JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY THEORY AND APPLICATION

College of Information Science and Technology

Drexel E-Repository and Archive (iDEA)

http://idea.library.drexel.edu/

Drexel University Libraries www.library.drexel.edu

The following item is made available as a courtesy to scholars by the author(s) and Drexel University Library and may contain materials and content, including computer code and tags, artwork, text, graphics, images, and illustrations (Material) which may be protected by copyright law. Unless otherwise noted, the Material is made available for non profit and educational purposes, such as research, teaching and private study. For these limited purposes, you may reproduce (print, download or make copies) the Material without prior permission. All copies must include any copyright notice originally included with the Material. You must seek permission from the authors or copyright owners for all uses that are not allowed by fair use and other provisions of the U.S. Copyright Law. The

responsibility for making an independent legal assessment and securing any necessary permission rests with persons desiring to reproduce or use the Material.

Please direct questions to archives@drexel.edu

JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY THEORY AND APPLICATION

JITTA

HUMAN-CENTERED VS. USER-CENTERED APPROACHES

TO INFORMATION SYSTEM DESIGN

SUSAN GASSON, Drexel University

College of Information Science and Technology, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Email: sgasson@cis.Drexel.edu

ABSTRACT

Despite continuing debates about the \"user\" emphasis in HCI, new design approaches, such as interaction design, continue to focus on humans as technology users, constraining the human-centeredness of design outcomes. This paper argues that the difference between \"user\" focus and a human-centered focus lies in the way in which technology is designed. The emphasis on problem closure that is embedded in current approaches to designing information systems (IS) precludes an examination of those issues central to human-centered design. The paper reviews recent approaches to user-centered IS design and concludes that these methods are targeted at the closure of technology-centered problems, rather than the investigation of suitable changes to a system of human-activity supported by technology. A dual-cycle model of human-centered design is presented, that balances systemic inquiry methods with human-centered implementation methods. The paper concludes with a suggestion that IS design should be viewed as a dialectic between organizational problem inquiry and the implementation of business process change and technical solutions.

'human' is much more than eye and finger movements\". So how do we design for human-By focusing on usability, the IS centeredness? Gill (1991) defines human-literature too often overlooks the social centeredness as \"a new technological tradition context of use. Bjorn-Andersen (1988) which places human need, skill, creativity and criticized the narrow definition of human-potentiality at the center of the activities of computer interaction (HCI) in the literature, technological systems.\" The human-centered with the words: \"it is essential that we see our approach to the design of technology arose as field of investigation in a broader context. A

INTRODUCTION

Ken Peffers acted as senior editor for this paper.

Gasson, S., “Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design”, The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003, 29-46.

Susan Gasson

a reaction to perceptions that traditional approaches to technology design deskill technology users and impoverish the quality of working life (Gill, 1991; Scarbrough and Corbett, 1991). While many of the issues of human-centeredness have been adopted by the IS and HCI literature, many have been considered to lie outside the boundaries of “user” interactions with computers. This is because of a focus on technology and how humans interact with technology, rather than business processes and user-interactions with the intended information system. •

Agile Software Development is presented, as uniquely a practitioner-initiated approach to human-centeredness in IS design.

The paper argues that each of these approaches focuses on user-centeredness at the expense of human-centeredness, because of an implicit IS focus on technical problem-closure, questioning how and why technology may be of service in supporting human work. Despite continuing debates about a focus on human actors as “users” of technology, this issue has not gone away and continues to constrain new, \"user-centered\" approaches to IS design, such as agile software development (Beck, 1999; Fowler and Highsmith, 2001; Highsmith, 2000) and interaction design (Cooper, 1999; Preece, Rogers and Sharp, 2002; Winograd, 1994). These constraints sit poorly with the need to design systems that support emerging knowledge processes (Markus, Majchrzak and Gasser, 2002) and result in systems that do not support the processes required to support organizational work (Butler and Fitzgerald, 2001; Lehaney, Clarke, Kimberlee and Spencer-Matthews, 1999).

This paper is structured as follows. The next section provides a discussion of the tenets of human-centered design and why this is not catered for in the mutual adaptation that is theorized to take place between organization and technology. Then we examine what we know about the nature of IS design processes, that makes human-centeredness problematic. Following this, the paper critiques some recent developments in IS design, from the perspective of human-centeredness: •

Participatory design is discussed as an alternative to the traditional, technology-centered system development life-cycle that resulted from an emphasis on human-computer interaction (HCI).

•

Interaction design, a development of HCI that considers work processes is examined.

•

Use-cases as part of a Unified Modeling Language (UML) approach are discussed, as a recent advancement for modeling

30

rather than inquiry. An alternative, “dual cycle” model of IS design is presented, that focuses on problem definition jointly with problem closure, based on a longitudinal study of stakeholder design.

HUMAN-CENTERED INFORMATION SYSTEM DESIGN

Recent theories that explain the relationship between technology and organization have argued that the two are mutually interdependent: each shapes the other

CONTRIBUTION The main contribution of this paper is to argue that \"user-centered\" system development methods fail to promote human interests because of a goal-directed focus on the closure of predetermined, technical problems. The paper is unusual, in that it questions the traditional interpretation of human-centeredness found in the HCI and IS literatures, as the production of a usable system design. The author critiques a number of recent developments in human-centered design methods, to examine the extent to which their focus on stakeholders as simply users of technology limits the extent to which they can support organizational work. Finally, the paper presents a \"dual-cycle\" design model, that balances technical problem closure with organizational problem inquiry. The need for a dialectic process, to achieve a balance between human-centered system outcomes and the design of an effective, formal technical IS solution is emphasized. Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

through self-reinforcing cycles of sensemaking human-centeredness = usability. Much of the and giving form to the organizational work that deals with human-centeredness is meanings that ensue (Majchrzak, Rice, dated, or is located in the organizational Malhotra, King and Ba, 2000; Orlikowski, management literature; this is reflected in the 1992; e.g. Orlikowski, 2000; Scarbrough and discussion here. Corbett, 1991). But the process by which

Human-centered design takes a socio-meanings are explored and then translated into

technical view (Emery and Trist, 1960),

organizational procedures, with their

balancing the requirements of two, competing

supporting technical artifacts – the process of

“systems” (Hedberg and Mumford, 1975;

design – has received relatively little attention.

