Systems Development Concepts

           This article presents a thorough explanation of the various processes related to systems design and to the problems that face the conventional, or traditional, methods according to which computer systems, of all kinds, are designed. The article will then explain why the traditional approaches of system design are considered to be techno-centric.

            Before being able to answer the main question of this article, we should define certain terms in order to clarify all the elements that will be discussed later on.

            Simmers (2004, p.542-543), states that “a computer system is an electronic device that can be thought of as a complete information-processing center. It can calculate, store, sort, update, manipulate, sequence, organize, and process data. It also controls logic operations and can rapidly communicate in graphics, numbers, words, and sounds.”

            Another definition is presented by Avgerou and Cornford (1998, p.1), as they state that information systems “refer to information and data handling activities in human organizations. Information handling in this sense is a purposeful activity sustained over time, and includes the activities of collecting information, storing it, directing it to appropriate places and people, and utilizing it in various tasks within the organization.”

            The designer of the system attempts to identify a specific problem within a given environment of work, for example, and creates a set of processes that should be able to resolve that problem according to pre-determined instructions and requirements (Kelkar, 2004).

           

SYSTEM DESIGN

            A system is supposed to handle a variety of issues related to an organisation and to enable the people that deal with those issues to function properly, swiftly, more efficiently, and more accurately. This usually also involves the interaction (inter-connectivity) between all those working in a specific section.

            The person (or group of people) that are supposed to design the desired system should study and analyse thoroughly the problem sphere, identifying the various elements and factors involved in it, proposing different system options, put them into test (preferably in real working environments), and finally selecting, with the help of the management of the organisation in question, the best solution.

            Computer systems designers, almost from the very beginning of this field, tended to work exclusively within their technical realm; meaning that they were identifying the problem and creating the solution that, evidently, was successful, but that was only operable and facilitated to themselves and to people of the same technical background. This created a reality which made it, somewhat, hard for average users, who are also supposed to be the end users of today’s computer systems, to deal, interact, let alone produce efficiently using those systems.

            The main problem in this context, as explained by Doherty & King (2005, p.2), is that the designers do not, in most cases, follow most required steps in what concerns the analysis of the impact of utilising the computer solution on the organisation and in what concerns the interaction between the created system and the human factor of that organisation. According to Poulymenakou & Holmes, 1996 (in Doherty and King, 2005, p.2), “the adoption of techno-centric development approaches can be a very dangerous strategy, as it encourages developers to deliver and implement the information system, and only then, if at all, worry about adapting it to its organizational context.”

            The conventional methodology, which depends solely on creating a computer system that is successful in resolving a given problem and that works from a technical (or computer programmable and configurable) point of view, is considered to be techno-centric because the most important factor in designing the system, which is the human factor, has not be taken into consideration fully by the designer (or the designers) during the implementation of their initial plan of work.

            Many specialists and researchers keep on calling for a methodology of system design that focuses more on the social aspect of the created tool: “little progress has been made in the development of practical socio-technical methods and approaches that have succeeded in making the transition from research laboratory to widespread commercial usage”                            (Doherty & King, 2005, p.2).

            Davidson and Chiasson (2004, p.6) state that the three main stages of information technology are the development, the implementation, and the assimilation. They stress on the fact that all the details that are related to the daily use of the technology may not be seen at the time of planning because the “attention is focused on overall business goals and implementation strategy.” This makes the period following the installation and the initial implementation highly important as all the social and human related factors must be adjusted and modified to suit the users and the organisation as a whole.

            There are various examples of systems that were created according to the conventional, techno-centric, approach and that have failed at the time of implementation because the designers lacked the social-oriented element in their design. Doherty and King (2005, p.2) mentioned several failed experiences of this kind; cases such as the London Ambulance System, the Taurus System, and the Benefits Payment Card System.

            Other examples were presented by Davidson and Chiasson (2005, p.6-12) who reported that the electronic medical record systems (EMRS) that were used in two healthcare organisations were also a cause of concern, to a certain extent. The authors confirm that the original systems created for the health organisations needed to be socially modified through the implementation of TUM (Technology Use Mediation) during system development stages and throughout the period in which the systems were in use. “System configuration required changes to software infrastructure and code. Organizational size influenced the availability and the effectiveness of mediation resources.”

