department of Health and Primary Care trusts, and current medical research.

We can recognize this generic picture of health centers. However, it does not enable us to distinguish characteristics of any particular center. The qualities, experience, attitudes, beliefs, professional dedication and interests of particular medical staff and therapists employed in a particular center [and, indeed, the individual characteristics of other stakeholders such as patients or health service administrators] create a unique organization that such a model fails to capture.

Checkland and Poulter [2, p.56] point out that, at any particular time, organizational behavior subsists as an accommodation between differing perspectives of stakeholders. This suggests that the view shown in Figure 1 represents only a 'snapshot' of a phenomenon that is dynamic and constantly changing. As Mumford points out, e.g. [3], an open systems perspective on organizations is preferable. Any organization subsists from moment to moment as an emergent property of the interactions among the people who are its members. In the context of networked organizations, dynamic complexity is not merely expanded but radically altered. In a networked society, therefore, ICTs support transformations in organizational life as it is lived.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig.1:** Model of an organization as a system</figcaption></figure>

Bednar [4] describes an alternative view of organizational emergence, recognizing that any individual component of a purposeful activity system may possess emergent properties that are greater than the ‘whole’. Individual components may be participating in several perceived ‘Systems’ at the same time [reflecting our multifaceted experience of ‘real’ life]. Thus, a model of a system may be more akin to a set than a hierarchical model [see Figure 2]. The system under consideration and any of its component systems are open and dynamic in a multidimensional way. Boundaries are not fixed but subject to continual re-drawing, depending on how the perspectives of interested observer[s] may shift to reflect fluctuating purpose[s] over time [5]. Organizational roles can also be seen to fluctuate - created and recreated as the perspectives/intentions of individual actors and their interactions shift. Furthermore, individual actors may occupy multiple roles, creating an effect of ‘flipping’ perspectives, shaped by contextual dependencies in a constant state of flux. Any particular actor’s experience of working life will differ from day to day, and the actor is continually creating and recreating him/herself, through experiences in multiple roles within various systems in which s/he is a participant member. As pointed out by Ulrich [6; 7] in his discussion of boundary critique, perception of a system varies with the stance of the observer. This highlights the importance of effective participation in organizational decision-making.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2:** An organization as a dynamic, open system</figcaption></figure>

Langefors [8, p.53] pointed out that organizations require direction from ‘managers’ in order to pursue their aims, and that managers require data about all activities and transactions conducted in order to provide appropriate direction. He concludes, therefore, that an Information System and the organization in which it is located must necessarily be seen as one and the same.

Recognizing this point, we now move on to consider the bases of professional competence, in relation to development of organizational information systems.

## 2 Professional Practice and Competence

Traditionally, management thinking favored a view that decisions can be derived rationally from objective analysis of relevant data. This view has been reflected in many approaches to Information Systems development, where ‘users’ are asked to specify their requirements from proposed systems, which professional analysts then translate into terms realizable by computing specialists. This perspective is subject to criticism [9; 10]. It is a mistake to regard organizational actors as passive ‘users’ or consumers of technologies [11; 12]. Distinguish scholar Borje Langefors, one of the founding fathers of IFIPWG8, suggested long ago that:

> Nowadays the insight is spreading that to determine IS user needs ... requires a search-learning process through which the users develop an understanding of what
their real needs are and what new opportunities have become available to them. As a consequence, the users emerge as the key persons in the task of analyzing user needs. Information analysts appear to have an important part in aiding the users in learning and analyzing, in doing the documentation in a way understandable to the users, while efficient as a design input for the data system design stages to follow [13, p.6].

This view of ‘professional’ practice makes it clear that the term that must be extended to all organizational actors who are stakeholders in a proposed system, not just to IT specialists. Alvesson [14] has questioned the usefulness of modern views of ‘professionalism’. Some occupations traditionally described under different terms [craft? job?] have now been reinvented under the label of ‘profession’. This has often been accompanied by adoption of grandiose titles, unreflective of the real significance of the work to be accomplished. While this has sometimes helped to advance the status of participants, it has also, at times, complicated and confused ideas about practice and underpinning education for practice. However, in the context of IS development, it is preferable to regard all stakeholders as professionals within their own zones of competence, rather than consigning them to generalized obscurity under the title ‘user’ [11].

