A framework for evaluating organizational choice and process redesign issues

Brooke, Carole

doi:10.1080/026839600344375

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They play a major role in transforming complex reality into forms that help us nd our place in the global socio-economic relationship. Here it is suggested that the ability of these disciplines for rising to this challenge depends on their acknowledging and incorporating the politics of production and management into their respective frameworks (following Burawoy, 1985;Brooke, 2000;Wilson and Howcroft, 2000;Saravanamuthu and Tinker, in press). So, how does Multiple Perspectives (Linstone, 1999) measure up on this score?…”

Section: Paradigm Paralysismentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Automating a task refers to the situation where technology is used for replacing humans 'following the principles of the substitution of human labour and cost ef ciency' (Brooke, 2000, p. 23) and informating a process involves enhancing human effort by 'helping individuals to add value through application of intellectual skills' (Brooke, 2000, p. 23), while transforming processes refer to the use of technology for more far-reaching structural changes within an organization (following Cash et al, 1994), to the extent that the 'very nature and purpose of the business itself requires reevaluation' (Brooke, 2000, p. 24). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology regard a move from automate to informate to transform as being a (progressive) trait of a successful organization (Cline and Guynes, 2001), despite the limited number of analyses on the social effects of higher levels of technological integration (Brooke, 2000).…”

Section: School Of Accounting Finance and Entrepreneurship Universimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Political Lacuna in Participatory Systems Design

Saravanamuthu

2002

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critiques three prominent information systems (IS) contributions to the development of social (work) systems, namely ETHICS, UTOPIA and Multiple Perspectives. They are based on the socio-technical Quality of Working Life and generally rely on systems design for improving working conditions by allowing employees to appreciate a holistic work experience, instead of being treated as a cog in the profit-making machinery of capitalism. However, this paper argues that ETHICS and Multiple Perspectives in fact shy away from the ideo-political differences that cause workplace conflict in the first place. Their pluralist means of resolving workplace conflicts through discussion and negotiation fail to problematize the colonizing or hegemonic influence of economic rationalism in obscuring the feasibility of alternative modes of workplace relations. They play down the asymmetrical power relations that perpetuate the exploitation of weaker stakeholders in real-life employment negotiations. Hence, political quietism in social IS approaches fail to acknowledge the ideological causes of conflict, that is the pursuit of profit at any cost, as opposed to a more sustainable and ethical approach to workplace relations. This paper presents a study of an organizational accounting IS system and uses it for illustrating the ideological roots of differences in employee–employer needs and priorities and revealing how reflexive decision makers are alienated when they attempt to distance themselves from the myopic ethos of economic rationalism. Despite these criticisms, the paper concludes on a relatively positive note. It argues that, since the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future was released in 1987, there has been increased awareness that organizations cannot continue to exploit our resources (and ourselves) blatantly in the name of profit maximization. This process of redefinition opens the door for more realistic and politically challenging systems approaches.

show abstract

Section: Paradigm Paralysismentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: School Of Accounting Finance and Entrepreneurship Universimentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Lacuna in Participatory Systems Design

Saravanamuthu

2002

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These are presented in Table 3. These stereotypes have been developed by Brooke (2000) from work such as Zuboff (1988) and Cash et al (1994) and are labelled 'automate', 'informate', and 'transform'. In order to contextualise Table 3, a brief overview only will be repeated here.…”

Section: Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next three columns refer to the three stereotypical scenarios which are given to the stakeholder groups to work with as a springboard to developing further scenarios. The nine criteria are briefly listed here and are expanded in Table 2 (detail of the conceptual development of the nine criteria is given in Brooke, 2000). Table 2 shows the status quo of Tiger plc, a company in the food sector (identity protected).…”

Section: The Organisational Scenarios Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organisational scenarios and legacy systems

Brooke¹,

Ramage²

2001

International Journal of Information Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A legacy system is made up of technical components and social factors (such as software, people, skills, business processes) which no longer meet the needs of the business environment. The study of legacy systems has tended to be biased towards a software engineering perspective and to concentrate on technical properties. This paper suggests that the evaluation of potential change options for legacy systems can only be carried out as part of an holistic organisational analysis. That is, the evaluation of legacy systems must take place within a framework that combines business and technical considerations. In particular, we believe that the business strategy must lead this process. Accordingly, we have designed an inter-disciplinary approach which brings together an organisational scenarios tool (based on concepts from the field of organisational development) and a technical scenarios tool (based on concepts from the field of software engineering). These tools are applied in an iterative way, so that technical options are tested out against the business needs. It is, thus, a dynamic tool which seeks to mimic the nature of organisational change, as far as is practicable. The research project described here is entitled software as a business asset (SABA) and was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under the systems engineering for business process change (SEBPC) programme. This paper describes the research approach and its iterative stages, and illustrates its use within a large engineering firm (Engco). Its application produced useful insights for the organisation, as well as pointers for further modification of our research approac

show abstract

Strong Sustainability

Jeronen¹

2020

Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rigorous sustainability Definition/Description The concept of sustainability includes a spectrum of perspectives ranging from a technocentric "very weak sustainability" position through to an ecocentric "very strong sustainability" one (Gibbs et al. 1998). Nowadays, it has been emphasized qualitative side of growth and strong sustainability (rigorous sustainability) position gearing to the green economy and environmental protection (Davies 2013). Environmental protection is seen to be crucial because certain natural resources, e.g., "critical natural capital," are irreversible (Neumayer 2003; Turner 1993), provide some functions, and are not substitutable by produced capital (Balaceanu and Apostol 2014; Klarin 2018). Their loss reflects on all other forms of capital (Neumayer 2003; Turner 1993). Critical natural capital is stressed by defining sustainability as leaving a stock of natural capital for the future generations as big as enjoyed by the current generation (Cabeza Gutés 1996). Strong sustainability position has various variants such as "environmental" and "ecological sustainability" (Pezzey and Toman 2005; Turner 1993). Environmental sustainability is focused on maintaining the factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment (BusinessDictionary 2018a) which is necessary for conducting the economic activities and quality of life of people on a long-term basis (Elkington 1994). Ecological sustainability is focused on protection and restoration of the integrity of the Earth's ecological systems (Bosselmann 2017) for maintaining their essential functions and processes and retaining their biodiversity in full measure over the long term (BusinessDictionary 2018b). "Very strong sustainability" position again stresses steady-state economic system based on thermodynamic limits and constraints and minimization of matter and energy throughput (Davies 2013; Turner 1993).

show abstract

A framework for evaluating organizational choice and process redesign issues

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

The Political Lacuna in Participatory Systems Design

The Political Lacuna in Participatory Systems Design

Organisational scenarios and legacy systems

Strong Sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About