Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
157 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
To choose between these different options, the Renaissance method assesses2 factors for the legacy system:
|
its business value (the importance of thelegacy system to the continued operation of the business) and its technicalquality (the complexity, quality of design, maintainability, etc. of the softwareand hardware). These factors can be plotted on a two-dimensional graph,which in turn can be roughly segmented as a two-by-two matrix
|
|
|
methods that take a basically technical view – that is, they focus on thecomputer technology as the main area of change
|
In the situation where the software in use is available for examination butthe original requirements have been lost, reconstructing a set of thoserequirements – a ‘reverse requirements engineering approach’ A ‘reuse re-engineering’ approach whichexamines in detail the structure of current software and the relationshipbetween its components, leading to the identification of components whichcan be extracted for reuse. The use of design patterns, to examine typical problems in legacysystems and thus typical solutions to those problems.
|
|
|
the recommendedactivities associated with the four quadrants of the graph as follows:
|
Low technical quality, low business value: this software is difficult tomaintain and not contributing significantly to the core business. It maywell be best to consider scrapping this software completely, to continuemaintaining it at a low level, or perhaps to replace it with commercialsoftware that has some of the same functionality.2 Low technical quality, high business value: this software is a goodcandidate for some sort of transformation, such as the software reengineeringoptions. Its low technical quality means thatproblems will arise if this is not done, while its importance to the businessmeans it must be retained in some form.3 High technical quality, low business value: because of its high quality,little needs doing to this software – the best option is probably to continuemaintaining it. However, its low value to the business also makes it apossibility for scrapping if appropriate.4 High technical quality, high business value: it is likely that this softwarewill need to continue to be maintained in its current form, and that itstechnical quality makes this a sensible option.
|
|
|
Corrective maintenance |
The identification and removal of the faults in the system. |
|
|
6 technical solutions commonly in usewith legacy systems:
|
1 Discard them and build a new system from scratch.2 Outsource them to a specialist organisation.3 Freeze them (decide to carry out no further work).4 Carry on maintaining them, despite difficulties.5 Wrap them within more modern programs that provide additionalfunctionality (also known as encapsulation)6 Reverse engineering – modelling the working of the current software andmodifying it, or building new software on a different platform whichexhibits the same functionality as the existing software
|
|
|
4 main options for dealing with legacy systems were identified by Sommerville
|
1 Scrap the system completely.2 Leave the system unchanged and continue with regular maintenance.3 Re-engineer the system to improve its maintainability.4 Replace all or part of the system with a new system.
|
|
|
Successful IT system
|
meet the needs of an organisation within and the relevant needs of other key stakeholders related to, but external from that organisation.
|
|
|
Failed IT system |
does not meet the needs of an organisation and/or its stakeholders. |
|
|
Systems thinking |
an understanding something as a larger whole. To understand things systematically, means to put them into context to find the nature of their relationships. |
|
|
System |
- components connected together in an organised way - the components are affected by being in the system and are change if they leave it - the assembly does something - carry out a task, fulfil a function - the assembly as a whole has been identified by some observer who is interested in it. |
|
|
Sociotechnical systems thinking |
No IT systems can be understood without a sense of relationships between the social aspects (organisational and people) and the technical aspects ( software and hardware) of the system. |
|
|
3 core components of any systems |
1. the technology 2. the organisation 3. the people |
|
|
Approaches for developing a new IT system: |
- customise tools and products created by a third party - modify existing systems - bolt together components to create an original whole using standard parts - agile software development techniques - the use of the cloud for data storage and/or processing |
|
|
Evolutionary approaches: |
Method for developing a system which is taking the existing system and increment it to take it forward |
|
|
6 stages of lifecycle models: Avison and Fitzgerald (2006) |
1. feasibility study 2. system investigation 3. system analysis 4. system design 5. implementation 6. maintenance |
|
|
Spiral model Bhoem |
Works with a set of ideal development stages, but repeats those stages several times over. |
|
|
technological determinism |
posits that technological developments are the driving forces in history, technological progress is inevitable and shapes the social world. |
|
|
Social construction of technology |
the focus is on how technical knowledge and information is shaped by social processes and views. the technical and the social is linked. the key task is to understand why specific technologies emerge when they do, who uses them and for what purpose. |
|
|
techno-scepticism
|
questions the idea of technology as a neutral, progressive force and is concerned about the ownership and control of the technologies. |
