Systems Engineering in Public Administration. Proceedings of the IFIP Tc8/wg8.5 Working Conference on Systems Engineering in Public Administration, Lüneburg, Germany, 3–5 March, 1993

169 Pages·1993·10.97 MB·English

by  Hinrich E. G. Bonin

IFIP Transactions A:
Computer Science and Technology
■
International Federation for Information Processing
Technical Committees:
Software: Theory and Practice (TC2)
Education (TC3)
System Modelling and Optimization (TC7)
Information Systems (TC8)
Relationship between Computers and Society (TC9)
Computer Systems Technology (TC10)
Security and Protection in Information Processing Systems (TC11)
Artificial Intelligence (TC12)
Human-Computer Interaction (TC13)
Foundations of Computer Science (SG14)
IFIP Transactions Editorial Policy Board
The IFIP Transactions Editorial Policy Board is responsible for the overall scientific
quality of the IFIP Transactions through a stringent review and selection process.
Chairman 0. Spaniol (TC6)
G.J. Morris, UK P. Thoft-Christensen (TC7)
Members G.B. Davis (TC8)
D. Khakhar, Sweden K. Brunnstein (TC9)
Lee Poh Aun, Malaysia E. Hörbst(TCIO)
M. Tienari, Finland W.J. Caelli (TC11)
P.C. Poole (TC2) R. Meersman(TC12)
P. Bollerslev (TC3) B. Shackel (TC13)
M. Tomljanovich (TC5) J.Gruska(SG14)
IFIP Transactions Abstracted/Indexed in:
INSPEC Information Services
Index to Scientific & Technical Proceedings®
CompuMath Citation Index®, Research Alert™, and SciSearch®
A-36
SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING
IN PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.5 Working Conference on
Systems Engineering in Public Administration
Lüneburg, Germany, 3-5 March, 1993
Edited by
HINRICH E.G. BONIN
Fachhochschule Nordostniedersachsen
Lüneburg, Germany
1993
NORTH-HOLLAND
AMSTERDAM · LONDON · NEW YORK · TOKYO
ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V.
Sara Burgerhartstraat 25
P.O. Box 211,1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Keywords are chosen from the ACM Computing Reviews Classification System, ©1991, with permission.
Details of the full classification system are available from
ACM, 11 West 42nd St., New York, NY 10036, USA.
ISBN: 0 444 81560 0
ISSN: 0926-5473
© 1993 IFIP. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publisher, €lsevier Science Publishers B.V., Copyright & Permissions Department, P.O. Box 521,1000 AM
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Special regulations for readers in the U.S.A. - This publication has been registered with the Copyright Clearance
Center Inc. (CCC), Salem, Massachusetts. Information can be obtained from the CCC about conditions under
which photocopies of parts of this publication may be made in the U.S.A. All other copyright questions, including
photocopying outside of the U.S.A., should be referred to the publisher, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., unless
otherwise specified.
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher or by IFIP for any injury and/or damage to persons or property
as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Printed in The Netherlands
V
Editor's Preface
Systems Engineering
in Public Administration
- Giving shape to our visions -
No doubt systems engineering can be characterized as a process of
model transformations (see e. g. M. Bazewicz or A. Engel). This pro-
cess includes tasks like for instance:
• (re) designing organizations
• (re)designing work practices (procedures)
• (re)designing computer based support capabilities
Are these tasks specific and/or harder to solve because they happen
in public administration? How can and should we give attention to
those aspects of work and work settings which uniquely or distinc-
tively occur in public administration as opposed to other domains
(D.Shapiro, R. Traunmiiller). What conclusions for systems engi-
neering can be drawn when it becomes obvious to everybody that:
- micro level view: each office massively uses computers
- meso level view: decentralization and deconcentration really happen
(see e. g. Ch. Jänig)
- macro level view: the system environment is dynamically chang-
ing all the time and becoming more and more complex (see
e.g. J.v.Meel)
VI
In general, many today's large systems in public administration
have their roots in times past. Year after year systems run, are
maintained and evolved through many changes. Thus their complex-
ity grows and grows in quality and quantity. Therefore, mastering
complex systems is going to be dominant in public administration.