In relation to those actors primarily concerned to promote systems development, technical skills/knowledge relevant to the domain of competence are, of course, necessary; but these are insufficient in themselves without a desire to engage [15]. A professional is someone able to reflect upon practice of certain skills in context, and relate these reflections to a body of standards and values transcending his/her immediate job-role. Often, this involves membership of wider communities of practice – formal or informal [16], emphasizing the duality of tacit and explicit ‘knowing’ inherent in exercise of any professional expertise [16;17]. Bruner [24] points out that people do not just learn about the world, they also learn to be in their world.

More recently, Wenger-Trayner adopted the concept of ‘knowledgeability’, [21; 25] which involves modulation by individuals of their identification among multiple sources of accountability [21]. Knowledgeability is gained through participation in multiple communities, some enduring; others more ephemeral. Individuals develop competence by negotiating a path through complex systems of communities and boundaries, possibly over a protracted period. Wenger-Trayner uses the metaphor of a ‘landscape of practice’ to denote this system [21].

How would the individual improve his/her professional practice over time? What motives would govern whether s/he complies with any particular instruction to act in a certain way? Engagement with the context of application leading to reflection upon practice can promote a productive learning spiral [10;15;22], or what Gherardi [23] refers to as ‘the creative entanglement of knowing and doing’. It is through profound engagement with context and attachment to a transcendent system of values and standards that we recognize a professional at work, as opposed to, say, a capable amateur.

Within a formal organizational structure, a person may have a job description expressed in terms of appropriate skills, knowledge and roles. This is likely to bear only a loose resemblance to actual professional work carried out. Roles are created and re-created in conjunction with colleagues, taking into account professional standards. Desire to demonstrate skills in context according to particular standards
and values is demonstrated in part through the informal organization [9; 24]. Exercise of judgment is an essential part of professional life. Sometimes, when faced with a dilemma, a person will justify an action by the words 'I had no choice!'. The suggestion that there is no choice here is a fallacy [5;15;25]. A person who habitually chooses a course of action that s/he knows will please 'the Boss' on these grounds is actually saying is that, weighing up the potential consequences of each available choice, s/he took the line of least resistance. Professionalism requires that we recognize the choices we make [including the choice to do nothing], their relationship to a wider value system, and their impact upon the contexts of professional life. It is important to remember that, in any context within which Information Systems development taking place, several/many different groups of professionals are at work, of which Systems Analysts are only one.

Drawing on work by Giddens [20] and Foucault [26], Walsham [27] reminds us that power relations pervade all organizational activity and discourse, and that continuous political processes impact upon any local change initiative. It is possible to perceive use of the term 'user' [denoting those professionals who are consumers of the proposed IS] as an effort to exercise power over them, both by initiating stakeholders - such as managers - and by IT specialists. However, those 'users' themselves exercise power of their own. It is important here to consider sense-making activities in relation to experience of work systems [28]. Vaast and Walsham [29] have considered how people make sense of their work practices through narratives that constitute shared social representations. Practices are reproduced where there is consonance between perceptions of action and these representations. Where gradual change in work context is experienced, adaptations in representations occur to maintain this consonance. Radical disruptions to context, such as IT innovation, may not be so readily assimilated. Devaujany [30] used a critical realist perspective to shed light on sociotechnical reflexivity, pointing out that internal conversations about technology and its use shape individual experiences on an on-going basis.

In understanding underpinnings of IS success or failure, it is important to consider agency of all groups of professionals upon project outcomes. The next section of the paper focuses specifically on the phenomenon of IS failure, using an illustrative case study.

## 3 Failure in IS Innovation

In 2007, the IT Governance Institute commissioned research into the incidence of IT project failure [31], gathering evidence from IT projects in a variety of organizations of differing sizes and fields. Out of almost 1700 projects, only 53 [3%] were formally cancelled, but 31% either delivered or were expected to deliver negative value.

