Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
A number of criticisms of the ETHICS method have been expressed (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 2006):
•
unskilled users cannot design;
•
management will not accept it; and
•
it removes the right to manage from managers
slow and costly in staff time and effort
To overcome some of these concerns over the applicability of ETHICS, a newer
version of ETHICS was developed called QUICKethics (QUality Information from
Considered Knowledge) (Mumford, 1993). It was developed to create and maintain
management interest (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995) and it is broken down into five
main stages:
•
•
Describe the work mission, key tasks, critical success factors and most seri-
ous problems.
•
Describe the objectives, critical success factors, major problem, day-today
activities, and potentials for future developments associated with each of the
key tasks.
•
Describe the information needs associated with these tasks in order to
achieve the objectives, attain critical success factors and avoid major prob-
lems, as well as monitoring performance and understanding future develop-
ments.
•
Prioritise these information needs according to which are essential and which
merely desirable, and which are quantitative and which are qualitative.
•
Work with others to establish an information model so that information flows
through the organisation to those who require it.
(Mumford, 1983b)
Whilst the standard ETHICS Methodology was a top down, user driven approach,
Mumford rejected this approach in her QUICKethics approach and concentrated the
methodology as starting from the centre and forming small working groups as a core
part of the process (Mumford, 1983b). By working in this way many of the benefits of
participative development could be achieved but in a much shorter timeframe than
under the ETHICS methodology.
Mumford also proposed using QUICKethics as part of the PROGRESS method to
help in Business Process Re-Engineering. The aim of this approach was to rethink and
restructure business processes so to make them more efficient, more effective in
achieving business goals and more able to provide a high quality work environment
that motivates employees (Mumford and Beekman, 1994).
4 Analysis of ETHICS
A common reaction to ETHICS is for researchers to say that it is impractical (Avison
and Fitzgerald, 2006) due to the structured nature of the ETHICS and QUICKethics
approaches. Another common criticism of the ETHICS method is that it is unwork-
able (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995) as the use of committees to make decisions means
that unskilled workers could make decisions about very technical applications.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search