Abstract/Summary

In 2008 I first developed a module entitled ‘MM258 - An introduction to the Management of Information Systems’, which was designed to get pre-experience undergraduate Accounting, Business, and Management students to think about how information systems (i.e., people / management systems, organisational systems, and technical system) are used in business. Having come from a technical / engineering background, I found Information Systems (IS) textbooks often overly simplified, however it became clear that some students struggled with complex abstract and system-of-systems thinking. The study is split into three parts: In part one I present the reader with a brief introduction to information system and educational literature, defining a constructivist / structuralism view that i) human cognitive develops occurs over time, ii) that development progresses through definable stages, and iii) that not all people go through all stages. In part two I consider UG student understanding of three IS models – already taught as part of the MM258 module – i.e., i) Nadee et al.’s (2017) dual-aspect model, which introduces students to the idea of business norms and norm conflict, ii) Ventatesh et al.’s (2012) extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) model, which introduces students to a more complex fixed dependency models considering technology system acceptance, and ii) Pankratz and Basten’s (2013), which introduces students to a complex theoretical failure model, which presents from literature 54 failure factors in a matrix of categories and dimensions that result in information systems failure; i.e. to determine whether student understand the systems model being taught to them. In part three I iteratively develop a holistic systems model to support the teaching of complex systems-based theory to pre-experiences UG students. Although data collection was limited by practical sessions, results suggest that students can understand the dual-aspect model and UTAUT2 models, however the UTAUT2 was found to be contextually restrictive. The theoretical failure model, proposed by Pankratz and Basten, was not fully appreciated by students, resulting in students assimilating a simplified model based on temporal stages (planning, implementing, other factors). Accordingly, the Nadee et al. model was selected for use as the Kernel theory, i.e., Artefact 1. In artefact 2 issues and conflicts highlighted in the Nadee et al.’s dual aspect model are addressed, resulting in a significant restructuring of Why (Conceptual), How (Informal and Formal), and What (Technical) norm levels. In artefact three I added system goals and consideration of external influences (for artefact 3 – see section 5.3), iii) adding an inner world model (for artefact 4 – see section 5.4), iv) the handling of norm conflict (for artefact 5 – see section 5.5), v) consideration of the IPO model (for artefact 6 – see section 6.2), vi) explicit consideration of behaviour and communication (for artefact 7 – see section 6.3), vii) inclusion of emotion (for artefact 8 – see section 6.4), and finally addition of motivation, and extensibility (for artefact 9 – see section 6.5). With each artefact iteration, the model addresses a wider range of information system issues. Accordingly, in section 6.6, I provided a final design science evaluation, as required in the Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004) methodology, i.e. to test i) whether the holistic model can be used to represent the concepts contained within the three models used in the MM258 module (Nadee et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al. (2012); Pankratz and Basten, 2013), and ii) to provide Formal Expert Elicitation in order to get feedback for relevant domain experts. In section 6.7 I provide a conclusion to the chapter. The thesis provides a conclusion (in chapter 7.1 to 7.4) that i) critically considers the research design, methodology, and research contributions (theoretical, methodological, practical), and ii) considers what future research and development is required in this domain. Finally (in optional section 7.5) I provide a personal reflection concerning the DBA journey, highlighting openly his thoughts about each stage in the DBA journey.