            Another factor that is involved in the conventional approach is the total underestimation of previously existing systems which is also another characteristic of techno-centric methods of design and system development. Ignoring the ‘old’ systems leads the designer to create something that is totally new to the organisation, and this also excludes the effects, the advantages, and the usability of the previous system. The usability of the system and the ability of people within the organisation to work with it came as a result of a long period of system modifications (whether hardware or software) and of personal training and different processes of errors and corrections; which is what can be considered as the social-related side of system development. All those elements will be totally discarded by the designer during his/her development of the new system, which will result in the new system going through the same stages that the old system passed through, and this is another form of time-related and financially-related losses to the organisation.

            Chae and Poole (2005, p.19) pose an important question: “Is it possible for a large-scale information system to be developed ‘from scratch’?” Their explanation confirms that:

Accounts of system development and the systems development literature often focus primarily on the new system and tend to underemphasize the role of pre-existing systems... Few pay much attention to the role of pre-existing information systems in IS [Information Systems] development. To the extent the new system must integrate with pre-existing systems or use existing hardware and software... Existing systems have also been regarded as problems or barriers to the development of new IS and as disablers of IS-based organizational innovation and change… This approach, too, tends to treat pre-existing systems as objects, black boxes (e.g. Markus, 1983).

            Those mentioned above are the most notable points when studying computer design in its conventional method, which is, as can be seen, techno-centric.

CONCLUSION

            Even though conventional approaches of system design have been applied from the beginning of the age of Information Technology, they are still techno-centric. What designers should focus on are those system characteristics that are more operable by the individuals of an organisation; this includes the interface design, the language used within the various parts of the system (those related to both the software and the hardware). Another important point is the adaptability to the organisation that requested the system; the designers should understand fully that various factors that can lead the newly created system to be more social-oriented and to be what the organisation needs.

            Techno-centric designs can work, but only in technical related fields and sections. Previous systems should be studied carefully before initiating the design plan for new ones; this will enable the designer to understand what characteristics worked previously, what structure are the employees and the managers used to work with, and which tools can be re-used within the new system.

            Anderson and Vendelo (2004, p.27) explain the problem of techno-centric design by stating that “when introduced into a field, the technical system often needs to be changed to take into account the more holistic requirements that are present in the field, as users need to accommodate the technology in their daily routines.”

Reference List

Anderson, K. V. and Vendelo, M. T. (2004) The Past and Future of Information Systems, Oxford:             Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Avgerou, C. and Cornford, T. (1998) Developing Information Systems: Concepts, Issues and         Practice, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chae, B. and Scott, M. (2005) 'The surface of emergence in systems development: agency,           institutions, and large-scale information systems', European Journal of   Information     Systems, 14, 19-36.

Davidson, E. and Chiasson, M. (2004) ‘Contextual influences on technology use mediation: a       comparative analysis of electronic medical record systems’, European Journal of            Information Systems, 14, 6-18.

Doherty, N. and King, M. (2005) 'From technical to socio-technical change: tackling the human    and organizational aspects of systems development projects', European Journal of        Information Systems, 14, 1-5.

Kelkar, S.A. (2004) Structured System Analysis and Design, New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Simmers, L. (2004) Introduction to Health Science Technology, New York: Thomson Delmar
            Learning.

Community

Within the modern forms of the political and/or geographical structures of states, a wide range of factors has been modified and altered comparing to what was the case in the previous historical eras in human societies and geopolitical basis of states.

A state is defined by the Advanced English Dictionary as the body that is organized politically under a single government, as the group of people comprising the government, or as the territory that is occupied by a nation.

From the above mentioned definitions, it is evident that a state is, basically, composed of elements such as territory and people. People themselves are either one single group of individuals (which includes also families) or a composition of a variety of groups. Each group can be considered one community.