|
|
techno-optimism
|
view technology in a positive light as a neutral, progressive force and emphasises the benefits of technological innovation over the risks. |
|
|
system boundary |
differentiate between the components that are internal and those that external to the system. |
|
|
system's environment |
the elements outside of the system boundary. |
|
|
open systems |
boundary is somewhat porous: elements of the environment may have a significant impact upon elements in the system and vice versa. |
|
|
sub-systems |
Smaller systems are nested in wider systems. Identifying the system, its sub-systems and its environments reflects the choice of level at which you will work |
|
|
system hierarchy
|
better representation of sub-systems helps identify the scope of the system
|
|
|
emergence
|
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
|
|
|
diagram |
a simple form of a model, it both reveals and hides aspects about the world |
|
|
models
|
represent a partial view of a situation, allowing the user to gain insight into part of it differently They do not represent the whole situation. |
|
|
systems map |
shows components of the system and environment. helps you to begin to decide how you are going to structure a situation and to communicate to others They show the structure of the system rather than processes. |
|
|
influence diagrams |
A development from a systems map that explores the influences between the components. It represents how the components, both of the system and its environment, interact and shows the important relationships that exist among them. |
|
|
balancing (negative) feedback |
the outcome of the process is being fed back to the beginning of the process in order to control it. It leads to a dampening down or check of the effect caused by the input |
|
|
reinforcing (positive) feedback |
the outcome of the process is being fed back, but instead of compensating and balancing, it exaggerates and reinforces that process. It acts to reinforce the effect. |
|
|
multiple cause diagrams |
considers events, and states of things, and to explore the causal connections between them. They identify feedback loops. Understanding unpredictable dynamics is often helped by showing the interaction between different feedback loops. |
|
|
successful system |
achieved it's goals, it was operational and cost effective, the project team and the users are pleased with the results and they continue to be satisfied afterwards. |
|
|
categories of failure
|
- objectives not met - undesirable effects - inappropriate objectives set for the system |
|
|
the 6 most frequently mention criteria of success for systems: (Wateridge 1998) |
- meet users requirements - achieves purpose - meets the timescale - meets budget - happy users - meets quality |
|
|
DeLone and McLean (1992) Successful systems model
|
- system quality - information quality - use -user satisfation intention to use - net benefits |
|
|
System quality
|
concerned with factors such as ease of access, flexibility, response time, reliability and ease of use.
|
|
|
Information quality |
the quality of the information the system produces |
|
|
Use |
the amount of use |
|
|
User satisfaction |
measures of how the information affects the user |
|
|
Individual impacts |
how the IT system modifies the user's behaviour |
|
|
Organisational impact |
how the system and the information it provides influence the organisation. |
|
|
Service quality |
the quality of support that the users receive from IT support staff. |
|
|
Intention to use
|
has also been added to counter a criticism made of the original model - that is mixed up attitudes with behaviours.
|
|
|
Net benefits
|
can be accrued beyond the organisation.
|
|
|
Users |
customers or suppliers rather than internal users. they use the system to make buying decisions and execute business transactions. |
|
|
Definition of Stakeholders |
any group of individuals who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives.Nowadays, it is used even more loosely to refer to people who have a vested interest in a situation. |
|
|
stakeholder analysis techniques |
- Identify stakeholders - Understand key stakeholders - Prioritise stakeholders |
|
|
Brainstorming session |
- Work in small, close groups of perhaps 5 or 6, in a private, protected area, away from interference or interruption. - Create an atmosphere that is safe, supportive, concerned with encouragement and building fun, playful, energetic, enthusiastic, permissive, stimulating and risk taking. - Divide the time into periods of relaxed privacy for individual imagination ad contrasting periods of excited, lively, rapid -fire group interaction - Write up all the ideas as they occur where everyone can see them - Treat everyone as equal and enable everyone to contribute, although it may be useful to appoint a compere who discourages criticism, encourages dramatic and outlandish ideas and maintains the pace - Continue while the excitement lasts, but stop at the first sign of staleness - When a good stock of raw suggestion has been generated, switch into a more controlled mode and work through the list of suggestions to look for overlaps, omissions and possibilities for forming groupings. |
|
|
brainwriting |
the participants communicate usually electronically.Brainwriting is attractive because it can overcome some of the problems associated with brainstorming but another big advantage it offers is that people can participate remotely. |
|
|
4 classes of stakeholders |
- Primary stakeholders: people who will actually use the system - the end-users - Secondary stakeholders: people who do not directly use the system, but receive output from it or provide input to it - Tertiary stakeholders: people who do not fall into either of the first 2 categories but who are directly affected by the success or failure of the system - Facilitating stakeholders: people who are involved in the design, development and maintenance of the system |