Heller, 19):

Information technology (IT) is most often

viewed as a “black box”, the form of which is • The social system of interacting human predetermined by decisions as to its role and activities, multiple, implicit (and often purpose (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). But conflicting) goals, human understanding the physical ways in which users may interact and knowledge, business context and with an IT system, the work-processes that are application-specific cultures and practice. supported or not supported, and the extent to

which users are permitted to control IT system • The technical system of formal, rule-based

procedures and technology, managed by processes fundamentally affect how work is

performance indicators and exception-performed, regardless of the adaptation

handling. processes that follow. For example, in a study

of computer-supported factory automation, The difficulties inherent in achieving Wilkinson (1983) reports that a company this balance have been recognized in which wanted to purchase a system that organizational literature on the impact of permitted their shop-floor workers to control technological change at work. A human-the manufacturing process found that there centered approach takes the design ‘problem’ were none available on the market. The from work-participants – this is often designers of such systems assumed a embedded in local, organizational practice, managerial intention to remove autonomy rather than seeking a technical solution to a from manufacturing workers and so designed context-free, information-processing problem systems to prevent workers from \"tampering\" (Lehaney, Clarke, Kimberlee and Spencer-with production control parameters. Similarly, Matthews, 1999). The main tenets of this, Button et al. (Button, Mason and Sharrock, \"human-centered design\" perspective are: 2003), writing twenty years later, discuss how

a workflow and information management 1. Human-centered design advocates the

design of flexible systems that permit the system prevented workers from managing

people who work with them to shape and their work in the most effective way, because

manage their work (Gill, 1991; Kapor, of assumptions built into the system about the

1996; Lehaney, Clarke, Kimberlee and flow of work. The need to understand a \"web\"

Spencer-Matthews, 1999). of computer-supported activity, when

designing an information system (Kling and 2. Technology is shaped by, and shapes in Scacchi, 1982) and to understand how turn, social expectations: the form of organizational purposes are transformed technology is derived from the effect of through the IS design and implementation these social expectations upon the design process (Markus and Bjorn-Andersen, 1987; process (Mackenzie and Wajcman, 1999). Markus and Robey, 1988) appear to be well Human-centered design advocates the established principles in the IS literature. Yet design of systems that question normative these principles appear to have had relatively expectations of technology (Kuhn, 1996). little impact on IS research or practice

(Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). These issues 3. The human-centered approach is opposed

to the traditional, technology-oriented have largely disappeared from the IS literature.

approach, which prioritizes computer-As a result, there are few papers that do not

based information processing and uncritically adopt the HCI perspective that

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 31

Susan Gasson

technology-mediated communications located in multiple \"communities of practice\": over humans and their communicative groups of people who work together to collaboration (Barthélemy, Bisdorff and achieve specific ends, in locally-defined ways Coppin, 2002; Gill, 1991). (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Wenger, 1998).

Knowledge about how to perform work

4. Human-centered systems production

processes and the role that an information

should concern itself with the joint

system might play in the organization is often

questions of \"What can be produced?\" and

implicit and difficult to communicate (Brown

\"What should be produced?\" The first is

and Duguid, 1992).

about what is technically feasible, the second about what is socially desirable Individuals inhabit a socially (Kuhn, 1996; Lehaney, Clarke, constructed world and through their actions, Kimberlee and Spencer-Matthews, 1999). 5. The explicit, rule-based knowledge

needed for computer-based systems is

useless without the tacit and skill-based

knowledge through which explicit

knowledge is filtered (Cooley, 1987; Rosenbrock, 1988). Human-centered

design acknowledges the need for

informal information systems that enable

the use and communication of implicit

knowledge (Land, 1992).

6. We should avoid the prevailing tendency to separate \"planning\" tasks from \"doing\" tasks, as this separation results in deskilled technology users who are ill-equipped for exception-handling or meaningful decision-making (Cooley, 1987). Human-centered design strives for socio-technical systems that support meaningful, enriched work (Gill, 1991; Lehaney, Clarke, Kimberlee and Spencer-Matthews, 1999).

If nothing else, human-centered design

is predicated on enlightened self-interest.

Technologies are designed around a set of assumptions concerning what work processes are required and how they will take place that are often simply wrong (Button, Mason and Sharrock, 2003; Dourish and Button, 1998). A technology focus fails to take into account the distributed and informal nature of expertise and decision criteria (Barthélemy, Bisdorff and Coppin, 2002; Land, 1992).

Stakeholder interpretations of

organizational processes, goals and needs may

differ considerably, depending on the work or

interest-group to which they belong (Gasson,

1999b; Lave, 1991; Weick, 1979). The

requirements for an information system are

32

reproduce and give meaning to that world

(Berger and Luckman, 1966; Kelly, 1955;

Weick, 1979, 2001). People create a personal

system of psychological constructs, which

varies as they successively construe

replications of events (Kelly, 1955). Through

the use of specific social genres and forms of

communication, individuals not only pursue

their goals, but they define a situation and a

problem at hand, they present themselves to

the external world and they recreate personal

and group identities (Habermas, 1987;

Strauss, 1983; Yates and Orlikowski, 2002).

People shape and are shaped by this experienced \"lifeworld\" (Habermas, 1987) and that in turn shapes how they conceptualize an organizational information system. Thus, an organizationally-situated design is the result of negotiation between multiple, social “worlds”, that represent reality in different ways (Strauss, 1983). The resulting IS reflects intersections between an overlapping set of

individual and group perspectives, that shift and evolve as the design proceeds.

The notion that design is driven by a consensual set of goals, determined at the start of the analysis, is a vast over-simplification. Goal-directed methods, that do not revisit the initial goals for a problem solution, but take these as given throughout the design, lose the opportunity to benefit from the learning that accrues through the process of design and may be subject to implicit goal-redefinition. For

example, in a study by Gasson (1999a), a user-centered design project failed because of the

different ways in which non-technical and

technical design participants communicated

and evaluated the knowledge about the design.

The legitimacy of certain design goals was

judged differently by the two subgroups

participating in the project and this affected

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

form for the technical component of an information system. The traditional SDLC (the waterfall model) has three main limitations as a guide to the design of organizational information systems. Firstly, it relates to the development of systems to support relatively well-defined, technical goals and tells us little about how ill-defined and unbounded

An analysis of technology as the

problems should be defined and resolved

malleable product of improvisational

(Lanzara, 1983; Mathiassen and Stage, 1992;

adaptation (Lau, Doze, Vincent, Wilson,

Rittel, 1972). Secondly, it is based on a model

Noseworthy, Hayward and Penn, 1999;

of design as individual, rational problem-Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997) ignores the

solving, whereas organizational IS design

technological decision-making process that

tends to involve collaborative action, situated

gives the artifact a specific form. During this

in a social and political context that is far from

process, new purposes and roles for the

rational (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Preston,

technology emerge, are debated, and may

1991). Thirdly, it assumes that objective goals

replace the original purposes, as more

and solution requirements may be defined

technically “appropriate” (Gasson, 1999a).

early in the design process whereas empirical

Many assumptions and interests are

research tells us that IS goals emerge through

unreflectively embedded into the technical

the processes of design and that these goals are

artifact during system design, that constrain its

political, subjective and negotiated (Boland

potential role and use in organizational work

and Day, 19; Gasson, 1998; Guindon,

(Akrich, 1992; Mackenzie and Wajcman,

1990). However, the assumptions of the

1999; Xu, Lehaney, Clarke and Yanqing,

waterfall model appear to underlie many

2003). Refrigerators hum because everyone

current approaches to IS design. For example,

knows that refrigerators hum … no-one

the recent revival of interest in \"pattern

questions the use of the specific coolant

languages\" is based on the concept that

circulation technology that makes them hum.