Community

The term ‘community’ has not been identified clearly as other terms have been. The reason of that is the vast elements that should interact in order to create a single entity that can be considered and accepted as a community.

According to Macvler, a community is “any area of common life, village, or town, or district, or country, or even wider area.” He then explains that a community is “a focus of social life, the common living of social beings” (23-24).

According to Macvler’s understanding, a community is based solely on geographical parameters, “village, town, or district, or country”. But this is contested by other authors and researchers in the field. Jonassen and Land explain that a community must share far more elements than just location; “a community has a significant history, a common cultural and historical heritage. This heritage includes the shared goals, belief systems and collective stories that capture canonical practice,” and all these elements form what can be considered as a common knowledge base (36).

Wood even states that there are specific factors that should be shared for a community to be taken as such; “a sense of common purpose..., an assuming of mutual responsibility, acknowledgement of interconnectedness, mutual respect for individual difference, mutual commitment to the well-being of each other, and commitment by the members to the integrity and well-being of the group" (7).

According to Bruhn, the characteristics that identify the concept of community are three “mutually agreed upon as a minimum, namely locale, common ties, and social interaction” (249-250).

As can be seen, a community has been always seen as a group of people who have the same, or similar, background, culture, goals, belief systems, and way of life.

In the modern state, the term ‘community’ usually refers to smaller centres that are far from the heavily populated areas, or to various minorities within a society; a community can be based on a different religion from the main-stream religion within the state, can be a group of people with origins that are of a different political or geographical state than the one where they presently reside, or can be simply a group of people within a specific economic, cultural, or financial sphere of interest.

Spatiality of the state

Each state is defined through the existence of many factors; such as political borders, geographical location, and history.

Lefebvre explains that the state has three distinct types of space: The first is national territory, which is the physical area that the state occupies and modifies through the creation of roads and other transportation routes, through the creation of financial institutions and connections, and through other means. All what is mentioned, according to the author, “results in a shapeless mixture, in chaos, despite the administrative order and spatial logistics of the state”. The second type is the social space, which is a kind of a man-made structure of institutions and regulations working according to certain values that are communicated through language. The author explains that the first type is natural while the second is artificial. The third type is the mental space, which “includes the representations of the state that people construct” (Brenner, et al. 85-86).

           

Community within the Spatiality of the contemporary state

Some contend that the community and the state are one thing; the main idea to clarify here is that the state is not the community; a certain community can make part of a state, but it does not, in any case, represent it or implement its views, regulations and ideas on the state as a whole.

An example of this can be found in what concerns certain economic or production communities; these are usually maintained under the supervision and the control of state laws and regulations. According to Lefebvre, “the aim of [the state space] is to make [the interests of various economic communities] appear homogeneous... [and this] allows the state to introduce its presence, control, and surveillance in the most isolated corners” (Brenner, et al. 85-86).

It should also be noted that modern states attempted, to a certain level of success, to open the door for participation in what concerns governance in rural areas (which are considered as independent communities); and this was the spark for constructive results regarding the spaces and the periods in relation with democracy, for instance. “Opportunities for participation may be influenced by the stability of the community power structure, the level of competition – or lack of it – and the personal skills and attributes of the individual. Barriers include time, family commitments, employment situation, expense, perceptions about the nature of the leadership,” and more (Woods et al. 2).

معضلة الزمن

كم من المرات سمعنا أحدهم (وخاصة من كبار السن) يقول: "آه، لو كان بإمكاني العودة في الزمن... كم من الأمور كنت لأغير في مسار حياتي وفي اختياراتي." ربما يكون حديثه، وببساطة شديدة، متعلقاً بندمه على ارتباطه بمن هي حالياً زوجته؛ أو ربما لأنه دخل في مجال عمل لم يكن راضياً عنه أو راغباً فيه أو عدم هجرته لدولة غربية عندما كانت الفرصة سانحة له بذلك.