|
|
power/interest grid |
Groups of stakeholders, and individual stakeholders are plotted against the 2 dimensions of this grid, power and interest and then treated according to the quadrant in which they fall. |
|
|
Stakeholder analysis |
Presented showing stakeholders, their goals, their past reactions to change, what can be expected of them now, whether the change in system will affect the stakeholder in a negative, positive or mixed way and what their likely reaction is going to be. |
|
|
Definition of power |
the ability or capacity to perform or act effectively - the ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events in the pursuit of some goal or agenda. |
|
|
Steven Lukes (1974) defines basic power |
A exercised power over B when A affects B in a manner opposite to B's interest.In the absence of conflict where power remains opposed or unchallenged - there simply is no exercise of power. |
|
|
Clegg (1989) 3 concepts of power |
- Dispositional : power as set of abilities - Agency-based: power as the ability to bring about events or cause changes to occur - Facilitative: power as the ability to achieve goals, that is, to get things done |
|
|
Structural power |
can manifest in different domains - social, economic, cultural, technological and so on - and take a variety of forms including legal, financial, governmental and educational institutions. |
|
|
Politics |
the process of mobilising power is what is known as politics. Issues of power are central when considering the role played by different stakeholders in planning IT systems, stakeholders can enhance their power by coming together, mobilising their power in pursuit of a common goal or agenda.
|
|
|
the myth of organisational reality |
the view that all the members of an organisation are committed to pursuing common goals which are both objective, neutral and rational, that is unrealistic.In reality, organisational goals may be rational for some people but not for others.Rationality is always interest-based and dependent on the perspective from which it is viewed. |
|
|
Conflict |
occur when 2 or more social vectors interact with one another while try to attain their goals, and can be traced to one or more of the following causes: - Competition for resource that is scarce between social actors pursuing the same/similar goals or different goals - Differing expectations - and behavioural preferences - of joint action - Different attitudes, values, beliefs, and skills. |
|
|
Stakeholder legitimacy and conflict
|
One way that stakeholders attempt to exert and maintain influence is by seeking to legitimise their interests and demands while de-legitimising those of others.Another strategy involves a stakeholder group using its power to structure an organisation in such a way that it then favours its interests over that of other groups.At that point , power becomes institutionalised and virtually invisible.
|
|
|
Expert stakeholder power
|
Experts are able to exercise power through the control of access to and accumulation of specialist knowledge and information about technology. They have significant power in many situations, including systems design and implementation, because they possess knowledge and skills that others do not.
|
|
|
System failures approach |
It provides you with the means of learning from failure that you can incorporate into your own practice as an informed user, a commissioner or developer of information systems with the view of preventing failures in design, implementation, modification or operation. |
|
|
Methods to examining the real world have stages of |
- Abstraction: The analysts decides which part of the real world they are going to consider, - Modelling: they model them in some way mathematically or verbally - Manipulation: they manipulate that model in order to obtain greater understanding, and, in some situations, designs for different formulations. - Evaluation |
|
|
The abstraction is achieved by |
considering a situation and using a variety of diagrammes to be easier to understand what is the cause of the system failure |
|
|
The Systems Failures Approach has 2 key features
|
- Conceptualisation and modelling of the failure situation as a system - Comparison of the system with a model of a robust system that is capable of purposeful activity without failure in order to reveal lessons about the failure. |
|
|
Pre-analysis |
The first task is to decide which aspects of the system is being regarded as the failure, the focus of the application of the Approach, and which of the many systems that are likely to advance understanding.This task requires the purpose of the study, and the different viewpoints and perspectives that must be taken into account, to be specified and information about the situation and its history to be gathered and brought together. |
|
|
the fewer the viewpoints and perspectives, the more partial the picture, so a 4-way balancing act is always necessary between:
|
- The requirement being holistic, which underpins system work - The purpose of the study, - The time and cost constrains imposed by the client - And the need for the investigation to be manageable |
|
|
Techniques of pre-analysis:
|
- spray diagrams - Relationship diagrams - Multiple-cause diagrams - Rich pictures Non-diagrammatic methods: lists, databases, charts The most important rule: The situation must not yet be represented in terms of systems. |
|
|
Spray diagrams
|
Used to record ideas about relationships in the very early stages of analysis, often as a preliminary to drawing a relationship diagram or multiple-cause diagram.
