Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
•
Reusing components, patterns, and frameworks
: As far as possible, we assemble our
systems from available prebuilt components, in commonly understood and well-
recognized patterns, structured around familiar frameworks.
•
Achieving elegance in all endeavors
: We strive for the elegant solution, for the simple
and obvious. We should adhere to implementation principles covering any topic
required to provide the proper guidance in decision making, including those for
technology selection and for requirements governing nonfunctional attributes of the
system to be built.
•
Adopting formal description for records
: We should use a formal description and
recording discipline that represents the requirements for the IS system and its
functional and environmental characteristics at various levels of abstraction. All the
stakeholders in the system can relate to one or more representations of the system
specification to verify that their needs are being fulfilled and that they understand how
to advance the realization of the system to the next level of refinement.
All of these ideas are meant to help develop in our students their abilities in handling
the software challenges of the Internet age. These include the following (Allen & Frost, 1998;
Lethbridge, 2000; Meyer, 2001): support increasingly adaptive businesses, capitalize on the
rapid advances in component technology; deal with legacy systems; plan and build for reuse;
prepare for quality issues; and retain a pragmatic focus in the face of increasing complexity.
Collectively, these challenges represent the drivers of change, worthy enough to secure a
place in our discussion of QSE.
THE ACTION LEARNING MODEL OF
EMPOWERMENT
To facilitate students' involvement of IS design and construction, and to understand
the way organizations learn to improve themselves, we suggest adopting the discipline of
action learning (PIQ, 1998) as an empowerment companion in the students' excursion of
electronic transformation among enterprises. We interpret action learning (Dean, 1998) as a
voluntary, participant-centered, evolutionary process to solve real, systemic, and pending
organizational problems in the workplace. Its central mission (Dilworth, 1998b) is to increase
the capacity of individual learners and the learning of the organizations they are associated
with, to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Revans (1998), who is widely known as the
principal pioneer of action learning, suggested that it is eclectic, cutting across many fields.
It emphasizes action, reflection, the need for critical thinking, and a climate of trust and
authenticity. In action learning, the learning process is fueled by real problem solving among
the participants. Its basic learning model can be characterized as follows:
A number of managers get together at regular intervals to discuss a problem
or challenges they are facing in the workplace. The group referred to as the
set in action learning literature, usually has a resource person, though the role
of this person changes from context to context. After discussing the problem,
project, or challenge with the set and the resource person, the managers return
to the workplace to take action. After a period of time, the set meets again to
