Is Information Infrastructure Design Theory consistent with

Participatory Design?

Petter Øgland

15th PhD Days, Sep 4th-5th 2008

Background and motivation

• Information Infrastructure Design Theory seems like promising theory for designing quality management systems (QMS)

Applying II theory to understand IS

Theory development: Monteiro, Hanseth, Aanestad, Nielsen etcTesting II

design theory in the field

HISP, Telenor, Statoil, NTAX, …

Investigating IS problems in real life

Developing II design theory“bootstrap

algorithm”

”Network of action” cycle

Observation/Question

• II research appears efficient at producing rich descriptions of why many information systems development projects fail

• II research appears less efficient in using this knowledge for developing II Design Theory

• Why?

Hypotheses/ideas

• H1: II Design Theory is prescriptive (theory = guidelines; string of commands) but is formulated in the descriptive language of II Theory (theory = texts and metaphors)

• H2: II researchers (PhD students) do not understand II theory as developed by Hanseth et al.

• H3: There is a political conflict between “Machiavellian implications” of II Design Theory by theory developers and the “participatory design” culture among the IS researchers in the field

Developing the argument

• Explaining II Design Theory by referring to– Information Infrastructure Design Theory (Hanseth &

Lyytinen,2004)– “Bootstrap algorithm” (Hanseth & Aanestad, 2003;

Hanseth 2006)– Action research approach – “networks of action” (Braa

et al, 2004)– “Flexible standards” (Braa et al, 2005)

• Contrast with PD (Bødker, 1996)• Contrast with “non-political” engineering design

(Simon, 1969)

Design of experiment for testing hypotheses (action research)

• Establishing a PhD reading group, trying to follow the IID and PD guidelines– Idea came from faculty (“management”)– All PhD students present at UiO assembled and felt it

was a good idea (“worker participation”)– IID and PD seemed to be the best theories available

for designing such a group– In presenting the story, I was also strongly in need of

such a group/network and wanted it to succeed

• From the outset, this looked like a template for success

Group existed for 51 weeks, 38 meetings

00,5

11,5

2

2,53

3,54

4,530

.08.

06

13.0

9.06

27.0

9.06

11.1

0.06

25.1

0.06

29.1

1.06

20.1

2.06

24.0

1.07

14.0

2.07

28.0

2.07

28.0

3.07

11.0

4.07

25.0

4.07

09.0

5.07

23.0

5.07

06.0

6.07

04.0

7.07

18.0

7.07

01.0

8.07

Weeks between meetings LCL = 0

UCL = 3 AVG = 1

Development in group attendance

02

468

1012

1416

23.08

.06

13.09

.06

04.10

.06

25.10

.06

06.12

.06

24.01

.07

21.02

.07

28.03

.07

18.04

.07

09.05

.07

30.05

.07

04.07

.07

25.07

.07

Attendance for each meeting LCL = 1

UCL = 7 AVG = 4

Variation in individual attendance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of meetings attended Accumulated %

Results from interviews/discussions(positive comments)

• ”interesting to hear what the others are thinking and how texts are interpreted in different ways”

• ”I do not understand why not more students are participating, because the reading and discussions are interesting and relevant”

Results from interviews/discussions(negative comments)

• ”The blind leading the blind”

• ”I learn more from studying at home than from participating in a forum like this”

• ”If have to focus on what is important for my research, and cannot waste time on this reading group”

Interpretation

• Difficult to enrol the experienced students, as they do not want to waste time teaching inexperienced students

• Experienced students would only attend if faculty members were present (in order to have meaningful debates), but presence of faculty members made less experienced students afraid to speak their mind (so faculty didn’t want to attend)

Insights in regard of hypotheses?

• H1: The language of II makes it difficult to see whether IID premises were present or not (possible to argue either way)

• H2: Vague understanding of II theory within the II community (“the blind leading the blind”)

• H3: The project started with the best intents, PD style, but fizzled out due to lack of individual gains, consistent with IID insights

Was the reading group a success or a failure?

• Although the reading group was not a success (beyond 51 weeks), that does not mean that students are not reading and discussing

• For those who participated regularly, the reading group was useful for elaborating ideas and listening to various interpretations of relevant papers

• Due to distribution of agenda & measurements (statistics on previous slides) there were email discussions about the nature of the group (=>participation and involvement)

Is IID useful for designing QMS?

• Both IID and PD are political design methods– PD exploits tension between classes (e.g.

managers vs. workers)– IID exploits individual opportunism; ”what’s in

it for me”

• In a political organization (like NTAX) both approaches might prove useful for QMS design. PD among workers, and IID among managers (and opportunists)