|
|
|
Rich picture
|
The whole of the output of the pre-analysis.Interpreted as a picture or a diagram it becomes one of the tools that can be used during pre-analysis.It seeks to get onto one sheet of paper all of the salient features of a situation in a way that is insightful and can be easily assimilated.It is common to use cartoon like encapsulations of key ideas or pieces of information.
|
|
|
Relationships diagrams
|
provide a snapshot of situations.Lines are drawn to connect components that are significantly related in some way.Although the nature of the relationship is not specified, different lengths of lines can be used to imply different degrees of closeness.
|
|
|
Multi-cause diagrams
|
Constructions usually begins at single factor/event which is then traced backwards.The elements of the diagram are phrases and arrows.Phrases may be names of things, with or without their relevant associated variables.Arrows may represent causes, or may mean 'contributes to', 'is followed by', 'enables', or something similar.Unless annotation indicates otherwise, no distinction is drawn between necessary and/or sufficient causes.
|
|
|
Modelling systems |
have to be sufficiently detailed to enable switching between levels to be carried out and to allow structure and process to be represented in the formats necessary for comparison.This requires: - Name and definition of the system - Description of the components - Description of the components and the relationships in the environment of each system - Identification of the wider system - Description of the inputs and outputs - Identification of the system variables - The structural relationship between components - Some identification of the relationship between the variables that describe the behaviour of the system Input -output diagrams, system maps and influence diagrams are the main tools being used. |
|
|
Input-output diagrams
|
A simple form of flow-block diagram with the system represented by a single box, and inputs and outputs are shown as labelled arrows.
|
|
|
Stages of systems failure approach
|
Stage 1: pre-analysis Stage 2: identifying significant failures and select system(s) Stage 3: Modelling systems |
|
|
Formal Model System |
a form or structural framework that is a base of comparison.The barebones of the system are: - System (Formal System) - Wider system - Environment |
|
|
The wider system
|
represents the next hierarchical level upwards from the system.It affects the system in a number of ways: - It defines its purpose and sets its objectives - It influences the decision-makers within the system and monitors the performance of the system as a whole. - It also provides the resources that the system needs in order to function. The wider system can also enhance the authority of the system. If the legitimacy of the objectives and activities of the wider system have been established, the legitimacy can be extended to justify the activities of the system and its subsystems. |
|
|
The environment
|
disturbs the system directly but it also disturbs it indirectly through the wider system.The system attempts to influence the environment directly and through the wider system.
|
|
|
The Formal System comprises:
|
- The decision making subsystem - A performance monitoring subsystem - Set of subsystems and elements that carry out the tasks of the system and thus effect its transformations by converting inputs to outputs |
|
|
The decision making system |
responsible for decisions about how the purposes of the system are to be achieved - such as, which transformation are carried out and by what means - and for providing the resources to enable this to happen. |
|
|
The performance monitoring subsystem
|
charged for observing the transformation processes and reporting deviations from the expectations to the decision-making subsystem so it can initiate corrective action if it is necessary.
|
|
|
Formal system model features:
|
- A decision-making subsystem - A performance monitoring subsystem - A set of subsystems and elements that carry out the tasks of the system and thus effect its transformations by converting inputs to outputs - A degree of connectivity between the components - An environment with which the system interacts - boundaries separating the system from its wider system and the wider system from the environment - Resources - A continuous purpose or mission that gives rise to expectations - Some guarantee of continuity |
|
|
Communication
|
- Communication between the system and its environment - The flow of information for the wider system, via the system, to the subsystems, and vice versa - Numerous communication links within the system and the subsystem |
|
|
upwards and/or downwards hierarchical comparisons to FSM
|
When moving up, the system that has just been considered will next be viewed as a subsystem or a higher -level system.Moving down the level, what was regarded as a subsystem will be perceived as a system.Judgement about whether a change in a level is appropriate, and if so whether it should be up or down to what was a subsystem, will need to take account of the nature of the system as conceptualised earlier in the Approach and the results of the first comparison.