Thorp comments that persistence with projects already known to be failing could be attributed to a culture of blame within many organizations, such that cancellation of a project prior to completion was seen as a sign of weakness. Williams [32], commenting on this survey, highlights a discrepancy between organizational discourse emphasizing rationality and decision-making grounded in the cognitive
zone, when there is clear evidence that emotions, e.g. fear of blame and intransigence
are impacting upon project status.

## 3.1 IT Innovation at the London Ambulance Service

Failures of two projects to introduce Computer Aided Dispatch [CAD] systems into the London Ambulance Service, in 1987 and 1993, have been well documented in the Press. An independent inquiry [the Page Inquiry] was conducted, whose terms of reference were to 'identify the lessons to be learned for the operation and management of the London Ambulance Service against the imperatives of delivering service at the required standard, demonstrating good working relationships and restoring public confidence'. Overall the operational issues identified by Page can be summarized as: technical problems, including software bugs and incompatibilities/hand-shake failures between units; poor user involvement in initial specification and lack of ownership of the solution; poor staff relations and communication; inadequate training; big bang approach from manual to automated system with concurrent changes to working practices.

Subsequently, LAS successfully implemented a CAD system [CTAK] developed in-house. In 2009, an initiative was undertaken to replace CTAK with a complete package [CommandPoint], employing a leading global security company. The remit was to install the software with minimal changes to work practices. An internal report, presented to the LAS Trust Board in May of 2011 [the Armitage Report] was intended to be an assessment of the state of readiness for the Service to implement CommandPoint, with particular reference to lessons learned and recommendations set out by Page. The first part of the report dealt with technical recommendations, pointing out that extensive testing had been done, surfacing a number of problems that had been dealt with. Some outstanding problems were highlighted, including tensions between different staff groups; requirement for changes to communication styles and terminologies; untested interface with Police systems; and a need to deal with some remaining bugs and faults. It was stated that 'users' had been fully involved in the project, under the auspices of the Deputy Director of Operations, who provided 'consistent and effective user input at a senior level throughout the procurement and implementation phase' - bringing in other users as and when their input was needed. The sense of staff ownership of CommandPoint was stated to be 'remarkable' and the feedback from training positive, as was feedback from 'staff-side representatives'.

Some modifications to working practices were deemed necessary, particularly to the layout of the Control Room. These changes were considered relatively minor, and based on 'sound reasons' of operational efficiency. Dry-run simulations had appeared satisfactory and a Readiness Checklist was provided and signed off by the Deputy Chief Executive prior to going live. It appeared that all was ready to go ahead with the project. Only in appendices to the report was a note of caution introduced. The section on Risks referred to the following: lack of user confidence in the solution; negative publicity for LS; and system performance not meeting user expectations.

In June 2011, the new system went live, and immediately collapsed. The Control Room operators were obliged to revert to pen-and-paper for a time. Delays in
despatch during this failure contributed to the death of at least one patient and resulted
in litigation by another. Many software 'bugs' emerged after going live. It emerged
that, as the project progressed, it had slipped further and further behind schedule,
creating budget pressures. In consequence, a freeze was placed on further changes or
requirements. This was not mentioned in the schedule of risks and is likely to have
had a grave impact upon likelihood of success. An investigation into the collapse
suggested the root causes to be: failure of CommandPoint to deliver the system,
technical and operational functionality expected; critical configuration issues not
identified during testing; lack of operational procedures in place in the event of a
critical system failure; failure to integrate the project into business as usual.

**3.2 Discussion**

Looking at the ways in which failure was experienced in 2011, there is a remarkable
similarity to the conclusions of the Page Report on the earlier project failures. Since a
great deal of effort and expense was undertaken to pursue a project informed by these
recommendations, one must ask whether there are not more fundamental lessons to be
learned. It may be significant that no mention is made of the team responsible for
creation and implementation of the earlier CTAK system. It seems likely that many
lessons were learned in the course of implementing and running this system over a
period of several years. Was this useful information made available to the
CommandPoint project team?