inherent patterns exist in organizations and so

Similarly, computer-based information

computer-supported activity may be \"ordered\"

systems are configured in a certain way

by designing them according to \"some of the

because it makes technical sense to locate

physical structures that make an environment

functions in a certain way. No-one questions

nurturing for human beings\" (Alexander,

the impact that this will have upon how people

1999, page 73). Much of the appeal of the

can use the system, until these decisions have

Unified Modeling Language (UML) approach

been made and the designers turn their

(Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson, 1996),

attention to making the system “usable”. But,

discussed below, appears to rest upon its goal-by then, these decisions may fundamentally

directed (and therefore decompositional)

constrain the ways in which people can

nature, making the production of systems and

perform their work processes (Button, Mason

software easier to manage and control.

and Sharrock, 2003; Gasson, 1999a). Given that many of these ideas have been debated Simon's (1960; 1973) assumption of and explored for several years, the question goal-directed (and thus objectively justifiable) arises as to why these ideas have not been behavior in design have been adopted widely: incorporated into the design of IT systems. this assumption has received remarkably little The next section discusses the nature of the attention in the IS literature (Checkland and design process, to explore this question. Holwell, 1998). This is perhaps because the

result of challenging this perspective is to conclude that design is not amenable to THE NATURE OF THE IS DESIGN

planning, in the manner previously thought. PROCESS

Simon (1973) argues that ill-structured

Traditionally, IS design is viewed as a problems, such as the design of organizational single stage in the systems development life-information systems, are associated with a cycle (SDLC), defining a detailed physical consensual set of goals for the solution of an

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 33

which goals were acted upon by different subgroups. Through their ability to control the technical implementation of the design, the technical developers subverted the original intentions of the project to a considerable extent. But the formal goals for the project remained unchanged.

Susan Gasson

objectively-defined problem. Thus, a solution stakeholders are placed in a situation where can be derived rationally (or at least, in ways they can negotiate their requirements of an IS that may be justified on the basis of around a design exemplar - a prototype IT rationality), from these goals. But empirical system, or a prototype work-system. But the research into \"expert\" software and IS design attempt to balance the two domains tends to has demonstrated that design strategies are focus more on one domain than the other. \"improvisational\" (Lau, Doze, Vincent, Whilst, for example, Mumford’s work in Wilson, Noseworthy, Hayward and Penn, ETHICS (Mumford and Weir, 1979; 1999; Orlikowski, 1996; Orlikowski and Mumford, 1983) attempts the joint satisfaction Hofman, 1997; Weick, 2001) or of both social and technical interests, it deals \"opportunistic\" (Ball and Ormerod, 1995; almost exclusively with the design of work Guindon, 1990; Khushalani, Smith and Howard, 1994), in practice. Individuals appear to be guided by locally-contingent and partial plans (Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King and Ba, 2000; Malhotra, Thomas, Carroll and Miller, 1980; Suchman, 1987; Turner, 1987), to resolve problems that are subjectively-defined, are interrelated with other problems and are amenable to many, often incompatible solutions (Ackoff, 1974; Rittel, 1972). Problem definition is guided by the designer's experience of, or exposure to, suitable complete or partial solutions (Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King and Ba, 2000; Malhotra, Thomas, Carroll and Miller, 1980; Turner, 1987). Problem and solution are conceived together and are inextricably intertwined

(Bansler and Bødker, 1993).

These insights demonstrate that we need to view IS design as involving problem-exploration jointly with problem closure. Taking this approach would allow us to continually examine decisions concerning the role of IT within an organizational “system” of work (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). The remaining sections of this paper examine “state of the art” approaches to IS design that purport to focus explicitly on human-centeredness, to examine the extent to which these approaches support a problem-centered focus. DEVELOPMENTS IN HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN APPROACHES

Participatory Design The socio-technical perspective is most

apparent in the literature analysis of

prototyping and participatory design. This area

of work explicitly attempts to deal with the

\"multiple worlds\" problem discussed above. IS

34

systems. Technology is viewed as infinitely configurable to suit the organization of workgroups, with no account taken of constraints imposed by either technology design or its implementation. More recent work (Butler and Fitzgerald, 2001; Lehaney, Clarke, Kimberlee and Spencer-Matthews, 1999) examines the ways in which user participation in decisions concerning the use of information technologies affects the outcome, but focus on participation in business process redefinition. While this is essential, it is not sufficient. We have discussed how goals may be subverted by the technical systems design and implementation processes that follow business process redefinition. Muller et al. (1993) list a variety of

methods for participatory design, classified by

the position of the activity in the development cycle and by \"who participates with whom in what\". The latter axis ranges from \"designers participate in users' worlds\" to \"users directly participate in design activities\". For participatory design to be participatory, user-worlds must be effectively represented in the design. But, as discussed above, there is a wide disparity in user “worlds”. Participatory development has more potential to be politically disruptive and contentious than traditional (non-participatory) forms of system development, because it involves a wide

variety of interests, with differing objectives and perspectives on how organizational work and responsibilities should change (Howcroft and Wilson, 2003; Winograd, 1996). This

situation is therefore managed carefully in

practice. System stakeholders are selected for

participation on the basis of political

affiliations and compliance, rather than for

their understanding of organizational systems

support and information requirements. This

constrains user choice and significantly affects

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

the potential to achieve a human-centered Interaction Design system design (Howcroft and Wilson, 2003).

Interaction design is a recent

Users often have little choice about whether to

development arising from work in Human-participate. Even when trained in system

Computer Interaction (HCI). It considers a

development methods, users and other non-much deeper set of concepts than the

technical stakeholders often cannot participate

traditional HCI interests of user-interface

on an equal basis with IT professionals

affordance and usability. Interaction design

(Howcroft and Wilson, 2003; Kirsch and

examines the ways in which people will work

Beath, 1996). User views are often

with a technical artifact and designs the

inadequately represented because of cost

artifact to reflect these specific purposes and

constraints, or a lack of appreciation of the

uses (Preece, Rogers and Sharp, 2002).

significance of users' perspectives (Cavaye,

Winograd (1994) defines interaction design as

1995). Howcroft and Wilson (2003) argue that

follows:

the user choice is significantly constrained by organizational managers, who predetermine \"My own perspective is that we need to boundaries for the scope of the new system, develop a language of software interaction and who select who will participate in systems - a way of framing problems and making development and to what extent. distinctions that can orient the designer.