الأخطاء التي وقعنا فيها وتلك، التي مهما حاول آخرون، سيقعون فيها ويكررونها، من دون أخذ العبرة من أخطاء من سبقوهم، كلها تدفعنا إلى التفكير بالسؤال عن إمكانية العودة إلى نقطةٍ ما في الماضي، لتغيير شيء ما، لتحويل اتجاه الأحداث في أمر ما، ربما للتعامل مع أزمة بصورة مختلفة، أو حتى لمنع وقوع الأزمة من الأساس؛ أو للحصول على وقت أطول مع شخص أحببناه، ولم نشعر بقيمة الدقائق والساعات والأيام التي قضيناها بعيداً عنه، حتى فقدناه... إلى الأبد؛ أو ربما لتحقيق حلم ما، أجبرتنا ظروفنا على نسيانه... أو لمجرد رغبتنا في العودة إلى شبابنا، عندما كانت صحتنا في أوجها، وكنا نظن أننا قادرون على فعل أي شيء، ولم نكن ندرك أن تلك مرحلة محدودة جداً من حياتنا، سرعان ما تنتهي.

المشكلة في هذا السؤال تكمن في طبيعة الزمن نفسه؛ هل يمكننا، ولو نظرياً، العودة إلى الماضي؟ هل تسمح لنا القوانين الفيزيائية بالسفر في الزمن ذهاباً وإياباً، ماضياً ومستقبلاً؟

كثيرون يرون في الزمن مجرد وهم، اختلقه العقل البشري ليحدد مسائل تخص حياته ودورات الطبيعة المحيطة به، فمفهوم اليوم والشهر والسنة مختلف على كوكب آخر كالمشتري مثلاً، وهو مغاير تماماً بالنسبة إلى أي كائنات ذكية (إن وجدت) على ظهر كوكب يدور حول نجم آخر أو حتى في مجرة أخرى. لكن الحقيقة التي نعرفها، ووفق القوانين الفيزيائية الحالية، هي أن الزمن يمثل البعد الرابع في واقع الكون؛ ألبرت آينشتاين وضع القواعد التي تحكم فهمنا للبعد الزمني في الكون.

لكن بعكس كل ما نعرفه عن أي شيء آخر، فللزمن سهم اتجاهٍ واحد؛ هو يسير دائماً من الماضي إلى الحاضر فالمستقبل، لا توجد اتجاهات أخرى يمكن سبر أغوارها فيه... في عالمنا، يمكننا التوجه (على الأقل بنظرنا) إلى الأعلى أو إلى الأسفل، يمكننا المسير باتجاه اليمين أو اليسار أو الأمام أو الخلف (الشرق أو الغرب أو الشمال أو الجنوب)، لكن مع الزمن، يمكنك التحرك في اتجاه واحد فقط... إلى الأمام.

للإجابة عن سؤالنا؟ هل يمكننا العودة إلى الماضي؟ هل يمكن أن نغير شيئاً ما في السنوات السابقة من حياتنا؟ هنا، تتدخل أفكار آينشتاين مجدداً؛ في حالة التحرك بسرعة تصل إلى سرعة الضوء (300 ألف كيلومتر في الثانية)، ثم تجاوز تلك السرعة، يمكن أن يبدأ سفرنا باتجاه الماضي... لكن هناك نقطتان تمنعان هذا الأمر؛ الأولى أن الوصول إلى سرعة الضوء يعني أن كتلة الشخص المتحرك بتلك السرعة ستصبح لانهائية، ما يعني استحالة زيادة سرعتها، بل على العكس؛ والنقطة الثانية أن تجاوز سرعة الضوء أمر مستحيل، فهي تعد أقصى ما هو موجود على الإطلاق.

القوانين الفيزيائية، وفق ما نعرف اليوم، تؤكد استحالة السفر باتجاه الماضي، ولكنها تترك الباب مفتوحاً أمام مسألة السفر إلى المستقبل... إلا أن ذلك ليس ما نخوض فيه هنا.