The internal report placed great emphasis on rigor of development processes –
testing; training; involvement of ‘users’. Subsequent events, however, cast this into
question. The Trust Board met in anticipation of greater demand for ambulances
during the upcoming London Olympic Games. Minutes indicated that risks reported
to the Board included lack of user confidence in the solution, due to system
performance not meeting user expectation; staff unrest and consequent poor publicity
were anticipated. Thus, previous confidence about the level of ‘user’ involvement and
positive ‘user’ feedback during training seem to have evaporated. The Board was of a
risk that ‘lack of confidence in the reliability and functionality of the system and data
by operational users will alienate staff, undermine confidence and/or create suspicion
leading to confused expectations’.

CommandPoint had previously been used successfully in the United States by both
law enforcement and city fire services. On this basis, it was assumed that it could be
introduced into LAS with only a minimum of changes to work practices and
customization. Involvement of ‘users’ seems to have been limited to participation in
training and consultation via the Director of Operations. This suggests that those
professionals whose work was involved in dealing with public calls for ambulance
services, triage of priorities and, significantly, those driving through London and
providing interim medical aid to patients, were only minimally involved in any
decision-making about the new system. Assumptions were made about the work
practices of staff and the impact upon them of changes to Computer Aided Dispatch.
No opportunity was available for any of the staff to reflect upon the usefulness of the
changes and take ownership of the new System – all decisions were made remotely at
Trust Board Level. In other words, the actors engaged in the work of the Service were not treated as professionals in their own right, but as passive ‘users’.

It is important here to distinguish between ‘usefulness’ in context and other terms such as ‘usability’, which is concerned with ergonomic characteristics. This distinction is one that may be overlooked when staff are offered training in new systems. Only particular users, engaging with particular technologies in order to carry out work, can decide whether they perceive them to be useful [33]. McGrath [34] discusses emotion in the context of the earlier LAS projects, from the early 1990’s. Here, it appeared that the prevailing culture of public service and empathic support for patients within LAS came into direct conflict with a rational planning ethic intended to increase ‘efficiency’. McGrath reflects that: “The case reveals that existing, even apparently latent, conflicts and emotions may surface or heighten when IS innovation is attempted. In the LASCAD case, these subjugated knowledges and emotions emerged during efforts to achieve cultural change of the LAS through the use of ICTs inscribed with government-driven efficiency logic” [34, p.297]. It would seem that these lessons were not learned in the interim.

Friis [35] Points to a need for engaged professionals to take ownership over their own work systems, including change projects, in order to promote usefulness. A ‘symbiosis of knowledge’ is needed between technical experts and working professionals who have tacit understandings of contextual dependencies. This can be achieved through constructive and situated dialogue. She suggests an approach of user-controlled information systems development, achieved when the future ‘users’ are regarded not only as problem owners, but also as problem solvers, taking responsibility for design and making binding decisions about the design project [35, p.225]. Such an approach, we suggest, requires professional engagement and commitment from both communities of practice.

In the sections that follow, we discuss professional commitment to action as involving more than rational, role-based activities but involving exercise of will to adhere to a value system. The impact of extra role behaviour [36, 37] in this context will be highlighted as a key factor in promoting creation of productive learning spirals [15].

## 4 Engagement and Competence

Rogers [38], in his discussion on diffusion of technology, distinguishes between different types of threshold, e.g. the difference between ignorance and knowledge of how a technology might be applied as a solution for a particular problem - a key aspect of professional competence; or the distinction between theory espoused and theory in use [39]. Discourse about intention often fails to take into account the investment of personal resources needed to address the required ‘unlearning’ [11; 12; 40; 41] involved in innovative practice. There appears to be an unwitting belief in rational behavior as if professional life could be conducted without any emotion. In the LAS case [above], it appears that this belief has persisted through a catalogue of successive failures, even though successive inquiries have reported that staff engagement, confidence and morale were crucial factors, and recommended greater staff involvement in future projects.
Possession of relevant skills/knowledge for a work role is insufficient without ability to exercise judgment in exercising those skills, related to a system of values that transcend the immediate context. This is the essence of professional engagement. In relation to Information System, as in art, desire can only be realized as we open up creative spaces for ourselves [42].