… There is an emerging body of concepts

Because of its reliance on the

and distinctions that can be used to

production of technical system prototypes, the

transcend the specifics of any interface

participatory approach is therefore technology-and reveal the space of possibilities in

focused. IT professionals exercise conceptual

which it represents one point.\"

power, in managing user perceptions of how a

(Winograd, 1994, pages 8-9).

technology can be employed (Markus and Bjorn-Andersen, 1987). They are able to So interaction design has the potential constrain the choices of non-technical to consider a \"space of possibilities\stakeholders, by the ways in which alternatives encompasses many different and subjective are presented and implemented in the system definitions of the organizational problem. A prototypes. User worldviews may easily be human-centered solution would be one that relegated to \"interface\" considerations by negotiates the needs of the multiple technical system designers, even when the stakeholder \"worlds\". This would lead to many explicit focus of the method is on joint system alternative technical solutions being evaluated definition (Gasson, 1999a). The use of by stakeholders. But in practice, interaction participatory design may become a power design appears to be limited by the tradition of struggle between, on the one hand, \"rational\HCI discourse. It examines how a single user technical system designers and, on the other might use a predefined technical artifact, to hand, \"irrational\" user-representatives who are determine how to design the artifact to be unable to articulate system requirements in usable. As Cooper (1999) argues, analyzing technical terms (Gasson, 1999a; Nelson, how people might want to use an artifact is a 1993). The concept of empowering workers significant advance over current methods of raises hackles: this is seen as \"social design. Cooper (1999), who claims to have engineering\" that compares unfavorably (in invented the approach, defines interaction scientific, rationalist discourse) with \"software design as \"goal-directed design\" that is product engineering\". Designers who engage in such and development driven. This approach irrational behavior must have a subversive defines what software system products should agenda that is counterproductive (Nelson, be built and how they should behave in a 1993). Thus, participatory design may often be particular context (Cooper, 1999). But goal-subsumed to the less intrusive (and much less directed approaches are only appropriate when confrontational) path of producing user-the problem is relatively well-defined centered design \"methods\" that can be partially (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Holwell, used, in ways chosen and controlled by 1998). Most organizationally-situated design technical designers. goals are emergent and to cope with this, a

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 35

Susan Gasson

human-centered design approach needs Special cases (extensions) of associations mechanisms for eliciting and capturing goals between objects or business processes are that emerge as the design proceeds. shown with a dotted line, while normal

associations are shown with a solid line. So in

A similar, goal-driven approach is

the example given here, the credit limit would

taken by Preece et al. (2002), who emphasize

only be checked in some circumstances (e.g.

\"the interactive aspects of a product\" (page

if the account balance is insufficient for the

11). Although they emphasize the evolutionary

withdrawal).

nature of design and extend the goal-driven concept with rich discussions of use, their perspective is also essentially driven by the

Withdraw uses Check account notion that design is centered around the balance money conceptualization of a computer-based product

with an individual user. Inquiry into the socio-cultural worlds of its use and into negotiated collaboration between interested stakeholders

are secondary. The discourse of Interaction Design starts with a concept of \"the computer\" (or computer-based technology) and only then considers the context of the human-computer interaction. This has the effect of moving the design model back to the historically unitary focus of HCI: a single technology user, moving towards closure of a single, task-related problem, in isolation from the social world of work that surrounds them. Interaction is thus reduced to interface.

HCI research into user-centered design has, however, had a significant impact on software development practice, as evidenced by the emergence of two schools of design methodology: the production of Use-Cases as part of Uniform Modeling Language (UML) approaches to system design and \"agile\" software development. Use-Cases in UML

The production of use-cases (Jacobson, 1991) has now been absorbed into the Unified Modeling Language (Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson, 1996) approach to formal system representation and modeling. The primary concerns here are the correctness and completeness of a technical system model. Use-cases constitute a representation of interactions between different classes of user and a computer system. From these use-cases, formal object-oriented models and specifications may be defined, that enable the production of a technical system. A example of a use-case diagram is shown in Figure 1.

36

extends Check credit limit Figure 1: Example of a Use-Case Model A benefit of the method is that designers are encouraged to base use-case models on the viewpoints of, and interactions between, multiple stakeholders. A high-level model is thus constructed that, ostensibly, starts with the user requirements of the proposed system and develops a set of \"business\" processes that the system will (partly or wholly) automate.

In HCI terms, this method represents a major victory for user-centeredness in technical practice. System conceptualization starts with an understanding and definitions of user-interactions. But is this really true? The use-case model focuses on the articulated requirements of a single user. It has no way of surfacing (or even recognizing the existence of) implicit requirements. Where multiple viewpoints are sought, the task is to reconcile these, not to represent (often conflicting) user requirements of the system. Additionally, most use-cases appear to be produced by the designer imagining how users would interact with their target system, to derive a set of algorithmic business-rules. Use-cases are largely based on short interviews and there is little opportunity for validation. So we revert to the problem with traditional approaches, identified by Norman (1990):

\"The designer expects the user’s model to be identical to the design model. But the designer does not talk directly with the user - all communication takes place through the system image.\" (Norman,

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

approaches that combine a minimalist form of system design (i.e. informal methods and short

The most serious problem with the

lifecycles) with a user-centered approach. The

UML approach (from a human-centered

Agile Manifesto (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001)

perspective) is that the design of user-argues for the following points:

interaction starts with a concept of the

computer system, that is not challenged by the • Individuals and interactions are valued process of design inquiry. Designers gradually over processes and tools. build up a set of interactions with a technical

system whose form is preconceived (as • Working software is valued over

comprehensive documentation. demonstrated by their ability to imagine and

represent interactions with this system), rather • Customer collaboration is valued over than with a conceptualization of users, their contract negotiation. work, the problems that they face, and their

lifeworlds. An understanding and definition of • Responding to change is valued over

following a plan. system interactions are therefore formed by the

designer constructing a model of the system as These points reflect many of the a set of functions, rather than by an conclusions of the literature discussion above, understanding of the needs of potential users particularly with their focus on goal and other system stakeholders. So, while emergence. The ways in which goals are system design based on use-cases may be inquired into, agreed and made explicit are considered user-centered, it does not fulfill the critical to achieving a human-centered requirements for human-centeredness. This outcome. Agile software development approach focuses on interactions with a emphasizes an adaptive approach to defining technical system, ignoring the wider social system goals and requirements, as the design context and the emergent, negotiated purposes proceeds. This is an implicit recognition of the of the system. difficulties of understanding the needs of

multiple user worlds, in advance of the system Agile Software Development

design. System goals and requirements are

Formal methods are increasingly being adapted to the designer's (and others abandoned in favor of rapid methods with stakeholders') increasing understanding of the shorter lifecycles and a lower administrative role that the system will play, in organizational overhead (Barry and Lang, 2003; Beynon-work. In Adaptive Software Development, Davies and Holmes, 1998). But rapid methods Highsmith (2000) rejects what he terms do not appear to deal well with user \"monumental software development\requirements and may lead to a more techno-of \"fitting the process to the ecosystem\". At centric focus than with traditional methods the heart of the approach are three overlapping (Beynon-Davies and Holmes, 1998). There is phases: speculation, collaboration, and a temptation with rapid approaches, for system learning. He argues that systems design developers to revert to the code-and-fix should respond to the contingencies of the approach that characterized software local context, rather than fitting the problem development before the advent of formal analysis to the framework underlying a formal methods (Boehm, Gray and Seewalt, 1984; analysis method. Although Highsmith does not Fowler, 2003). \"Agile\" software development prescribe specific methods, he does emphasize was conceived in response to a perceived need teamwork and the involvement of system users to balance technical system design interests in all aspects of system definition and design. with an understanding of user requirements. However, although Highsmith's work has been Uniquely, this approach is a practitioner-influential in forming popular perceptions of initiated approach to human-centeredness in IS how to manage system design, it does not offer design. Highsmith's (2000) Adaptive Software a method for performing design. One of the Development and Beck’s (1999) eXtreme most popular methods for agile software Programming are both examples of agile development is eXtreme Programming (Beck, software development: practitioner-instigated 1999). This approach is based partly on the

1990, page 16).