الرغبة في تصحيح خطأ ارتكبه شخص ما في الماضي، أو الندم على خيار ما، أو عدم قبول مسار الأحداث في أي مرحلة من مراحل حياته... قد تكون هذه هي الأسباب، التي دفعت إلى البحث عن مخرج يريح ضميره ويصحح ما اقترفته يداه؛ مخرج قد لا يكون عبر السفر في الزمن والعودة إلى الماضي، بل عبر طلب الغفران من قوة عليا وآلهة بمقدورها أن تسامح وتطهر النفس... وبذلك، يصبح الأمر وكأنه لم يكن... لكن الحقيقة هي أن لا شيء يمكنه محو الماضي، أو دفع مسؤوليتك عن أمر ارتكبته أنت.

كيف تعبر عن آرائك بحرية.. وتحمي نفسك؟

فيما تزداد الأدوات والمواقع التي تسمح لمستخدميها ومشتركيها بالتعبير عن آرائهم، السياسية والدينية، فإن حكومات كثيرة تضع قيوداً على استخدامات الإنترنت، عبر حجب معلومات مهمة عن المواطنين في دولها.. بعض الحكومات تستخدم أدوات لتعقب أشخاص لمجرد أنهم انتقدوها أو أبدوا معارضتهم لبعض سياساتها.

هل تشعر بأنك مراقب وتخاف من التعبير عن رأيك بحرية؟
إليك الحل الذي يستخدمه خبراء عالم التقنية.

إذا أعجبتكم الحلقة، نرجو منكم مشاركتها على صفحاتكم في فيسبوك

(Share) وإظهار الإعجاب بها (Like).

قد يحيلون أوراقك إلى المفتي.. "الإعدام الإلكتروني"

شبكات التواصل.. كلها خدمات لطالما أكدت أن الهدف من وجودها هو فتح المجال أمام حوار شامل ومفتوح للتعبير عن الآراء وطرح الأفكار بحرية.. الحقيقة أن كل هذه المواقع مرتبطة بمشروع سياسي، أغلبه على علاقة باليسار الأمريكي، لذلك من غير المستغرب أن نرى الحرب وقد بدأت على حرية الرأي.. ويمكن أن تصل إليك في أي لحظة.

في أي لحظة، قد تقرر مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي محوك من الوجود، أو إعدامك إلكترونيا.. المزيد من المعلومات في هذا الفيديو:

إذا أعجبتكم الحلقة، نرجو منكم مشاركتها على صفحاتكم في فيسبوك

(Share) وإظهار الإعجاب بها (Like).

من سامسونج ..Galaxy Tab S4

أصدرت سامسونج جهازها اللوحي الجديد؛ Galaxy Tab S4، ,والذي وإن كان لا يختلف كثيراً عن سابقه، Tab S3، فقد عملت الشركة الكورية الجنوبية على تطويره وتحديثه وجعله مناسباً للعام 2018، بخاصة في ضوء المنافسة الشديدة من أبل ومايكروسوفت.

مراجعة الجهاز Galaxy Tab S4 الجديد من سامسونج في هذا الفيديو:

إذا أعجبتكم الحلقة، نرجو منكم مشاركتها على صفحاتكم في فيسبوك

(Share) وإظهار الإعجاب بها (Like).

التلفزيون التقليدي.. هل بات من مخلفات الماضي؟

التلفزيون التقليدي.. من مخلفات الماضي؟

من منا لا يذكر التلفزيون كما كان قبل سنوات؟ القنوات ثلاث أو أربع فقط والهوائي على سطحِ المنزل، ويتطلبُ منا إدارتَه باتجاه معين باستخدام محرك خاص لمشاهدة محطة تلفزيونية ما، ربما من دولة مجاورة.

بعد الهوائي الكبير، تحول الجميع تقريبا إلى استخدام طبق الاستقبال الخاص ببث القنوات الفضائية، والذي بات لسنوات طويلة جزءاً من بانوراما أي مبنىً سكني أو حتى تجاري في أي مدينة.. لتصلنا بعد ذلك خدماتُ الإنترنت بكل أنواعها، التي فتحت الأبواب أمام عالمٍ جديد.

إذا أعجبتكم الحلقة، نرجو منكم مشاركتها على صفحاتكم في فيسبوك

(Share) وإظهار الإعجاب بها (Like).