|
|
|
a system can be considered as a failure if it breaches human rights. To avoid that: |
- Encompass ethical and human rights considerations within the list of features that needs to be present if the components of the situation are to meet the requirements for purposeful action without the failure. |
|
|
The list of recurring themes that emerge from comparisons with the FSM is:
|
Deficiencies in the structure of the system, such as a lack of performance-measuring subsystem or a control/decision-making subsystem. . No clear statements of purpose supplied in a comprehensible form to the system from the wider system. . Deficiencies in the performance of one or more subsystems – forexample the performance-measuring subsystem may not have performedits task adequately. . Lack of an effective means of communication between the various subsystems.. Inadequate design of one or more subsystems. . Not enough consideration given to the influence of the environment, and insufficient resources to cope with those environmental disturbances . Imbalances in resource allocation that lead to quality problems or to cost or output quantity problems or delays. |
|
|
top-down and centralised system model |
a hierarchically organised view which tends to incorporate the idea of a single overall executive controller (i.e. supervisor or ‘boss’ component) at the top of the system hierarchy |
|
|
complexity |
One way of getting a grip on the notion is to contrast complex systems with other kinds of system. |
|
|
Simple systems |
- give rise to predictable or deducible behaviour - involves small numbers of interactions between small numbers of components with few feedback loops - centralised control/decision making -decomposable |
|
|
Complex systems
|
- give rise to unpredictable and counterintuitive behaviour - involve large number of interactions between large number of components with many feedback loops - decentralised control/decision making - non-decomposable |
|
|
An alternative approach to understanding complexity |
involves contrasting the behaviour of complex systems with systems which demonstrate fixed (static),periodic (regular) or chaotic kinds of behaviour. the behaviour of complex systems is held to lie somewhere between periodic behaviour and chaotic behaviour. This led to the theory of 4 stages of behaviour. |
|
|
Complex systems belong to Class IV |
exist at the edge of chaos. one of the principle characteristics of systems belonging to Class IV is creativity, the ‘edge of chaos’ lying between periodic order and chaotic disorder. Creativity should here be understood in its technical sense – the production of structures that can survive and propagate for an arbitrarily long time |
|
|
another feature of complex systems |
they tend to be difficult to understand, predict and control because they are composed of large numbers of components involved in multiple interactions. |
|
|
Superposition principle |
In a linear system, the net output at a given place and time caused by two or more inputs is the sum of the outputs which would have been caused by each input individually. For example, if a system has two inputs, A and B, andinput A produces output X while input B produces output Y, then input (A +B) produces output (X + Y) |
|
|
Linear systems |
by studying the parts in isolation, we can learn everything we need to know about the complete system. |
|
|
non-linear systems |
their primary behaviours of interest are properties of the interactions between parts, ratherthan being properties of the parts themselves, and these interaction-based properties necessarily disappear when the parts are studied independently. |
|
|
Non-linearity has profound implications for IT systems |
it undermines the possibility of applying more conventional quality assurance methods and engineering techniques associated with simple and complicated systems. simulation is the only possible means by which to model, understand and predict the behaviour of complex IT systems |
|
|
three principles which bear directly on the prospect for building successful IT systems: |
1 Existing at the ‘edge of chaos’, complex IT systems demonstrate creativity which is important for maintaining viability in a changing environment;such creativity can be fostered through the inclusion of positive (or reinforcing) feedback loops at appropriate places in the system.2 unpredictable and difficult to control which can lead to system failure. In order to strike a balance between demands for creativity and predictability; the amount of unpredictability in the system needs to be controlled, or at least influenced, through the inclusion of negative (or balancing) feedback loops. 3 Exhaustive simulation of complex IT systems is not possible due to combinational explosion, so requirements must be met. |
|
|
emergence |
emphasise component-level interaction as the means by which system-level properties or behaviours are generated, with the latter not reducible to the properties or behaviours of the components considered in isolation. |
|
|
bottom-up phenomenon |
the components responsible for generating the aggregate properties or behaviours of the system exist at one level, while the aggregate properties or behaviours themselves exist at a higher level |
|
|
local or sub-systemic interconnectivity |
each part in a whole is connected to a number of other parts. Crucially, a high degree of connectivity implies a high degree of interdependence.In complex systems, we can distinguish between local or sub-systemic wholes and global or systemic wholes |
|
|
emergent wholes |
can only be understood in terms of their components(or parts) and the interactions between them, their properties and behaviours can be difficult to understand. |
|
|
the emergent system |
will have properties that the parts alone do not possess. |
|
|
deterministic system |