In a professional context, reflection is needed to negotiate such spaces [12;22;40]. These can become blocked through inappropriate management assumptions [15;43; 44;45], such as are evident in the LAS case regarding modification of work systems. As we have seen, an organization may be viewed as a system, made up of interacting elements. If any one element leaves the whole, or is changed, then it is no longer the same system and all other elements are necessarily affected [8; 43]. There is a need for design practice to address whole work systems and not just systems for use of particular artefacts. It is necessary for engaged actors to reflect upon their professional roles, engagement in those roles, and on engagement of the ‘others’, in order to avoid becoming entrapped in a double bind [11;15;16;41;46] in which they cannot create those choices that would empower escape. It is possible to observe ‘disconnectedness’, i.e. failure to reflect [30]. Entrapment can occur where a person feels that there are no choices open to him/her that will satisfy desire [5;15;25;41;47, 48]. This might be due to a lack of recognition of choices that are available, or inhibition of ability to create choices, as in the case described by Thorp, above [31]. Competence in judgment is required. However, this will not necessarily lead to appropriate action on its own, without desire for engagement.

The next section of the paper discusses such professional engagement, and its relationship to extra-role behavior in organizations.

## 4.1 Extra-role Behavior and Professional Development

Engagement, within a professional context, is related to the phenomenon of extra-role behavior [21;51]. We are faced with complexity of multiple, competing desires in many contexts [4;15;33;41], partly due to the impact of opportunity cost – any choice to expend finite resources, including time, involves choosing between priorities. Boundary setting [6;8;15;41;44] is also involved, however. Channeled desire comes about through commitment to certain values and consequences. Efforts to recognize boundaries of competence involve extra-role behavior or improvisation [49]. Ciborra comments on the MIR space station in relation to bricolage [50, p.2]. ‘Up there, revolving in space, one could find, hand-in-hand, advanced, robust engineering solutions, rustic design, and widespread virtuoso tinkering.’

Such ‘extra-role behavior’ becomes possible only through commitment to ongoing reflection upon competence. There is also paradox in that a professional engaged must reflect upon ‘the future’ whilst still involved in creating it. This involves higher orders of learning [12; 15] in which an individual is reflecting not only upon experience, but upon the process of reflecting on exercising judgment - an exercise in practical philosophy as part of professional competence in action [12].

The engagement of particular individuals in professional work roles is accepted as a key attribute of organizational life from many points of view [45; 52; 53]. When interviewing a job applicant, employers often ask about the candidate’s hobbies and
interests. A person who cannot offer anything beyond the strict requirements of the job may not be considered suitable. However, there is a possibility that we concentrate too much upon role performance when modelling organizations as human activity systems, to the exclusion of proper recognition of extra-role behaviour. This can certainly be seen in the context of the LAS case, where the boundaries of the project were very narrowly drawn and attention to wider work systems, or desires of engaged professional staff, were specifically excluded, even where known risks were at stake. Work roles are shaped through interactions with others – co-workers, collaborators and also family, friends and acquaintances - in multiple contexts. These matters have long been recognized in the fields such as organizational behavior and human resource management, through the concepts of formal and informal organizations [see, e.g. 54]. A professional’s desire to demonstrate her skills in context according to particular standards and values is demonstrated in part through the informal organization, drawing upon wider communities of practice. Recognition has been given to this dimension within the field of Systems modelling too, e.g. in the Soft Systems Methodology [2] through focus on a cultural stream of inquiry.

It is also not uncommon for managers in organizations to suggest that they wish their staff to be creative or innovative - to go beyond their formal roles and skill profiles, to exercise all their personal resources in addressing messy and complex demands of organizational life [21]. Such personal resources will have been acquired and exercised through the individual's total life experience, not just those experiences that form part of their specific work roles. In this instance, the view of individual emergence adopted is that suggested in Figure 2. While work roles typically involve multiple contextual dependencies, life experiences of individual people nevertheless transcend them. It is possible to argue that organizational sustainability is critically dependent upon creativity and extra-role behavior to generate innovation and drive the organization forward.