Learning to master evolving systems needs at least a foundation in
science and engineering know-how.
It becomes obvious to us that mastering a very large system (104
[foo]- or 106 [/oo]-system) is quite different from mastering a large
system (102 [/oo]-system), when for instance foo is lines of code, or
any other measurement. Nevertheless, we act as if 106 [foo] = 10n+1
[foo] and try to approach the new challenges with the old guidelines.
Can today's techniques applied to small systems be scaled up?
Two examplary questions remain to be answered (see e.g. [1]):
1. How to solve 106 [foo] —► (103)2 [foo] in systems engineering?
2. How to run a useful system and evolve it with software created
according to new paradigms, and bring it up to the state of the
art?
The professionals, such as system engineers, are used to viewing
the system from the outside. The beneficiaries, such as the officials
in public administration, who use the computer based system every
day, are living more or less 'in' the system. Therefore, it is time
for systems engineers to stress the process of viewing the system
from the inside. Can autopoiesis (poiesis - creation, production)
be the adequate paradigm, as EL-Sayed propagated it? The idea
of self-renewal is the main difference to our traditional paradigms
including object-oriented or networking-oriented (see M.Bazewicz)
paradigms.
This volume does not attempt to give complete answers to the
problems raised above, but aims at giving shape to our visions. In it
Vll
the reader will also find positions contrasting traditional ideas, e. g.
the implemented system = the ultimate system specification (F. Belli).
However, we know that a profound discussion of the problems
mentioned has still to take place. On the one hand the authors are
quite willing to enter into dialogue with our readers, on the other
hand this subject will be pursued in the coming workshops of IFIP
TC8/WG8.5 (International Federation for Information Processing -
Governmental and Municipal Information Systems). We would be
most delighted to converse personally with inclined readers on the
occasions of one of our next workshops.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank all those who have helped in planning and prepar-
ing this meeting: the program committee, the German Computer
Society (GI/FB 6), the Austrian Computer Society (OCG), and
the FH Nordostnieder Sachsen, Lüneburg. Our special thanks go to
Mrs. Binder who helped to organize this meeting.
Hinrich E. G. Bonin
Reference
[1] Roland Mittermair; How to See the Forest Behind the Big Tree - Summary of the Dagstuhl
Workshop on Future Directions in Software Engineering, February 17 - 21, 1992, in: ACM
SIGSOFT, Software Engineering Notes, vol 18, no 1, Jan 1993, page 39.
Vlll
Conference Chair: Roland Traunmüller (Austria)
Program Chair: Hinrich E. G. Bonin (Germany)
Program Committee:
Mieczyslawa Bazewicz (Poland)
Fevzi Belli (Germany)
Hinrich E. G. Bonin (Germany)
Bas K. Brussaard (The Netherlands)
Herbert Fiedler (Germany)
Brigitte Jordan (USA)
Michel Klein (France)
Peter Kovacs (Hungary)
Klaus Lenk (Germany)
Heinrich Reinermann (Germany)
El-Sayed Nasr-El-Dein El-Sayed (Egypt)
Dan Shapiro (United Kingdom)
Franz Stuchlik (Germany)
Michael Tauber (Germany)
Roland Traunmüller (Austria)
Systems Engineering in Public Administration (A-36)
H.E.G. Bonin (Editor)
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland) 1
© 1993 IFIP. All rights reserved.