there is only one possible next state of the system given its current state and the rules governing the interaction between its components |
|
|
non-deterministic system
|
allows a range of different outcomes
|
|
|
homogeneous systems |
all the components are of the same kind and their interactions are governed by the same set of rules or principles |
|
|
heterogeneous systems
|
different types of components working different ways by different rules
|
|
|
emergent properties |
some systems are capable of generating unintended – and possibly also undesirable – emergent properties in terms of new functionality and behaviour. |
|
|
complex systems manifest creativity |
but can also be unpredictable; this means that there is a need to strike a balance between arranging conditions which promote the emergence of functionality that enhances the viability of the system, while minimising the impact of emergent functionality that is destructive. |
|
|
a top-down definition and representation of the system and its components, predicated on assumptions of: |
. a persistent hierarchy of organisation embodied in . a fixed set of relationships between components and . regulation of processes by stable feedback loops that . implement the defined causal relationships leading to the achievement (or maintenance) of a desired steady state. |
|
|
in the case of complex networked systems,we find that: |
. The emergent, ‘bottom-up’ network dynamics challenges the classical ‘top-down’ . paradigm for understanding systems structures and behaviours; . The complex connectivity and evolving information content of the network make it impossible to accurately predict the exact state of the network for a specific future point in time. . The network structure is difficult to represent with the classical method of structural modularisation. . It becomes difficult to use the concept of the boundary to demarcate the cleavage of the system from its environment. . The classical device of using discrete state changes for the separation of ‘becoming’ from ‘being’ does not capture the mutually defining relationship between dynamics and structure. In the case of the dynamic network, the global topology is defined by the collective dynamics and the global dynamics emerges from locally responsive actions defined by structural coupling between local components. |
|
|
Self-organisation |
certain kinds of systems to organise themselves – or rather, their components – into more ordered forms without the involvement of a central organising agency,whether internal or external to the system. none of the components, either individually or in small groups, can directly control, or even shape, the evolution of the system as a whole. |
|
|
system’s evolution |
components co-create the system’s evolution, yet none of them, individually or in small groups, is organising the interaction, the self-organisation, across the system |
|
|
Complex adaptive systems (CAS) |
complex systems that are not only capable of generating emergent properties and behaviours through self-organisation, but are also capable of adaptively self-organising;modifying themselves in response to changing conditions in their environment so as to maintain or enhance the properties and behaviours of the system. CAS are capable of learning to adapt to changes in their circumstances, a feature which makes them highly robust to perturbations or disturbances originating outside the system, either in the environment or another system. |
|
|
A system can maintain its order (or organisation)
|
by making use of error correction mechanisms involving negative feedback, or through the use of some form of redundancy mechanism involving multiple instances of the same component performing the same role in the system such that functionality can be maintained in the event of component failure. However,in a CAS, order (or organisation) is said to be maintained via the system learning to adapt to changes in its environment.
|
|
|
Adaptation |
it is not enough to simply recognise that the systems may generate emergent behaviour, some of it possibly unwanted; in order to continue to function in a changing environment, complex IT systems must also be capable of adapting ‘on the fly’ to changing circumstances and in a self-organising, decentralised manner. |
|
|
Mechanisms of adaptation Two kinds of adaptation can be distinguished |
the first occurs in an agent during its lifetime; the second takes place within a population of agents across a number of generations and is generally referred to as evolution. In biology, the concept of continuous evolution is that the characteristics of species change gradually over time in response to environmental competition. |
|
|
natural selection |
the greater likelihood that those organisms with successful traits will survive, breed and pass on those traits to subsequent generations. Such phenomena can be seenin IT systems: for example, if a particular piece of software has a user interface that is especially unfriendly, or if it enforces ways of working that are at odds with existing organisational culture, then it is likely that the software will be replaced or modified. |
|
|
Satisficing |
the search for a single ‘optimum’ configuration may be neither possible nor desirable. Instead of insisting on a fixed set of requirements being satisfied for all time, it is more realistic, to think in terms of a changing set of requirements being ‘satisficed’, that is, maximally addressed under a given set of circumstances. |
|
|
use of the CAS concept in relation to IT systems
|
planning really comes into its own when considering adaption in response to changing environmental conditions including user requirements and needs
|
|
|
co-evolution
|
One way of formulating the notion of co-evolution is in terms of one domainor entity changing in the context of one or more others; in short, reciprocal influence leading to change in the co-evolving entities.