## 5 Conclusion

We have looked at the nature of professional commitment and how transcendent value systems and the exercise of judgment are important in creation of beneficial organizational developments. We argue a professional is therefore someone who is able to reflect upon practice of skills in context, and to relate these reflections to a body of standards and values transcending the his/her immediate job role. Often, this involves membership of a wider landscape of practice – formal or informal. It might be expected then that a professional would engage in extra-role behavior, e.g. suggesting innovative methods, or making efforts to help others in their professional roles.

The potential to go beyond basic requirements of a role to create new boundaries involves a higher level of reflection. Thus, extra-role behavior becomes possible only through commitment to on-going reflection upon competence. Such reflection involves higher orders of learning [15] in which the individual is reflecting not only upon experience, but upon the process of reflecting on exercising judgment. This development of a learning ‘spiral’ may be regarded as an exercise in practical philosophy. It follows that a rational planning model for considering organizational
choices involves an inherent paradox for unwary actors. This is clearly demonstrated
in the events unfolded in the LAS case. Since any observation must, by definition, be
made by a particular observer, adoption of a ‘neutral’ stance cannot be achieved in
practice. This means that those who espouse rational planning are unaware that any
data they gather about a dynamic and constantly-recreating problem space is
inherently misleading, since they are failing to recognize their own, situated
assumptions [41]. Ability to act as a professional is, we argue, crucially dependent
upon ability to exercise extra-role behavior.

Our conclusion is that it is of utmost importance that efforts made within IS
communities must prioritize human activity systems, and engage contextual
dependencies from a critical perspective, in order to promote systems that are
experienced as contextually relevant [useful]. What Meyers and Klein [55] describe
as an explicit critique and improvement of social condition is necessary to develop
richer meanings and understandings.

References

1. Bednar, P.M., Welch, C.: Critical Systemic Thinking or the Standard Engineer in Paris. In: Proceedings of 4th European Conference on Research Methods in Business & Management Conference, University of Paris-Dauphine, Academic-Publishing International (2005).

2. Checkland, P., Poulter, J.: Learning for Action. J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006).

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

4. Bednar, P.: Individual Emergence in Contextual Analysis. Systemica, 14, 1-6 n.p. (2007).

5. Lee, Y., Kozar K.A., Larsen K.R.T.: The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the AIS, 50,12 752-780, (2003).

6. Ulrich, W.: Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Practice, 1,2 247-268. (2000).

7. Ulrich W.: Critical Systems Discourse: rethinking critical systems thinking. Seminar 9th May, 2005, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. (2005).

8. Langefors, B.: Essays on Infology. Studentlitteratur, Lund (1995).

9. Lindblom, C.E.: The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review. 19,2, 79-88 (1959).

10.Whitaker, R.: Applying phenomenology and hermeneutics in IS design'. In: H-E. Nissen, P.M. Bednar, Welch C. (eds.). Use and design in IS: Double helix relationships? Informing Science Press, Santa Rosa (2007).

11.Nissen, H-E.: Challenging Traditions of Inquiry in Software Practice. In: Y. Dittrich, C. Floyd, R. Klischewski, (eds.). Social Thinking-Software Practice. 71-89, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (2002).

12.Churchman, C.W.: The Design of Inquiring Systems. Basic Books, New York (1971).

13.Langefors, B.: Analysis of user needs. Information Systems Methodology. In: Proceedings, 2nd Conference of European Cooperation in Informatics, Venice, October 10-12 (1978), 1-38 (1978).

14.Alvesson, M.: The Triumph of Emptiness. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013).

15.Bednar, P.M., Welch, C.: Incentive and desire: covering a missing category.' In Proceedings of MCIS Venice, October 2006.

16.Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991).
17.Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice. Organization Science, 2,1, 40–57 (1991).

18.Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12,2 198–213 (2001).

