🚀 go-pugleaf

kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) writes:

>Contemporary approaches to systems analysis ignore the importance
>of computing infrastructure -- the kinds of resources necessary
>for making computerized system workable and effective.

That's utter nonsense, of course.  System analysts spend much of their
time worrying about computing resources and infrastructure.  I spent
some time reading Kling's article, and I think I know where he went astray.

If some nearby software developer asked me what kind of environment I
used today, I'd probably say something like ``I used GNU and X11R5 tools
under SunOS 4.1.2 on a network of Suns''.  Now, there's a lot of context
behind that statement, but since I'm talking to another software
developer, I don't have to spell it out.  It's a mistake to criticize my
explanation because it ignores my computing infrastructure: the other
developer already knows the context of the discussion, and it would be a
waste of time for both of us for me to go into the gory details.

Similarly, it's a mistake to criticize system analysts who don't
consciously apply social theories to the problem of analyzing computing
systems.  Analysts omit social context when it's convenient, but that
doesn't mean they're unaware of the context -- it only means that they
have better things to do than write lengthy dissertations on subjects
that are obvious to their audiences.

Kling presents no evidence that his models are better than other ad hoc
frameworks for describing the social context of computing.  I'm not
saying that system analysts never make mistakes, or that they always know
their computing milieu; far from it!  But Kling's theories won't give
them any insights that they don't have already.