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 37

Susan Gasson

concept of scenario analysis (Carroll and Rosson, 1992) - a concept that is familiar to HCI researchers but novel to many technical system designers. The eXtreme Programming approach emphasizes a specific way of eliciting requirements from system users, in an informal and iterative process. Technical systems developers work in pairs with selected users, to generate short scenarios, which are coded into a system prototype. One developer codes, while the other checks the code for authenticity and correctness (these roles are swapped frequently). The user is invited back to validate the prototype against the scenario and to generate additional scenarios, based on their realization of shortcomings or omissions in the original scenario generated, after having used the prototype.

In its focus on emergence and \"the people factor\may be considered human-centered in its intent. However, its ultimate emphasis on the practice and profession of producing software systems, without explicit validation of system goals and organizational roles by non-technical stakeholders, renders it vulnerable to deadline-driven expediency (Nelson, 2002). Agile approaches provide a worthwhile attempt to deal with problems of implicit knowledge, evolutionary learning (by users) of what technology has to offer for their work, and misunderstandings between technical designers and users, as technologists gradually enter the lifeworld of the user. But these

approaches are based on the development of software, rather than organizational systems. It involves a very small selection of \"representative\" users, there is no attempt to understand or investigate the wider, socio-technical system of work and there is little attention paid to the selection of appropriate system users for scenario generation. Additionally, this method suffers from a common problem of evolutionary prototyping: the approach starts with the specific intention of building a technical system, not with the intention of bringing about organizational and technical change. As Butler and Fitzgerald (2001) remark, stakeholders must be involved in the definition of organizational and process change, before their involvement in IT systems development can be considered anything other than token.

The Need To View Human-Centered Design As Mutually-Interacting Inquiry and Implementation

I have argued here that the IS and HCI literatures have largely ignored the effect that the forms of available technology have, upon the range of social choices available and the role that IT systems play in work design. I examined a number of developments in \"human-centered\" IS design, to determine the extent to which they could achieve those elements of a human-centered outcome that were defined above. The findings are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Human-Centered IS Design Approaches

Approach Intended Focus Traditional IS The structuring of ill-structured design problems: goal-driven approaches decomposition.

Prototyping and Negotiation and exploration of ill-participatory structured problems. design

Interaction design Exploration of IT-supported user

work-processes. UML and Use-Cases

Actual Focus

Explicit (management) focus is goal-driven and

decompositional. Implicit strategies are opportunistic, to deal with goal-emergence.

Iterative and cyclical process of stakeholder involvement, limited by political selection of user-representatives and technology-centered requirements focus.

Technology-centered, individual user focus. Assumes consensus among system users, with well-understood IS goals.

Modeling of business processes and Models formal information-processing (business user-interactions with intended IT processing rules). Technology-centered and system. decompositional (so no opportunity to redefine goals as

these emerge through design process).

Adaptation of an evolving system Technology centered prototyping, accomplished by the design, based on user interaction development of individual user-scenarios. and scenario generation.

Agile Software Development

38

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

Most of the more recent approaches are of stakeholders was suggested by the various iterative and so avoid the problems of the organizational groups who would be affected traditional, decompositional focus. But I by the proposed system. These stakeholders would argue each of these approaches focuses met regularly, to discuss how work processes on user-centeredness at the expense of human-should change and how the new IT system centeredness, because of their technology-should be defined, to support these processes. centered focus. To embrace the tenets of derived from this study and from other case human-centeredness discussed earlier in this studies of stakeholder-driven design. The paper, system stakeholders -- the intended model has been refined according to the \"victims and beneficiaries\" of the proposed findings of other studies (Gasson and Holland, information system (Checkland, 1981) -- 1996; Gasson, 1999a) and ongoing case should be enabled to negotiate the role and investigations. It therefore represents an purposes of the system with other optimal way of managing the dialectic stakeholders, non-technical as well as between subjective, organizational problem technical. This is not a new idea - it was inquiry and goal-directed, process and proposed by Mumford (1983), early in the technical solution design. participative design movement. But its

The model in Figure 2 represents two

implementation has been problematic, because

\"cycles\" of the design process, to deal

of the persistence of the goal-driven,

separately but interactively with system

technology focus in IS design. It can be seen

inquiry and implementation (opening-up of

from the discussion here that most user-organizational problems and closing-down of

centered approaches are concerned with

business process/technical solutions).

closing down a technology-centered and goal-directed IS problem-definition, not about The first iteration is the cycle of exposing (or opening up) the social and inquiry, in which organizational \"problems\" organizational context (the design \"problem\") are debated, negotiated and defined: to examination and debate. Even in agile

1. Stakeholders agree a set of explicit goals

software development, the design problem is

for the organizational and information

determined very early in the process and

system changes.

remains unexamined after that point. The user-interaction and use of scenarios may generate 2. Based on these goals, a single stakeholder, new IT system requirements-goals, but it does who is familiar with a particular area of not question the essential form and social role work, produces a \"paper prototype\" process of the technical system, as even this approach design to achieve the goals for change. As focuses on an individual \"user\" of technology. part of this prototype, they conceptualize The most human-centered of the methods the role that a computer-based IS should discussed, participatory design approaches, do play in this process. Other group members not change the fundamental nature of the critique the suggested design: both the \"circular\" system development life-cycle. They process changes and the IT system concept

are refined, as part of this process. merely \"rotate” the life-cycle through 90°, so

that the cycle is driven by user-evaluation of

3. This is followed by a definition and

system design requirements, rather than by

validation stage, where the group defines

technical evaluation of system design

and agrees deliverables, in the form of

requirements. This rotation does not question

organizational process changes and IT

many of the essential contradictions of the

system goals. This is also the transition-traditional perspective, because it inherits the

point to the implementation cycle (stage 5),

\"problem closure\" life-cycle emphasis.

if the group feels that the goals and requirements for change are clear and To resolve these problems, design may

consensual enough for them to proceed. be managed as shown in Figure 2. This model

is based on findings from a longitudinal study

of a stakeholder-driven IS design in a midsize engineering company (Gasson, 1998). A group

