Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the differences in epistemological underpinnings of conventional information systems analysis and design (ISAD) approaches (such as structured system and analysis design methodologies) and a recently developed situated ISAD approach.Design/methodology/approachThis empirical investigation involved constructing a simulated field situation to allow a conventionally trained IS analyst to analyse the same case as had been previously analysed by applying the situated ISAD methodology.FindingsWhile the conventional approach focuses on articulated knowledge and observes the system under study with a detached stance, the situated approach includes tacit knowledge and recognises the importance of the environment. The situated analyst is immersed in the system, attempting to take the subject position of an actor in the system, while also maintaining some analytical distance.Research limitations/implicationsThe research method and framework presented is a novel way to compare the epistemological underpinnings of other systems analysis and design methodologies. Validity issues are explicitly addressed in the paper; although it is based on a single case, the fact that it is a real‐world problem gives it high external validity.Practical implicationsThe investigation is based on an actual system design case and shows that, in analysis and design, the different epistemological underpinnings affect what is identified as a problem and hence the type of solution proposed.Originality/valueThere has been little previous work comparing epistemological commitments of alternative ISAD methodologies as they are played out in actual application. This paper makes a significant contribution to the theoretical foundations of IS.