|
|
|
co-evolving systems
|
the sub-systems ( People, Organisation, IT) within an IT system can – and arguably should – be viewed as co-evolving systems. For this reason, there is a need to consider co-evolution within the human and organisational sub-systems of an IT system itself.
|
|
|
encouraging co-evolution
|
an IT system requires an enabling infrastructure whichprovides the conditions for self-organisation, emergence and exploration of different system configurations.
|
|
|
Enabling conditions can include:
|
. enhanced communication between the domains, based on trust and mutual understanding . sufficient stability and continuity . senior management support, which allows space for . autonomy and freedom to self-organise. |
|
|
Drivers of organisational evolution
|
organisational evolution results from the interactions of individuals or agents and is driven by the different values and interests motivating them. In their view, three levels of organisationalstructure need to be considered: . underlying assumptions about how the world works, why we are here, etc. . culture (aims and goals) of the business or enterprise . behaviours and artefacts within the IT system. |
|
|
system alignment
|
the attempt by an organisation to use IT effectively – in short, to make it ‘fit’ – in order to achieve business objectives. fitness in this context ‘refers to the degree to which the IS mission, objectives and plans support and are supported by the business mission, objectives, and plans’.
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 1: |
1 Existing at the ‘edge of chaos’, complex IT systems demonstrate creativity which is important for maintaining viability in a changing environment;such creativity can be fostered through the inclusion of positive (or reinforcing) feedback loops
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 2: |
2 unpredictable and difficult to control Inorder to strike a balance between demands for creativity and predictability– and thereby minimise the possibility of system failure – the amount of unpredictability in the system needs to be controlled, or at least influenced, through the inclusion of negative (or balancing) feedback loops
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 3: |
3 Exhaustive simulation of complex IT systems is not possible, so the demand for requirements being shown to be satisfied needs to be relaxed. However, this needs to be understood in the context of recognising that one of the principle reasons for the perceived failure of IT systems is their not meeting requirements
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 4: |
generate emergent behaviour; some of this will be wanted, and some unwanted. There is a need to control, or at least influence, complex IT systems such that the impact of unwanted behaviouris minimised while that of wanted behaviour is maximised.
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 5: |
Emergent structures, properties and behaviours in complex IT systems tend to be irreversible and cumulative, so it is important to ensure that only those that are ‘right’ for the system are generated. |
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 6: |
should be positioned at the ‘edge of chaos’ – the region between order and disorder – so as to maximise stability and openness to change and adaptation (learning).
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 7: |
There is a need to consider co-evolution between the social (human,organisational) and technical components of an IT system as a process of gradual and mutual adjustment in pursuit of organisational objectives.
|
|
|
Principles of successful systems Principle 8: |
Legacy systems arise from inappropriate co-evolution, so it is crucial to ensure that both kinds of components in an IT system – social (human,organisational) and technical – evolve in a mutually reinforcing manner.
|
|
|
Examples of open problems in design methodology include:
|
How to model coupling between complex systems and between them and their environments.. How processes of growth and development constrain the functionality of complex adaptive systems.. How to avoid the brittleness exhibited by large engineered systems in favour of a balance between robustness and flexibility.. How automatic mechanisms such as those associated with evolutionary and adaptive computing – genetic algorithms and neural networks, for example – can be used to configure or optimise the organisation of complex systems.
|
|
|
complexity theory
|
providing the guiding inspiration behind principles rather than fully fledged implementationmechanisms. Rather than using mathematics, application of complexity theoryin this context draws upon concepts that have been demonstratedmathematically or experimentally in natural and artificial systems, and deriveslessons for the human components of IT systems which are examples ofsociotechnical systems
|
|
|
The organisational context Zone 1: |
Immediate work context
|
|
|
The organisational context Zone 2:
|
internal structure and resources of the organisation: other departments, management structures, politics and culture, human, physical and financial resources
|
|
|
The organisational context Zone 3:
|
Near external context: customers, suppliers, local political, environmental, economic and socio-cultural factors
|
|
|
The organisational context Zone 4:
|
'far' external context: socio-cultural trends, the national and international economics climate, national and supranational policy, regulation and legislation, technological innovation and environmental and ethical factors.
|
|
|
The bidirectional arrows
|
are there to indicate that influence can flow in both directions − though not necessarily in equal measure.