CSCW in Public Administration: a review
Dan Shapiroa and Roland Traunmüllerb
a Department of Sociology and Centre for Research in CSCW, Lancaster University,
LANCASTER, LAI 4YL, UK
b Department of Informatics, University of Linz, A-4040 Linz-Auhof, Austria
Abstract
The paper sets a context for the development of Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW) in Public Administration in the problems faced with existing systems, and the crises
of usability and productivity. While the support of team-work lies at the heart of CSCW, we
argue that this has a broader base and consequences than is usually recognised. It may be
better conceived as a shift which explicitly incorporates awareness of the social organisation of
work into systems design. We argue that the specificity of Public Administration as a domain
for CSCW lies in the particular combination of kinds of work and contexts of work which are
distinctive to it. These are discussed in terms of organisational and juridical forms of
bureaucracy and hierarchy, and the political and social dimensions of system use in Public
Administration. The practical implications from a CSCW perspective are then considered
under three heads. First, that of redesigning organisations, and the information management
and information resources management issues which this raises. Second, that of redesigning
work procedures, involving studying and modelling real world work, and the problem^ of
modelling discretionary work, modelling rules and regulations, and building open systems.
Third, that of redesigning support capabilities, and in particular making systems accessible and
convenient, supporting consultation and advice, supporting social networks, and supporting
communal decision processes.
1. THE PROBLEM WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS
Increasingly powerful, ambitious and consciously user-friendly systems continue to be
produced for a wide range of domains. The platforms, communication infrastructure, and
interface techniques continue to grow in power and decline in cost virtually by the day. Yet
users, and their consultants and advisers, seem increasingly dissatisfied. There are many
horror stories of systems which fail catastrophically, and many more such failures are swept
under the carpet. But below this spectacular surface there is a steady rumbling of discontent
about systems which were designed to help and support people in their work, yet somehow fail
to do so, or even impede people's working practices, to the frustration of everyone involved.1
In part, the failures are linked to the ambitions. Most of the 'easy* things have already been
done, and the work settings which are most amenable to a closely-defined, procedural
approach are already into several generations of systems - those such as payroll, accounting
2
and order processing which, for a range of administrative, legal and organisational reasons,
were already constrained by highly formal, bureaucratic procedures. The challenge is to move
out from this base into the effective integration of separate systems, and into the support of
'higher-lever organisational processes involving decision-making, negotiation and
collaboration - areas characterised by flexibility and rapid change rather than constancy. And
here, the existing models and design techniques no longer seem to serve us well. One could
broadly characterise Office Information Systems as the attempt to apply procedural models and
common databases to work settings for which they are not appropriate; and one could point to
the only limited success of AI techniques in supporting organisational decision-making.
The discontent is also linked to increasing expectations. Whereas once the majority of end-
users were either sceptical of computer-based systems, or terrified by them, or over-awed by
them, they are now much more sophisticated in their approach and much more willing to be
critical. Many users have taken the 'ubiquity* of computer systems to heart, almost before the
notion gained currency in computing circles, and expect to be able to turn to technology to help
them with their problems. They are enthusiastic fans of systems which aid them and appeal to
them. But when the technology lets them down in one way or another, or forces them into
'nonsensical' ways of working, or they find it inhospitable and unapproachable, they are far
more prepared to blame the designers rather than blame their own ignorance as they might once
have done. As people come under increasing pressure to deliver in a competitive and insecure
environment, they expect to be able to turn to the technology to shoulder part of the burden.
However, awkward questions are also being asked about the productivity gains which
systems are delivering. It is difficult to show convincingly that computer-based systems
developed in the last couple of decades have been cost-effective, and debate is raging as to
whether this is a lasting condition, or just a hiatus while various other prerequisites for fully
effective use fall into place. Again, whereas it might once have been achievement enough to
get any system, there are increasingly critical questions about whether we are getting the right
kind of systems.
This is the context in which CSCW is gaining prominence, as holding out the prospect of a
different approach to systems design which might address at least some part of these problems.
But there are also dangers in the optimism - not to say hype - surrounding a fresh approach
which seems to offer a way around some current impasses. It is therefore especially important
to recognise its problems and limitations, and not raise unrealistic expectations about what it
can deliver.
