Information Systems Engineering
Information Systems Engineering
1. Introduc tion
The title of this paper is “Information systems engineering: What is it?” To that
one might add: “- and what might it become?”, since towards the end of the
paper we will enter into a brief discussion on the new demands that novel multi-
media and web-based information systems architectures may pose on
information systems engineers and on their education.
Information systems engineering is situated at the intersection of information
systems, databases and software engineering. The term was coined around 1990,
possibly in connection with the start-up of the later so successful CAiSE
(Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering) series of
conferences. It is notable that there are indeed three research communities
corresponding to each of the above mentioned fields, the ISworld, DBworld and
SEworld communities. The people attending the CAiSE conferences, which we
might refer to as the ISE community, tend to participate to all three.
A complementary way of understanding Information Systems Engineering
stems from analyzing the terms that appear as its elements. One recognizes five
terms that have definite meanings and that also constitute primary notions under
study (information, information systems, engineering processes) or indicate
important ways of working (systemic) in information systems engineering, i.e.
− information
− systems
− engineering
− information systems
− systems engineering
In the sequel, we will go through each of the above terms and give an
indication of its relevance to information systems engineering. We will end by
suggesting a definition of information systems engineering and, as indicated
above, by discussing new demands on information systems engineers due to the
fact that the look and feel aspect of any computerized system becomes more and
more important.
2. Information
There are several ways to consider the nature of information. In broad terms
it is usually understood as “knowledge communicated”. In this paper, we will
discuss it from an information systems perspective. For a broader discussion of
the notion of information the reader is referred to [1].
However, from an information system point of view, information and its
relationship to knowledge can be understood in terms of a message. First of all a
message has a certain form, i.e. it may be formulated as a written message in
some natural language or it may take the form of some other (visual, audible,
smellable, tastable or tactile) symbol. Secondly, a message has some (intended)
content. It is this intended content that we usually refer to as information. Of
course, for different reasons, the form of the message might not always reflect
the intended content, e.g. when the wording of a sentence is not quite correct.
A message also has a sender and a receiver. The sender and the receiver may
be human or they may be computerized information systems or something else.
The sender formulates a message using knowledge it has stored in its memory
and the receiver interprets the message using its knowledge (or some
conceptions, ideas, or beliefs). In other words the aim of the information
encoded in the message is to convey knowledge from the sender to the receiver
(or at least to convey an idea, a thought, or something believed to be true). It
could be argued that it is the knowledge increment in the receiver, which arises
when he/she/it decodes the message, that is the information [2]. This entails that
information modifies somehow the knowledge structures present in the receiver.
On the other hand, it seems somewhat restrictive to say that only that which
increases our knowledge is information. For instance, a reminder can be seen as
information, even if it is superfluous and does, in fact, not add anything to our
knowledge (though repetition of a piece of information might in itself be a
valuable source of information).
Knowledge is often defined as justified true belief. It could be argued that a
computer holds no beliefs and therefore cannot be the receiver or the sender of
information, since it has no knowledge which it can use to interpret the
information received nor any intention to convey a particular content. However,
it has been programmed with certain rules and has access to data representing
knowledge which it can use to, in some rudimentary sense, interpret a message.
In order for them to understand each other, the knowledge of the sender and
the receiver must be reasonably compliant, e.g. they must both understand the
language in which the message is formulated. The knowledge of the receiver
would hence enable the receiver to act on the message received. However, the
message may not be true, i.e. the sender may be lying or misinformed, which the
receiver using its own knowledge, may be able to conclude. In doing, so he
might infer that the sender is ignorant, a liar, or insane, i.e. the knowledge
conveyed is not necessarily the intended one. It is also possible that the
information conveyed does not hold any truth value, e.g. a question, a request,
or an aesthetic judgment (even though all of these forms of messages can be
analyzed in such a way that they are given a truth value).
Börje Langefors has tried to define and characterize information by
formulating his infological equation: I = i( D, S, t) , where I is the information
derived by the interpretation process i from the data D and the pre-knowledge S
during the time t [3, 4]. Communication is successful only if the S of the
receiver and the sender are sufficiently overlapping. He distinguishes between
the subset of our pre-knowledge required to interpret a message and the
(probably larger) subset used to make inferences from the message received.
The first step, interpreting the message, he calls direct interpretation, while the
second step, making inferences and associations, is referred to as indirect
interpretation [3]. The interpretation of a message can be affected not only by
our knowledge but also by the form of the data and by emotional aspects [3, 5].
The form of the message represents the syntactic (data) aspect of the
message. The message content represents the semantic (information) dimension.
Finally, the pragmatic dimension of the message has to do with the functional
(knowledge) aspect of the message. The identification of the syntactic, semantic
and pragmatic dimensions of a message is due to the American philosophers
Peirce and Morris [6].
Wilson [7] defines information as “data plus the meaning ascribed to it” (p.
198), and says that computerized data processing systems become information
systems only when their output is used by someone, and hence, an information
system entails the users.
Naturally, there are several other ways to define information. Stafford Beer,
for instance, defines information as “That which CHANGES us.” (p. 283). We
know that we have been informed because our state has changed. There are
similar definitions by Bateson and MacKay (cf. [9]). There is a point in these
definitions, but it seems that if we are hit by a ton of bricks, that affects us but
gives us no information.
