System development conflict during the use of an information systems prototyping method of action research: Implications for practice and research

Mike Chiasson; Albert S. Dexter

doi:10.1108/09593840110384799

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Information Technology & People

ISSN: 0959-3845

Online from: 1982

Subject Area: Information and Knowledge Management

Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

System development conflict during the use of an information systems prototyping method of action research: Implications for practice and research

Document Information:
Title:	System development conflict during the use of an information systems prototyping method of action research: Implications for practice and research
Author(s):	Mike Chiasson, (University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and), Albert S. Dexter, (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada)
Citation:	Mike Chiasson, Albert S. Dexter, (2001) "System development conflict during the use of an information systems prototyping method of action research: Implications for practice and research", Information Technology & People, Vol. 14 Iss: 1, pp.91 - 108
Keywords:	Action research, Conflict, Implementation
Article type:	Case study
DOI:	10.1108/09593840110384799 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	MCB UP Ltd
Abstract:	In one particular action research (AR) methodology, information systems prototyping (ISP), the goals are to involve the researcher in a facilitative and collaborative role with stakeholders in the development of an information system that satisfies their collective needs. But what happens when political and structural conflict and coercive action erupts? This article features an AR case, where the development of an electronic patient record in a heart clinic, resulted in a period of intense structural conflict, and the dismissal of an organizational member. Further analysis suggests that four factors can explain these unusual outcomes and their relationship with the use of an ISP method. These include: the specification of measures and perceptions of success within the AR method (goals); general problems with the AR methodology and/or its clear delineation (processes); problems in using a particular AR methodology in a specific time and place (contingency); and problems with the researcher’s implementation of the AR processes (implementation). The study also highlights a number of areas for development of ISP.