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 39

Susan Gasson

Inquiry: Opening Up The Design Problem 1. Stakeholders agree and understand emergent design goals and relevant organizational boundaries4. Explore organizational possibilities & constraints. 2. Prime investigator defines organizational change and technical system role & functions.Implementation: Closing Down Technical Solutions 6. Synthesize design: plan IT system form requirements & delivery. 3. Definitions of 5. Review/agree IT organizational changes system goals and user-and IT system form and computer interaction function are validated intersubjectivityscenarios. with stakeholders. 7. Implement organizational change and technical support system. Technical and organizational change in operation8. Stakeholders evaluate changes against agreed organizational goals, boundaries and constraints. Figure 2. A Dual-Cycle Model Of Human-Centered Design (Adapted from Gasson, 1998) 4. If the group feels that the changes are still not well-understood (or not understood by group members in common), they explore organizational possibilities and constraints that operate upon the process, from the perspective of their domain-worldview. Revised goals for change are suggested through this process of \"argumentationhat leads back to the goal-definition activity (1).

development of a common worldview, that enabled them to debate design issues more meaningfully than before. At the validation stage, they reached a clear agreement that this design would satisfy their needs for change. This intersubjectivity permitted them to move to the implementation cycle.

IS solutions are defined through the implementation cycle, which is driven by the goals and problem-definitions defined in the inquiry cycle:

As new information emerges and

individual stakeholders understand interactions 5. The implementation cycle starts with a between their own work domains and those of review of goals and scenarios, based on the others, goals are redefined, often in small but previous cycle's definition of the significant ways that redefine the role of the organizational problem. This activity computer-based IS. For example, in the study ensures that goals and requirements for the from which this model was initially derived, IS-related change are clearly defined and the definition of the computer-based IS as a their implications for the solution are well-way to track and chase individuals to complete understood. sections of a document was quietly dropped,

6. Stage 5 produces an explicit and agreed set

as stakeholders agreed that they did not want

of changes that are synthesized into a set of

\"this big snake that runs through the whole

requirements and deliverables by what is

company\". In the first few iterations,

now a fairly knowledgeable set of

stakeholders understood the goals and

stakeholders -- at least in terms of the part

suggested solutions in different ways -- a

of the business process for which a solution

reflection of the different \"worlds\" discussed

has been agreed so far. It is at this point

above. But as they iterated around this cycle,

that the physical form of the IT system is

they developed a degree of a shared

agreed (e.g. \"we need a data portal to

understanding, based on the negotiation and

40

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

stage, resulting from HCI research and practice, many of which are discussed above.

7. As the group now shares a common

However, problem inquiry and definition are

understanding of the goals and

insufficiently researched and insufficiently

requirements for change, the

interrelated, in the way in which we approach

implementation of organizational changes

system design. This model presents an

and the computer-based IS may be

alternative to the limited models of technical

delegated to the oversight of individual

problem-closure that are implicit in each of the

stakeholders. For example, in the

approaches discussed above.

longitudinal study, other stakeholders cheerfully delegated the development of

the technical system to the IT manager and CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS delegated the implementation of the initial FOR PRACTICE process changes to the manager of the In fields such as architecture, design is existing process. viewed holistically, as the synthesis of 8. Once the changes have been made, problem exploration and solution definition stakeholders can evaluate them against (Lawson, 1990; Winograd, 1996). But the IS their agreed goals for change, with a perspective takes a view of human agency that

reduces human-centeredness to those common understanding of the

organizational goals and constraints within considerations required to model individual which they operate. This understanding is interactions with a computer-system. It thus communicated to stakeholders' local avoids considerations relating to emancipation, workgroups, which also achieves a higher autonomy, and the role of IT configuration in sense of shared ownership than is normally enabling or constraining organizational work. the case. The evaluation results either in The difference between a \"user\" focus and a the process and IS changes becoming human-centered focus lies in the way in which operational, or the group may feel that a technology is designed. This paper argued that formal review of the evaluation is needed, \"user-centered\" system development methods to debate problems that need to be dealt fail to promote human interests because of a with in another cycle of the design, or goal-directed focus on the closure of changes to this or another process. In this predetermined, technical problems. The case, the group moves back to the cycle of traditional interpretation of human-inquiry (stage 3), defining what elements centeredness as the production of a usable need to be dealt with next. The process system design, found in the HCI and IS ends when the group feel that all significant literatures, was found wanting. A number of areas of change have been dealt with and recent developments in human-centered design the new system of business processes and methods were examined. It was argued that

their focus on stakeholders as simply users of IS is operating adequately.

technology limits the extent to which these

The dual-cycle model emphasizes the methods can support effective, human-importance of systemic inquiry as part of the centered organizational work. Finally, the design process. The problem closure models paper presented a \"dual-cycle\" design model, within which we normally work delegitimize that balances technical problem closure with user participation and prevent users from organizational problem inquiry. The need for a revisiting problem definitions (Gasson, 1998, dialectical process, to achieve a balance 1999a). This model acknowledges the process between human-centered system outcomes and of involving stakeholders in defining actions the design of an effective, formal technical IS for organizational and technical change, as solution was emphasized. part of a procedural design approach.

I have argued that new, \"user\" centered Although the implementation stage is treated

almost superficially by this model, this is not IS design approaches are as limited as to claim that the implementation of technical traditional approaches to IS design, because of or organizational change is unproblematic. We their emphasis on problem closure. But already have good methods to manage this sometimes, a goal-oriented approach is

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 41

deliver these documents\").

Susan Gasson

appropriate. If stakeholders can agree a well-human-activity for examination and change. In defined problem, which can be solved with \"user-centered\" system design approaches, the known technology, goals are relatively easy to boundary of inquiry is too limited for set. The decision about which design designers to consider those aspects of context method(s) to use depends on the familiarity of and socio-cultural significance that would stakeholders with the proposed type of make the system \"human-centered\". information system technology, and on the

Recent developments in \"user-ease with which the IS \"problem\" can be

centered\" system design do not engage with

negotiated and agreed among stakeholders. If

the core problems of traditional systems

stakeholders feel that the organizational

development: its focus on technical problem-\"problem\" is well-defined and agreed, then

closure and its view of system stakeholders as

\"user-centered\" methods are appropriate, for

either \"managers\" (and therefore definers) or

the design of that part of the solution which is

\"users\" (and therefore consumers) of IT. This

computer-based. If stakeholders cannot agree

means that there is no mechanism by which

a suitable problem definition, then complex

emergent goals and requirements for IS-related

inquiry methods are required to provide such a

change can be made explicit, so they can be

definition, which needs to be revisited

debated among affected stakeholders. What is

periodically, as suggested by the dual-cycle

required is a combination of systemic inquiry

model of Figure 2.

methods with user-centered interaction

In the spirit of inquiry, we conclude methods for the design of supporting with a problem-statement and a proposed technology, with a dialectic between the two. solution. We should focus on separating problem

It is proposed that the two \"worlds\" of investigation from solution design, using socio-cultural work and technology-interaction approaches and methods that permit us to are incommensurable. We cannot analyze operate in different modes of inquiry in each them using common methods, nor can we world. We can then use that unique, human derive procedures and methods for producing quality that we all possess - the ability to software that satisfies the needs of both. HCI synthesize across incompatible domains of methods are targeted at closing-down knowledge - to produce appropriate and technology-centered problems, rather than human-centered solutions for the real world. opening up a technology-supported system of

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R.L. Redesigning The Future, Wiley, 1974.