|
|
|
Techniques:
|
- STEEPLE analysis: the external context - Resource analysis: for the internal context - Personal analysis: for the individual - SWOT analysis: for creating strategic objectives and action plans for organisational and personal development. |
|
|
PESTLE and SWOT analyses
|
These are tools used to find out the current status and position of an organisation or individual in relation to their external environment and current role. They can then be used as a basis for future planning and strategic management.
|
|
|
The PESTLE analysis
|
used to provide a context for the organisation’s/individual’s role in relation to the external environment. It covers Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental factors.
|
|
|
Enhanced SWOT analysis
|
A better way to map this output more directly into a project plan and/or strategy is to use a 3×3 grid, arranging your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the labelled boxes. Then come up with some ‘mini strategies’ in the four boxes in the bottom right corner of the matrix, addressing the questions outlined. Having done this you can use the top left box to either translate the strategies into a task list for a project plan or come up with a strategy or mission statement for whatever topic was the subject of the SWOT analysis.
|
|
|
When carrying out a STEEPLE analysis you will need to go through a three-stage process: Process 1: |
Identify – identifying the most salient factors. This is where good research can really pay dividends. It is always a good idea to feed multiple perspectives into the scanning process if possible – even if this is only advice on where to find the most authoritative sources of information. Brainstorming techniques are frequently used in an organisational setting to identify potentially significant factors. The key thing to remember is that you are looking for factors in each dimension and in each zone in relation to the subject and purpose of the analysis.
|
|
|
When carrying out a STEEPLE analysis you will need to go through a three-stage process:Process 2:
|
Analyse – analysing the actual or potential impact of the factors identified in terms of opportunities and threats. Once a number of factors have been identified as being significant they can be analysed to discern the opportunities and threats they pose in relation to the subject and purpose of the scan.
|
|
|
When carrying out a STEEPLE analysis you will need to go through a three-stage process: Process 3:
|
Prioritise – assessing and evaluating the relative importance of the actual or potential impact. Having analysed the factors identified and, hopefully, emerged with a clearer understanding of the precise nature of opportunities and threats in relation to the subject and purpose of the scan
|
|
|
Zone 2: the internal organisational context
|
An organisation’s capability and readiness to respond to actual or anticipated changes in the external context will depend on both its tangible and intangible resources and assets.
|
|
|
Tangible resources
|
are more amenable to quantification, include things like buildings, capital equipment, technological, human and financial resources.
|
|
|
Intangible resources
|
are more abstract and their value is less easy to quantify in precise terms. Intangibles include things like: management and leadership styles and capabilities organisational structures routines and cultures (tacit as well as explicit) the collective knowledge and skills of the workforce intellectual property brand and reputation effectiveness of communication and collaboration the state of morale within the organisation.
|
|
|
Resource analysis
|
it is necessary to be clear about its scope – what will be covered and what won’t. The areas to be investigated and the amount of detail required will usually be driven by the need to produce information for specific purposes.
|
|
|
Zone 1: the individual in their immediate work context
|
For example, organisational cultures and sub-cultures, formal codes of ethics, conduct and practice – either set down by an organisation or a professional body. Relationships with colleagues and interpersonal skills will also be important – as will the level of skills, knowledge and experience in relation to current role and future aspirations. Finally, personal work infrastructure should be evaluated: are the resources in place to carry out this role effectively?
|
|
|
personal analysis
|
Values, ethics and culture What personal values underpin my practice?Am I operating under a formal ethical code/code of conduct? Are there any conflicts and/or contradictions between my work and my values/ethical code?What is the culture of my immediate working environment? Does it align well with my personal values and any ethical code/code of conduct that pertains to my workplace?Relationships What are my key working relationships with colleagues within the immediate working environment and wider organisation?Will I need to forge new relationships to help me to perform more effectively in the future?Knowledge, skills and attributes Can I identify the knowledge, skills and other personal attributes required to perform my duties effectively now?etc.
|
|
|
The following issues frequently weaken the quality of outcomes from this type of analytical process:
|
Insufficient or poor quality data is fed into the analyses Without good initial research and evidence gathering, unsupported assertions and opinion dressed up as fact can creep in. Identification is mistaken for analysis Simple identification of factors is mistaken for analysis. Excessively long lists are produced Failure to analyse leads to a failure to prioritise, which results in a simple ‘listing’ of factors, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Vague definition of terms Without sufficient analysis, factors, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be vaguely defined. No clear outcomes The process frequently stops at the SWOT matrix completion stage, with no clear strategic/action planning objectives/outcomes emerging.
|
