How have we arrived at the present state of knowledge in process control? Is there a lesson to be learned?

The utilization of the results of control theory in the process control field has been lagging behind other application fields such as aerospace by many years. It is argued that the availability of high capacity computing at low price will change this situation and that new powerful control techniques can now be implemented in process control.     

On the applicability of capability models for small software organizations: does the use of standard processes lead to a better achievement of business goals?

The ISO/IEC 15504 standard implies that the use of its level-based capability model for software process development leads to a better business performance. At capability level 3, this would mean that there is not only a positive correlation but also a causal relation from the use of standard processes to better achievement of business goals. In this paper, we make this claim explicit and challenge it with a counterargument in the context of small software organizations. We argue that in most part, the way the software is designed is what determines the business success in software development, and when application domains are complex socio-technical systems, relying on a standard process instead of human expertise not only fails to answer the promise of process stability but also presents business risks related to poor design, a loss of diversity, and reduced adaptability. With reasons to believe that the standard’s claim is weak in this context, we come up with alternative explanations for why some small software organizations nevertheless use standard processes. Through these hypotheses, we argue that the reasons are not necessarily process-related. In closing, we suggest further studies on how the standard’s notion of process capability and business goals relate to each other when the application domain is not just complicated but complex.     

What is rational about killing a patient with an overdose?: enlightenment, continental philosophy and the role of the human subject in system failure

This paper raises the issue of ergonomics' role in giving primacy to fully rational individual human actors in the creation of system failure, despite its commitment to see action as constrained by design and operational features of work. Reflecting on recent contributions to the journal, ergonomics' dilemma is considered against Enlightenment assumptions about individual human reason as the route to truth and goodness and its critics in continental philosophy. There is a pervasive, unstated pact here. What ergonomics chooses to call certain things (violations, errors, non-compliance, situation awareness) not only simultaneously affirms and denies full rationality on part of the people it studies, it also coincides with what the West sees as scientific, true and instrumental. Thus, ergonomics research legitimates its findings in terms it is expected to explain itself in. But by doing so, it reproduces the very social order it set out to repudiate. Statement of Relevance: Ergonomics' choice of words (violations, errors, non-compliance) at once affirms and denies full rationality on part of the people it studies, reproducing the very social order it is meant to question and change.     

Paradigm lost … paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’

This study offers an alternative interpretation to Banville and Landry’s (B&L, 1989) Can the Field of MIS Be Disciplined?, the canonical text that argued persuasively against the adoption of the Kuhnian view of scientific progress for the information systems (IS) field. Much has transpired in the quarter of a century since its publication, which provides us with new sources of understanding about paradigms and how they relate to the challenges faced by the IS field. On the basis of the hermeneutical principles of tradition, prejudice, temporal distance, history of effect and application, this study describes the context from which B&L was written, its dependence on Whitley’s (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, and examines several of its claims and assertions. In contrast to B&L, this study finds the Kuhnian model of scientific progress well suited for a multidisciplinary and pluralistic field like IS and concludes with guidelines on how to reclaim the more transformative aspects of the paradigm concept, engender a culture of contextual borrowing from reference disciplines, and encourage conceptual development and autonomous theory construction.     

The best task allocation process is to decide on one’s own: effects of the allocation agent in human–robot interaction on perceived work characteristics and satisfaction

Cognition, Technology & Work - New technologies are ever evolving and have the power to change human work for the better or the worse depending on the implementation. For human–robot...