A FRAMEWORK OF INFORMATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS

[Pages:223]FRRIISCO

A FRAMEWORK OF INFORMATION SYSTEM

CONCEPTS

The FRISCO Report (Web edition)

by Eckhard D. Falkenberg

Wolfgang Hesse Paul Lindgreen Bj?rn E. Nilsson J. L. Han Oei Colette Rolland Ronald K. Stamper Frans J. M. Van Assche Alexander A. Verrijn-Stuart

Klaus Voss

? IFIP 1998

ISBN 3-901882-01-4

Full text of the FRISCO Report (MS-Word 6.0)

(as available by anonymous )

The FRISCO Report, originally completed in December 1996, is now made available as a downloable file for research and educational purposes. Not to be

distributed for profit, in any form, without written permission of the International Federation for Information Processing (enquire: ifip@ifip.or.at)

Printed copies (soft and hard cover) are available with permission of the copyright holder, at cost + postage, from the

Department of Computer Science, University of Leiden, The Netherlands (enquire: verrynstuart@rulcri.leidenuniv.nl)

? IFIP 1996, 1998

ISBN 3-901882-01-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE

1

1 INTRODUCTION

5

1.1 The Information System Area

5

1.2 Roots of the Problems in the Information System Area

7

1.3 Setting up a Framework of Information System Concepts:

10

1.4 The Structure of Our Conceptual Framework

12

1.5 The Structure of the FRISCO Report

13

2 A LINE OF REASONING ABOUT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

14

2.1 Searching for a Starting Point

14

2.3 Some Fundamental Questions to be Asked and Some Simple Answers

16

2.4 Towards a Raison d'?tre

24

3 INFORMATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS: An Integrated Overview

26

3.1 Our "Weltanschauung"

28

3.3 Actors, Actions and Actands

41

3.4 Constructing and Representing Conceptions

44

3.5 Communicating Conceptions: Restrictions Imposed by the Constructivist View

53

3.6 Models

55

3.7 Systems

60

3.8 Organisations, Information and Communication

64

3.9 Information Systems

72

3.10 Computerised Information Sub-systems

75

3.11 Summary of Assumptions and Definitions

83

4 INFORMATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS: A Formal Approach

92

4.1 The Fundamental Layer

94

4.2 The Layer of Actors, Actions, and Actands

100

4.4 The Layer of System Concepts

108

4.5 The Layer of Organisational and Information System Concepts

110

4.6 Summary of Primitives, Axioms, Definitions and Functions

112

5 A SAMPLE APPLICATION OF OUR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

121

5.1 Description of the Test Case

121

6 ELABORATION ON SELECTED TOPICS

137

6.1 Semiotic Concepts

137

6.2 System Concepts

146

6.3 Modelling Concepts

153

7 REFLECTIONS: Committed Positions on the Report

165

FRISCO ? "Mission * Impossible" ? (Eckhard D. Falkenberg)

165

Is Information to Become the Phlogiston of the Late 20th Century? (Wolfgang Hesse)

171

On Collaborative Linking Support for the FRISCO Concept System (Pentti Kerola)

177

FRISCO - A Way to Insight? (Paul Lindgreen)

182

Reflections from a Practitioner on the Information Concept (Bj?rn E. Nilsson)

187

A Dissenting Position (Ronald K. Stamper)

191

FRISCO Reflected Upon: So What or Aha? (Alexander A. Verrijn-Stuart)

197

REFERENCES

203

GLOSSARY

210

INDEX

218

The FRISCO Report

Preamble

Away with a corrupt world! Let us breathe the air of the Enchanted island.

George Meredith, The Ordeal of Richard Feverel

PREAMBLE

What is the FRISCO Report About?

The FRISCO report presents the results of the work of the IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO1. The group was proposed in 1987 [FL87] and established in 1988. It organised three conferences on this subject [FL89, FRE92, FHO95] and produced an interim report in May 1990 [Lin90a].

This (final) report is intended to provide a suitable conceptual framework, i.e., wherever possible, simple, clear and unambiguous definitions of, and a suitable terminology for the most fundamental concepts in the information system field, including the notions of information and communication, and of organisation and information system. The report approaches these issues at two levels, namely (1) a broad examination of relevant fields, and (2) a set of definitions and formal modelling principles. It is hoped that based on these definitions, it will be possible to achieve a clear understanding of the various kinds of information systems, such as information systems for companies, government departments, other organisations and communities of people, and of the various kinds of computerised information sub-systems, such as database systems, knowledge-based systems, decision support systems, expert systems, office information systems, management information systems and the Internet, to name but a few.