People receive information through their senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste,
and the perception of touch. For output, computerized information systems are
so far only able to utilize the first two of those, except in rare cases such as the
simulators used to train aircraft pilots or, for that matter, computer game
joysticks, where also touch may be involved.
3. System
A system is a set of at least two elements that are in some way related to each
other such that there are no independent elements [10]. In other words, a system
may be decomposed into comp onents or subsystems that may in turn be systems
that may be decomposed etc. Furthermore, any system may be a part of a greater
system. Hence, it is a central task in systems development to come to grips with
− the best way to decompose a system into components and subsystems ,
− how the components interact with each other, and
− how the system relates to and interacts with the suprasystem of which it is
a part.
In consequence, employing a partially systemic, partially reductionist view
while working with information systems development, entails
− that you decompose the system into parts, that may be, as much as
possible, independently developed (i.e. components with high cohesion
and low coupling), and
− that you clearly identify the way the system interacts with the business
processes and functions that it is meant to support.
A more systemic approach focuses less on decomposing the system into parts
(but does not disregard their importance, since an understanding of both the
whole and the parts is often essential). Systemic and reductionist approaches are
complementary to each other. According to Ackoff [11] “There are considerable
differences between what might be called analytical and synthetic management.
[…] One such difference is worth noting here. It is based on the following
systems principle:
If each part of a system, considered separately, is made to operate as
efficiently as possible, the system as a whole will not operate as effectively
as possible.
Although the general validity of this principle is not apparent, its validity in
specific instances is.” (p. 18)
Regarding the systems approach he says:
“Systems thinking reverses the three-stage order of Machine-Age thinking:
(1) decomposition of that which is to be explained, (2) explanation of the
behavior or properties of the parts taken separately, and (3) aggregating these
explanations into an explanation of the whole. This third step, of course, is
synthesis. In the systems approach there are also three steps:
4. Information System
5. Engineering
Engineering has been defined [15] by the Engineers Council for Professional
Development, in the United States, as the creative application of
“scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines,
apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or work utilizing them singly or
in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance
of their design; or to forecast their behaviour under specific operating
conditions; all as respects and intended function, economics of
operation and safety to life and property.”
It is notable – and think of it in information systems terms – that according to
this definition, engineering includes the “creative application of manufacturing
processes” as well as the operation of systems. In consequence, the study of
information systems engineering ought to include not only the study of
realization technology and of development methodology, but the study of the
engineering process itself as well as the study of usage and maintenance of
information systems in a broad sense.
6. Systems Engineering
1. Capurro R., Hjørland B.: The Concept of Information In: Blaise Cronin (Ed.):
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), Vol. 37 (2003)
Chapter 8, 343-411.
2. Falkenberg E.D., Hesse W., Lindgreen P., Nilsson B.E, Oei J.L.H, Rolland C.,
Stamper R.K., Van Assche F.J.M., Verreijn-Stuart A.A., Voss K.: A Framework of
Information Systems Concepts: The Frisco Report (Web Edition), IFIP 1998,
available from http://www.liacs.nl/~verrynst/frisco.html [accessed 14 April, 2005].
3. Langefors B.: Essays on Infology, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1995.
4. Langefors B.: Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems (fourth edition),
Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1973.
5. Backlund A.: The emotional grounds of infology: the infological equation revisited.
In: Wilby J. & Allen J. K. (eds.): Proceedings of the 45th Annual Conference of the
International Society for the Systems Sciences, Asilomar, California, July 8-13,
2001.
6. Encyclopedia Brittanica Online: Semiotics (and related pages) (on-line). available
from http://search.eb.com/eb/article?tocId=9066717 [accessed 14 April 2005].
7. Wilson B.: Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications. 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1990.
8. Beer S.: The Heart of Enterprise, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1979.
9. Floridi L.: Information. In: Floridi L (ed.) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of
Computing and Information, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 40-61, 2004.
10. Backlund A.: The definition of system, Kybernetes, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 444-451,
2004.
11. Ackoff R. L.: Creating the corporate future, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1981.
12. Backlund, A.: Making Sense of Complexity in the Context of Information Systems.
Licentiate’s dissertation, Dep. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm
University, Sweden, 2004.
13. Klein, H. K, Hirschheim, R.: Social Change and the Future of Information Systems
Development. In: Boland R. J., Hirschheim, R. A. (eds.): Critical Issues in
Information Systems Research, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1987.
14. Alter S.: Information Sy stems: A Management Perspective. 2nd Edition, The
Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc., Menlo Park, 1996.
15. Encyclopedia Brittanica Online: Engineering (on-line). available from
http://search.eb.com/eb/article?tocId=9105842 [accessed 14 April 2005].
16. Stevens R., Brook P., Jackson K., Arnold S.: Systems Engineering: Coping wih
Complexity. Prentice Hall, 1998.
17. Visuera Integration AB: Visuera Process Manager [on-line]. available from
http://www.visuera.com/en/index.htm [accessed 14 April 2005].
18. INCOSE: What is Sy stems Engineering? [on-line]. available from
http://www.incose.org/practice/whatissystemseng.aspx [accessed 14 April 2005].
19. Iivari J.: Towards a Distinctive Body of Knowledge for Information Systems
Experts: A Knowledge Work Perspective. Lecture notes, November, 2003.
20. Garcia-Molina H., Salem K.: Sagas. ACM SIGMOD Record, Proceedings of the
1987 International Conference on Management of Data, December 1987