Akrich, M. \"The De-Scription Of Technical Objects,\" in: Bijker, W.E. and Law, J. (eds.), Shaping

Technology/Building Society: Studies In Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992, pp. 205-224. Alexander, C. \"The origins of pattern theory: The future of the theory and the generation of a living world,\"

IEEE Software, 1999, 16:5, pp. 71-82. Ball, L.J., and Ormerod, T.C. \"Structured and opportunistic processing in design: A critical discussion,\" Int.

Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1995, 43:1, pp. 131-151. Bansler, J.P., and Bødker, K. \"A Reappraisal of structured analysis: design in an organizational context,\"

ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1993, 11:2, pp. 165-193. Barry, C., and Lang, M. \"A comparison of 'traditional' and multimedia information systems development

practices,\" Information and Software Technology, 2003, 45:4, pp. 217-227. Barthélemy, J.P., Bisdorff, R., and Coppin, G. \"Human centered processes and decision support systems,\"

European Journal of Operational Research, 2002, 136:2, pp. 233-252. Beck, K. eXtreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1999. Berger, P.L., and Luckman, T. The Social Construction Of Reality: A Treatise In The Sociology of

Knowledge, Doubleday & Company Inc., Garden City N.Y., 1966.

42

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

Beynon-Davies, P., and Holmes, S. \"Integrating rapid application development and participatory design,\"

Software, IEE Proceedings, 1998, 145:4, pp. 105-112. Bjorn-Andersen, N. \"Are Human Factors Human?,\" The Computer Journal, 1988, 31:5, pp. 386-390. Boehm, B.W., Gray, T.E., and Seewalt, T. \"Prototyping Versus Specifying: A Multiproject Experiment,\"

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1984, SE-10:3, pp. 290-302. Boland, R., and Day, W.F. \"The experience of systems design: a hermeneutic of organisational action,\"

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19, 52:2, pp. 87-104. Boland, R., J, and Tenkasi, R., V, \"Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of

Knowing,\" Organization Science, 1995, 6:4, pp. 350-372. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., and Jacobson, I. Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Addison-Wesley,

Reading, MA, 1996. Brown, J.S., and Duguid, P. \"Enacting Design for the Workplace,\" in: Adler, P.S. and Winograd, T.A.

(eds.), Usability: Turning Technologies Into Tools, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1992, pp. 1-197. Butler, T., and Fitzgerald, B. \"The relationship between user participation and the management of change

surrounding the development of information systems: A European perspective,\" Journal of End User Computing, 2001, 13:1, pp. 12-25. Button, G., Mason, D., and Sharrock, W. \"Disempowerment and Resistance In The Print Industry?

Reactions To Surveillance-Capable Technology,\" New Technology, Work, and Employment., 2003, 18:1, pp. 50-61. Carroll, J.M., and Rosson, M.B. \"Getting Around The Task-Artifact Cycle How To Make Claims and

Design By Scenario,\" ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1992, 10:2, pp. 181-212. Cavaye, A.L.M. \"User Participation In System Development Revisited,\" Information & Management, 1995,

28:5, pp. 311-323. Checkland, P. Systems Thinking Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, 1981.

Checkland, P., and Holwell, S. Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field,

John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, 1998. Cooley, M. Architect Or Bee?: The Human Price Of Technology, Hogarth Press London, 1987.

Cooper, A. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How To

Restore The Sanity, Sams Publishing, 1999. Dourish, P., and Button, G. \"On \"Technomethodology\": Foundational Relationships between

Ethnomethodology and System Design,\" Human-Computer Interaction, 1998, 13:4, pp. 395-432. Emery, F.E., and Trist, E.L. \"Socio-Technical Systems,\" in: Churchman, C.W. and Verhulst, M. (eds.),

Management Science Models and Techniques, Pergamon Press, Oxford UK, 1960. Fowler, M. \"The New Methodology,\" (Available online at http://www.martinfowler.com, 2003. Fowler, M., and Highsmith, J. \"The Agile Manifesto,\" Software Development, 2001, August, pp. 28-32,

Available online at: http://www.sdmagazine.com. Gasson, S. \"Framing Design: A Social Process View of Information System Development,\" Proceedings of

The Nineteenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 98), Helsinki Finland, 1998. Gasson, S. \"A Social Action Model of Information Systems Development,\" The Data Base For Advances In

Information Systems, 1999a, 30:2, pp. 82-97. Gasson, S. \"The Reality of User-Centered Design,\" Journal of End User Computing, 1999b, 11:4, pp. 3-13. Gasson, S., and Holland, N. \"The Nature And Processes Of IT-Related Change,\" in: Orlikowski, W.J.,

Walsham, G., Jones, M.R. and deGross, J.I. (eds.), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, Chapman & Hall, London, 1996. Gill, K.S. \"Summary Of Human-Centred Systems Research In Europe, Part 1,\" Systemist, the journal of the

UK Systems Society, 1991, 13:1, pp. 7-27. Guindon, R. \"Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts,\" Human-Computer

Interaction, 1990, 5, pp. 305-344.

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 43

Susan Gasson

Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action - Critique of Functionalist Reason, Beacon Press,

Boston, MA, 1987. Hedberg, B., and Mumford, E. \"The Design Of Computer Systems: Mans Vision Of Man As An Integral

Part Of The Systems Design Process,\" in: Mumford, E. and Sackman, H. (eds.), Human Choice And Computers, North-Holland, Amsterdam., 1975, pp. 31-59. Heller, F. \"Human Resource Management And The Socio-Technical Approach in New Technology,\" in:

Bamber, G. and Lansbury, R.D. (eds.), New Technology: International Perspectives On Human Resources And Industrial Relations, Unwin Hyman Ltd., London, 19. Highsmith, J. Adaptive Software Development : A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems,

Dorset House Publishing, New York, NY, 2000. Howcroft, D., and Wilson, M. \"Participation: 'Bounded freedom' or hidden constraints on user

involvement,\" New Technology, Work, and Employment., 2003, 18:1, pp. 2-19. Jacobson, I. Object-Oriented Software Engineering, ACM Press, 1991.