One thrust of the report is to provide an ordering and transformation framework allowing to relate the many different information system modelling approaches (i.e. sets of concepts for modelling information systems, meta-models) to each other.

Most importantly, the report places the social, information-oriented and technical aspects in appropriate conjunction. In other words, the conceptual framework is not intended to be confined to computerised information sub-systems, but is applicable to information systems in the broader sense.

Who should Read the FRISCO Report?

The report is written such that it can be understood by any person with a practical or theoretical background in organisations and/or information systems. It is particularly useful for everyone who is concerned in some way or another with the problems and issues of communication and information in organisations, enterprises and business environments, such as:

? System analysts and engineers; ? Information analysts and engineers; ? System and software developers; ? System development method engineers (system methodologists); ? Researchers and scientists in the areas of information and communication, system analysis

and development; ? Teachers, textbook writers and PhD-students in these areas.

1 FRISCO is an acronym for "FRamework of Information System COncepts" - 1 -

The FRISCO Report

Preamble

Why was the FRISCO Report Written?

The objectives of the FRISCO task group grew out of a concern - as early as 1987 - within IFIP WG 8.1 (Design and Evaluation of Information Systems) about the then scientific, educational and industrial situation. This was clearly expressed in the first manifesto [IFIP88]:

"There is a growing concern within IFIP WG 8.1 about the present situation, where too many fuzzy or ill-defined concepts are used in the information system area. Scientific as well as practice-related communication is severely distorted and hampered, due to this fuzziness and due to the frequent situation that different communication partners associate different meanings with one and the same term. There is no commonly accepted conceptual reference and terminology, to be applied for defining or explaining existing or new concepts for information systems".

The real concern (the misunderstanding of what is involved in organisational communication) is still there - in spite of our studies - and one may fear that some of the problems are innate to the various interested parties. The roots lie in the past, for the information system area has suffered from the fact that due to historic accidents, different facets of the area have been dealt with by different scientific disciplines or "cultures", in particular computer science and social sciences [e.g. Gog92]. Too little communication among these different "cultures" has taken place. While developing computerised information systems, too many computer scientists have neglected the essential organisational, cognitive and social aspects of information system development, and have hardly been aware of the central role of information and communication in organisations. This has often resulted in partial or even total failure of development projects of computerised information systems. On the other hand, social and organisational scientists have often been unaware of the importance of considering (the most essential) formal aspects of information system development and thus wandered aimlessly where more precision would have helped them out.

The FRISCO group itself underestimated these problems, in particular the existence of "hidden agendas" of the interested parties. Thus, the study took much time, but was certainly rewarding in that it helped clarify many of the conceptual foundations of the information system area, providing suggestive definitions of the relevant concepts and the basis for a suitable terminology.

What are the Major Global Achievements of the FRISCO Work?

The FRISCO report justifies the information system area scientifically by placing it in a more general context, comprising philosophy, ontology, semiotics, system science, organisation science, as well as computer science. Thereby, the concepts of the information system area become "rooted" or "anchored", that is, related to concepts of these other areas.

The FRISCO report provides a reference background for scientists and professionals in the information system area comprising a consistent and fully coherent system of concepts and a suitable terminology that enables them to express themselves about matters in the information system area in a structured and well-defined way. This framework of concepts can serve as a theoretical basis, as well as for further scientific work such as for the production of textbooks on various levels in the information system area.

At the same time, we must admit that what has been borrowed from different disciplines should not be seen as constituting new - and certainly not a "complete" - re-formulations. In order to adapt foreign theories to our area, we have been forced to make simplifications, which

- 2 -

The FRISCO Report

Preamble

to professionals from those fields may seem radical. What has been borrowed fits properly into our own domain but it is not claimed that its use covers all of the other discipline. In this way, the FRISCO report does provide a bridge between the various disciplines involved, in particular between computer science and social sciences. It covers both the most essential computer- and technology-related issues and the relevant organisational, cognitive and social aspects.

Why should You Read the FRISCO Report?

Since the FRISCO report provides a suitable and widely applicable framework of fundamental concepts for the information system field, you will be able to cut through the technologycontaminated "terminology jungle", in particular by looking through whatever happen to be the current buzzwords.

Regardless of whether you are a practitioner, teacher or researcher in the information system field, reading the FRISCO report can increase and broaden your understanding of many of the relevant issues and facets of this field, in particular of those where you are not already an expert in. It may help you to get rid of your "blinkers", whether you are aware of them or not.