2. CSCW: SUPPORTING TEAMWORK
The term "Computer Support for Cooperative Work" was coined by Irene Greif and Paul
Cashman in 1984, as a prelude to the first CSCW conference held in Austin, Texas (CSCW
'86).2 CSCW was thought of as arising from a particular kind of problem - the needs which
some people had to cooperate in groups in doing their work - and so to give rise to the need for
particular kinds of system, to which the term "groupware" came to be applied. Of course
systems have always been designed to service many people. The distinctive feature now
identified was that of people cooperating on a task by interacting with each other in or through
the machine. Rather than using timesharing precisely for the purpose of sustaining the illusion
that users had their own virtual machine entirely to themselves, systems were now conceived
directly to support users in their inter-relations. Again, it is not claimed that no previous
systems ever did this, rather that explicit recognition of the need would now enter into the
design philosophy.
3
Experiments with CSCW systems have followed various directions. Email has been
discussed as (unconsciously) the first CSCW system, and by far the most successful (eg
Fafchamps et al., 1991; Borenstein, 1992). Computer supported meeting rooms, such as the
Xerox PARC 'Colab', give each member a terminal and facilitate their contribution to a
common screen and data space (Stefik et al., 1988). Other systems aim to support screen
sharing of various kinds so that two or more people can collaborate at a distance. Examples
include shared text editors such as 'Shredit' (Olson et al., 1990) and shared drawing surfaces
such as 'ClearBoard' (Ishii & Kobayashi, 1992). It is this kind of application that connects
CSCW most closely with Multi-Media, with screen sharing coupled to an audio or video
channel. Some systems have tried to support work processes in organisations in particular
ways. Flores and Winograd's 'Coordinator' (Winograd & Flores, 1986; Winograd, 1988),
for example, uses 'speech act' theory3 as the basis of a system which records and monitors the
acceptance and fulfilment of commitments among work participants. Another example is
Malone's 'Information Lens' (Malone et al., 1986) which acts as an information filter and
organiser for email. The first significant commercial products which are consciously grounded
in CSCW principles are beginning to appear, with Lotus 'Notes' now snaring the
Coordinator's lead.
These are some of the 'classic' examples of CSCW systems. Despite this diversity,
however, the predominant view among computer scientists (and among some social scientists
too4) is that cooperative work is a distinctive domain compared to work 'in general', and that
"groupware" for CSCW (even on an expanded definition) is a specialised class of system
within work support systems in general. However we prefer another perspective which sees
CSCW not as a specialised kind of system, but rather as symptomatic of a shift in the way that
systems design in general is being conceived.5 When systems design concerns itself with
systems which are to be implemented and used in a particular domain, it inevitably acquires a
double aspect. On the one hand, it has an internal dynamic of its own theories, concepts, terms
and techniques. On the other hand, it has to engage and seek to understand the world of the
particular domain in which it is to operate and which it is designed to support. It therefore
acquires an external dynamic of its relation with its target domains and the disciplines which
study them.
These interdisciplinary relations have become steadily more complex. At first, domain
problems were approached in purely functional terms, as tasks with inherent properties to be
broken down and systematically addressed. For this the disciplines of operational research and
of systems were the obvious partners - indeed they largely developed as disciplines through
this very relation. Another area that could be straightforwardly accommodated was that of the
physical relation of users to systems: the need for an 'ergonomics' of use could easily be
appreciated. When, later, it came to urging the need to take account of cognitive perspectives
on the relation of users to systems, psychologists found it helpful to extend from the more
easily-appreciated requirement for the physical and perceptual usability of systems, and so the
term 'cognitive ergonomics' gained currency. HCI (or CHI, or MMI) became the tag for the
interdisciplinary field thus far developed. Now, sociologists (and those in associated
disciplines: anthropology, aspects of management and organisational studies, etc) are urging
the need to incorporate an understanding of the social organisation of activities. But, from a
sociological perspective, its social organisation is a significant aspect of all human work; and
for virtually all systems, and certainly all of those intended for use in organisations, its social
organisation is a significant aspect of the domain within which it will have to operate.
Although the complexity of social organisation encountered will vary, it is nevertheless a
relevant consideration for all such systems, not just a specialised subgroup of them. This
connects with arguments such as that of Andrew Friedman about the phases of computerization
growth, (Friedman & Cornford, 1989) and that of Jonathan Grudin (1990) about the advent of