Kapor, M. \"A Software Design Manifesto,\" in: Winograd, T.A. (ed.), Bringing Design To Software, ACM

Press, 1996, pp. 1-9. Kelly, G.A. The Psychology Of Personal Constructs., W.W. Norton & Company Inc., New York, NY,

1955. Khushalani, A., Smith, R., and Howard, S. \"What Happens When Designers Don't Play By The Rules:

Towards a Model of Opportunistic Behaviour In Design,\" Australian Journal of Information Systems, 1994, 1:2, pp. 13-31. Kirsch, L.J., and Beath, C.M. \"The enactments and consequences of token shared and compliant

participation in information systems development,\" Accounting Management and Information Technology, 1996, 6:4, pp. 221-2. Kling, R., and Scacchi, W. \"The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization,\" in:

Yovits, M.C. (ed.), Advances In Computers, Academic Press, New York, 1982, pp. 1 - 90. Kuhn, S. \"Design For People At Work,\" in: Winograd, T.A. (ed.), Bringing Design To Software, ACM

Press, 1996, pp. 263-279. Land, F. \"The Information Systems Domain,\" in: Galliers, R. (ed.), Information Systems Research,

Blackwell Scientific, Oxford UK, 1992, pp. 6-13. Lanzara, G.F. \"The Design Process: Frames Metaphors And Games,\" in: Briefs, U., Ciborra, C. and

Schneider, L. (eds.), Systems Design For With and By The Users, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam., 1983. Lau, F., Doze, S., Vincent, D., Wilson, D., Noseworthy, T., Hayward, R., and Penn, A. \"Patterns of

improvisation for evidence-based practice in clinical settings,\" Information, Technology and People, 1999, 12:3, pp. 287-303. Lave, J. \"Situating Learning In Communities of Practice,\" in: Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D.

(eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 1991. Lawson, B. How Designers Think, (Second Edition ed.) The Architectural Press, London UK, 1990. Lehaney, B., Clarke, S., Kimberlee, V., and Spencer-Matthews, S. \"The Human Side of Information

Development: A Case of an Intervention at a British Visitor Attraction.,\" Journal of End User Computing, 1999, 11:4, pp. 33-39. MacKenzie, D.A., and Wajcman, J. \"Introductory Essay,\" in: Mackenzie, D.A. and Wajcman, J. (eds.), The

Social Shaping Of Technology, Open University Press, Milton Keynes UK, 1999, pp. 3-27. Majchrzak, A., Rice, R.E., Malhotra, A., King, N., and Ba, S. \"Technology Adaptation: The Case of a

Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team,\" MIS Quarterly, 2000, 24:4, pp. 569-600. Malhotra, A., Thomas, J., Carroll, J., and Miller, L. \"Cognitive Processes In Design,\" International Journal

of Man-Machine Studies, 1980, 12, pp. 119-140. Markus, M.L., and Bjorn-Andersen, N. \"Power over users: its exercise by system professionals,\"

Communications of the ACM June 1987, 1987, 30:6, pp. 498-504.

44

Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design

Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. \"A Design Theory For Systems That Support Emergent

Knowledge Processes,\" MIS Quarterly, 2002, 3:3, pp. 179-212. Markus, M.L., and Robey, D. \"Information Technology And Organizational Change: Causal Structure In

Theory And Research,\" Management Science, 1988, 34:5, pp. 583-598. Mathiassen, L., and Stage, J. \"The Principle of Limited Reductionism In Software Design,\" Information

Technology & People, 1992, 6:2, pp. 171-185. Mumford, E. Designing Participatively, Manchester Business School, Manchester UK, 1983.

Mumford, E., and Weir, M. Computer Systems in Work Design: the ETHICS Method, John Wiley, New

York NY, 1979. Nelson, D. \"Aspects of Participatory Design - Commentary on Muller et al. 1993,\" Communications of the

ACM, 1993, 34:10, pp. 17-18. Nelson, E. \"Extreme Programming vs. Interaction Design,\" 2002, Available at

http://www.fawcette.com/interviews/beck_cooper/default.asp, last accessed August 2003. Norman, D.A. The Design of Everyday Things, (Also published as: The Psychology of Everyday Things

1988, Harper-Collins, New York ed.) Basic Books, Doubleday, New York, NY, 1990. Orlikowski, W.J. \"The Duality of Technology: Rethinking The Concept of Technology In Organizations,\"

Organization Science, 1992, 3:3, pp. 398-427. Orlikowski, W.J. \"Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective,\"

Information Systems Research, 1996, 7:1, pp. 63-92. Orlikowski, W.J. \"Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens For Studying

Technology In Organizations,\" Organization Science, 2000, 11:4, pp. 404-428. Orlikowski, W.J., and Hofman, D. \"An Improvisational Model of Change Management: The Case of

Groupware Technologies,\" Sloan Management Review, 1997, 38:2, pp. 11-22. Orlikowski, W.J., and Iacono, C.S. \"Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking The \"IT\" in IT Research -

A Call To Theorizing The IT Artifact,\" Information Systems Research, 2001, 12:2, pp. 121-134. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Wiley, New

York, NY, 2002. Preston, A. \"The problem in and of management information systems,\" Accounting Management and

Information Technology, 1991, 11, pp. 43-69. Rittel, H.W.J. \"Second Generation Design Methods,\" Interview in: Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary

Report, DMG Occasional Paper, 1, 1972, pp. 5-10. Reprinted in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984, pp. 317-327. Rosenbrock, H.H. \"Engineering As An Art,\" AI & Society, 1988, 2:4, pp. 315-320.

Scarbrough, H., and Corbett, J.M. Technology and Organisation: Power Meaning and Design, Routledge,

UK, 1991. Simon, H.A. The New Science of Management Decision, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1960. Simon, H.A. \"The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems,\" Artificial Intelligence, 1973, 4, pp. 145-180. Strauss, A.L. Continual Permutations of Action, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1983. Suchman, L. Plans And Situated Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA, 1987.

Turner, J.A. \"Understanding The Elements Of Systems Design,\" in: R.J., B. and R.A., H. (eds.), Critical

Issues In Information Systems Research, Wiley, New York, NY, 1987, pp. 97-111. Weick, K.E. The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1979. Weick, K.E. Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell Scientific, Malden MA, 2001.

Wenger, E. Communities of Practice - Learning Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge UK, 1998. Wilkinson, B. The Shopfloor Politics Of New Technology Gower Press, London UK, 1983.

Winograd, T. \"Introduction,\" in: Winograd, T. (ed.), Bringing Design To Software, ACM Press, Addison-Wesley Publishing, New York NY, 1996.

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:2, 2003 45

Susan Gasson

Winograd, T.A. \"Designing a language for interactions,\" interactions, 1994, 1:2, pp. 7-9.

Xu, X.M., Lehaney, B., Clarke, S., and Yanqing, D.J. \"Some UK and USA comparisons of executive

information systems in practice and theory,\" Journal of End User Computing, 2003, 15:1, pp. 1-19. Yates, J., and Orlikowski, W. \"Genre Systems: Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms,\"

The Journal of Business Communication, 2002, 39:1, pp. 13-35.

AUTHOR

Susan Gasson (PhD, Warwick Business School, UK) is Assistant Professor in IS at the College of Information

Science and Technology at Drexel University.

Her research

interests include social cognition, the design of organizational information systems and human-centeredness in information system implementation and use. Prior to her academic career, she worked as a consultant and manager in the areas of software design, data communications and information systems architectures.

46