If you are a methodologist or a system developer, the FRISCO report can help you to deliver better development methods or better information systems, respectively.

If you are a teacher or textbook writer, you may find the material in the FRISCO report suitable as a basis for developing lecture notes or textbooks about the information system field or subaspects thereof.

If you are a practitioner, teacher or researcher in the area of information system modelling, you may find that reading the FRISCO report will increase your understanding of modelling approaches, and of how to relate them to each other.

Who were Involved in Writing the FRISCO Report?

The FRISCO report was written collectively by the members of the FRISCO task group. Its members are:

Eckhard Falkenberg, The Netherlands Wolfgang Hesse, Germany (since 1993) Paul Lindgreen, Denmark Bj?rn Nilsson, Sweden Han Oei, The Netherlands (since 1993) Colette Rolland, France Ronald Stamper, The Netherlands Frans Van Assche, Belgium Alexander Verrijn-Stuart, The Netherlands Klaus Voss, Germany

Eckhard Falkenberg served as chairman and as editor of this report, Paul Lindgreen as secretary and as editor of the interim report [Lin90a].

- 3 -

The FRISCO Report

Preamble

Acknowledgements

Our group has and had numerous contacts with people and groups working in our area. These contacts helped us to advance our thinking and our approach and to continuously refine our work. We like to thank all of them for their help and interest.

In particular, we like to thank the former members of our group, Fran?ois Bodart, Belgium, and Sjir Nijssen, The Netherlands, for their valuable contributions to our work.

Furthermore, we have been supported by a number of persons associated with our group, in the form of comments, critique and reflections. These associates are: Fran?ois Bodart, Belgium, Terry Halpin, Australia, Pentti Kerola, Finland, Kalle Lyytinen, Finland, Doede Nauta, The Netherlands, James Odell, U.S.A., and Ya?r Wand, Canada. We like to thank them for all their support over the years. We also like to thank Sylviane Schwer, France, for her support concerning our formalisation.

- 4 -

The FRISCO Report

Chapter 1: Introduction

I have found that most scientists and philosophers are willing to discuss a new assertion, if it is formulated in the customary conceptual framework;

but it seems very difficult to most of them even to consider and discuss new concepts.

Rudolf Carnap, Intellectual Autobiography

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Information System Area

When talking about the information system area, different people may have different views about how broad or narrow this area is, and which other scientific disciplines are related to our area, and in which way.

Even the term `information system' itself is interpreted quite differently by different groups of people. It seems to be interpreted in at least three different ways: ? As a technical system, implemented with computer and telecommunications technology ? As a social system, such as an organisation1 in connection with its information needs. ? As a conceptual system (i.e. an abstraction of either of the above).

Corresponding to the different interpretations of information system there exist various different dialects of our professional language. Even people who appear to interpret information system in the same way use apparently different sets of concepts to explain it, and they apply a different terminology. The term `information', for instance may stand for `data', the actual and/or intended interpretation of a `message', the `knowledge' gained when receiving the data expressing a message, and so on. What is really meant by conceptual model or universe of discourse, and what are (if any) the differences between concepts such as entity and object, or transition and event, or activity, action, act and process? We need to answer such questions and introduce some terminological clarity.

It is difficult to define a single unified vocabulary for the whole domain of information systems. We have to accept that there are many different subdomains, concerned with different sets of problems, where we find the common, everyday words (such as information, data, communication, process, knowledge, system, etc.) pressed into service with restricted local meanings. FRISCO hopes to provide some insight into this diversity. However, we do not attempt to establish standards, but only clear the ground through a consistent terminological framework and recommendations for its use.

Ideally, the terminology for any selected domain will be placed on a sound conceptual foundation. Such a foundation is not built easily. We are convinced that it can only emerge as the result of a consensus gradually reached by the professional community working in that domain. In a few domains, where there appears to be a sufficient degree of consensus, we have attempted to isolate and clarify sets of fundamental concepts. Our choice of terminology is not a proposed standard but we hope it will recommend itself. More importantly, the concepts we have isolated must stand the test of critical discussion by the community before any terminology is standardised.

1 The term `organisation' is used here and throughout the report in the most general sense. Not only large companies are meant. One-man companies, profit- and non-profit-oriented organisations, clusters of companies interacting in some way, universities and research institutes are meant as well. Even the community of all Internet users and similar communities may be considered organisations.

- 5 -

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download