19.Bruner, J.: The Culture of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1996).

20.Giddens A.: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge (1984).

21.Wenger-Trayner, E. (ed.): Learning in Landscapes of Practice. Routledge, Abingdon (2015).

22.Nissen, H-E., Bednar, P., Welch, C.: Double Helix Relationships in Use and Design of Informing Systems: Lessons to Learn from Phenomenology and Hermeneutics. Informing Science. 10, 1-19 (2007).

23.Gherardi, S.: To start practice theorizing anew: The contribution of the concepts of agencement and formativeness,' Organization, pre-publication on-line, September 21 2015, DOI: 1350508415605174 (2015).

24.Etzioni, A.: The Active Society. The Free Press, New York (1968).

25.Gilovich, T.: How we know what isn't so. The Free Press, New York (1991).

26.Foucault, M.: Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books (1979).

27.Walsham, G.: Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. J..Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1993).

28.Weick, K.E.: Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Ca (1995).

29.Vaast, E. and Walsham G.: Representations and actions: the transformation of work practices with IT use. Information and Organization, 15,1, 65-89 (2005).

30.De Vaujany, F-X.: Capturing Reflexivity Modes in IS: A Critical Realist Approach, Information and Organization, 8,1, 51-72 (2008).

31.Thorp, J.: IT Project Cancellations: Pay Now or Pay Later. ISACA Journal, 1,18-19 (2008).

32.Williams, P.: Make sure you get a positive return. Computer Weekly, 13 Nov (2007).

33.Bednar, P., Welch, C.: A Double Helix Metaphor for Use and Usefulness in Informing Systems'. Informing Science, 10, 273-295 (2007).

34.McGrath, K.: Affection not affliction: The role of emotions in information systems and organizational change, Information and Organization, 16,4, 277-303 (2006).

35.Friis, S.: Information System Design: A User Involved Perspective', In: Karamjit S. Gill (ed.). Human Machine Symbiosis: The Foundations of Human-centred Systems Design, 255-312, Springer, London (1996).

36.Nemeth, C.J., Staw, B.M.: The trade-offs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. In: L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175-210. Academic Press, New York (1989).

37.Organ, D.W.: Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, Lanham (1988).

38.Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York (2003).

39.Argyris, C.: Overcoming Organizational Defenses.: Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1990).

40.Bednar, P.M.: A Contextual Integration of Individual and Organizational Learning Perspectives as part of IS Analysis. Informing Science. 3,3, 145-156 (2000).

41.Bednar, P.M., Welch, C.: Bias, Misinformation and the Paradox of Neutrality. Informing Science, 11, 85-106 (2008).

42.Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., Strange, J.M.: Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 6 705-750 (2002).

43.Friis, S.: User Controlled Information Systems Development. Lund University Publ. (1991).

44_Checkland, P., Holwell, S.: Information, Systems and Information Systems. J.Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1998).

45.Mumford, E.: Redesigning Human Systems. IRM Press, London (2003).

46.Ulrich, W.: Critically Systemic Discourse: A Discursive Approach to Reflective Practice in ISD, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 3,3, 55-106 (2001).
47.Churchman, C.W.: The Systems Approach. Dell Publishing (1968).

48.Churchman, C.W.: The Systems Approach and its Enemies. Basic Books (1979).

49.Weick, K.E.: Improvisation as a mindset for organisational analysis. Organisation Science, 9,5, 543-555 (1998).

50.Ciborra, C.U.: The Labyrinths of Information. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002).

51. Van Dyne, L., LePine, A.J.: Helping and voice extra-role behaviour: Evidence of construct and predictive validity'. Academy of Management Journal. 41,1 108-119 (1998).

52.Davenport, T., Prusak, L.: Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, Mass. (2000).

53.Mullins, L.: Management and Organizational Behaviour. 8th edition, Financial Times/Prentice Hall (2007).

54.Krackhardt, D., Hanson, J.R.: Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart. Harvard Business Review, 71,4 104-11 (1993).

55.Myers, M. D., Klein, H. K.: A set of Principles for Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 35,1, 17-36 (2011).