Investigating actability dimensions: A language/action perspective on criteria for information systems evaluation

Interacting with Computers

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 957-988

  Ågerfalk, Pär J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Actability; Case study; Design; Evaluation; Heuristics; Social action; Usability

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; HEURISTIC METHODS; INFORMATION SCIENCE; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

COMMUNICATION PATTERNS; SOCIAL ACTION; VISUAL PRESENTATION;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 9544231699     PISSN: 09535438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ackerman, M.S., 2000. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction 15(2/3), 179-203.
2. Ågerfalk, P.J., 2002. Messages are Signs Of Action: from Langefors to Speech Acts and Beyond. In: Barjis, J., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2002), Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 81-100.
3. Ågerfalk, P.J., Eriksson, O., 2003. In: Ciborra, C., et al., (Eds), Usability in Social Action: Reinterpreting Effectiveness, Efficiency and Satisfaction, 11th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2003), Naples, Italy.
4. Ågerfalk, P.J., Eriksson, O., 2004. Action-oriented conceptual modelling. European Journal of Information Systems 13(1), 80-92.
5. Ågerfalk, P.J., Sjöström, J., Eliason, E., Cronholm, S., Goldkuhl, G., 2002. In: Brown, A., Remenyi, D. (Eds.), Setting the Scene for Actability Evaluation: Understanding Information Systems in Context, Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on IT Evaluation (ECITE 2002), MCIL, Reading, UK, pp. 1-9.
6. Austin, J.L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, Cambridge.
7. Bannon, L., 1991. From Human Factors to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and Human-Computer Interaction Studies in System Design. In: Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M. (Eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 25-44.
8. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M., 1987. The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369-388.
9. Bevan, N., 1999. Quality in use: meeting user needs for quality. Journal of Systems and Software 49(1), 89-96.
10. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K., 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
11. Braa, K., Vidgen, R., 1999. Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 9(1), 25-47.
12. Brooke, C., 2002. What does it mean to be critical in is research? Journal of Information Technology 17(2), 49-57.
13. Bühler, K., 1934. Sprachtheorie, Fischer, Jena.
14. Carroll, J.M., 1996. Becoming social: expanding scenario-based approaches in HCI. Behaviour and Information Technology 15(4), 266-275.
15. Clark, H.H., 1996. Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Clark, H.H., Brennan, S.E., 1991. Grounding in Communication. In: Resnick, L.B., et al., (Eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 127-149.
17. Cronholm, S., Goldkuhl, G., 2002. Actable Information Systems: Quality Ideals Put into Practice, 11th International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD2002).
18. Cronholm, S., Goldkuhl, G., 2003. Strategies for information systems evaluation: six generic types. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 6(2), 65-74.
19. Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319-340.
20. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 1992. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60-95.
21. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 2003. The Delone and Mclean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9-30.
22. Denning, P.J., 2003. The profession of IT: accomplishment. Communications of the ACM 46(7), 19-23.
23. Denning, P.J., Medina-Mora, R., 1995. Completing the loops. Interfaces 25(3), 42-57.
24. Dietz, J.L.G., 2001. DEMO: towards a discipline of organisation engineering. European Journal of Operational Research 128(2), 351-363.
25. Dietz, J.L.G., Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., van Reijswoud, V., 1998. The Communication Action Paradigm for Business Modelling: A Research Agenda. In: Goldkuhl, G., et al., (Eds), Third International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping, Sweden.
26. Dourish, P., 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Eriksśn, S., 2002. Designing for Accountability, Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2002), ACM Press, New York, pp. 177-186.
28. Flores, F., 1998. Information technology and the institution of identity: reflections since understanding computers and cognition. Information Technology and People 11(4), 352-372.
29. Goldkuhl, G., 1999. The Grounding of Usable Knowledge: An Inquiry in the Epistemology of Action Knowledge, CMTO Research Papers, 1999. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, pp. 3.
30. Goldkuhl, G., Ågerfalk, P.J., 2002. Actability: A Way to Understand Information Systems Pragmatics. In: Liu, K., et al., (Eds), Coordination and Communication Using Signs: Studies in Organisational Semiotics, vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 85-113.
31. Goldkuhl, G., Lyytinen, K., 1982. A Language Action View of Information System, In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information System (ICIS'82), (Eds, Ginzberg M and Ross C), pp. 13-29.
32. Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R.L., 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2), 213-236.
33. Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Polity Press, Cambridge.
34. Habermas, J., 1991. A reply. In: Honneth, A., Joas, H. (Eds.), Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas's the Theory of Communicative Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K., Lyytinen, K., 1996. Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 6(1-2), 1-64.
36. Holm, P., Ljungberg, J., 1996. Multi-Discourse Conversations, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 835-848.
37. ISO 9241-10, 1996. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs), 1st ed, Part 10: Dialogue Principles, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1996-05-01.
38. ISO 9241-11, 1998. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs), 1st ed, Part 11: Guidance on Usability, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1998-03-15.
39. T. Keinonen, 1998. One-dimensional usability: influence of usability on consumers' product preference. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Product and Strategic Design, University of Art and Design Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
40. Lee, E.-J., Nass, C., 2002. Experimental tests of normative group influence and representation effects in computer-mediated communication: when interacting via computers differs from interacting with computers. Human Communication Research 28(3), 349-381.
41. Lind, M., Goldkuhl, G., 2003. The constituents of business interaction: generic layered patterns. Data and Knowledge Engineering 47(3), 327-348.
42. Ljungberg, J., Holm, P., 1996. Speech acts on trial. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 8(1), 29-52.
43. Lyytinen, K., Ngwenyama, O., 1999. Sharrock and button...and much ado about nothing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8(3), 285-293.
44. Mumford, E., 2001. Advice for an action researcher. Information Technology and People 14(1), 12-27.
45. Ngwenyama, O., Lyytinen, K., 1997. Groupware environments as action constitutive resources: a social action framework for analyzing groupware technologies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 6(1), 71-93.
46. Nielsen, J., 1994. Heuristic Evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, Wiley, New York, pp. 25-64.
47. Schoop, M., Quix, C., 2001. DOC:COM a framework for effective negotiation support in electronic marketplaces. Computer Networks 37(2), 153-170.
48. Searle, J.R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. Searle, J.R., 1996. The Construction of Social Reality, Penguin, London.
50. Sharrock, W., Button, G., 1997. On the relevance of Habermas' theory of communicative action for CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 6(4), 369-389.
51. Shneiderman, B., 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, third ed, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
52. Sjöström, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., 2003. Socio-Instrumental Criteria for Assessing Information Systems: In: Weigand, H., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003), pp. 209-230.
53. Sjöström, J., Goldkuhl, G., 2002. In: Jorna, R., et al. (Eds.), Information Systems as Instruments for Communication: Refining the Actability Concept, Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Organizational Semiotics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, pp. 231-251.
54. Sjöström J., Goldkuhl G., 2003. The semiotics of user interfaces: a socio-pragmatic perspective. Accepted for the Sixth workshop on Organizational Semiotics, 11-12 July 2003, Reading, UK.
55. Stamper, R.K., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., Ades, Y., 2000. Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations: a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour and Information Technology 19(1), 15-27.
56. Suchman, L.A., 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
57. Taylor, J.R., 2002. Imbrication and Organization. In: Barjis, J., et al., (Eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2002), Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 158-169.
58. van Welie, M., van der Veer, C., Eliëns, A., 1999. Breaking Down Usability, Proceedings of Interact '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 613-620.
59. Walsham, G., 1993. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Wiley, Chichester.
60. Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
61. Winograd, T., Flores, F., 1987. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
62. Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.