In this investigation, we initially reviewed the source document – BAE Automated Systems (A): Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System (Montealegre et al., 1999) and subsequently we performed its analysis focusing on the identification of actors, events, environmental factors and some of the authors’ possible intentions in leading the readers to reach the specific conclusions in the case study. In the process in which we engaged, a number of iterations (cycles) through the document were made.
The first cycle was the preliminary reading and development of the first layer of document (and its case) understanding.
The second cycle identified all the principal actors described in the document. During this cycle, the deepening understanding of the case study was documented with each actor’s insights. By actors we mean the people actively engaged in the phenomena described in the case study. Actors are instrumental in the outcomes of events, which are of special interests to the researchers studying information systems projects.
The third cycle looked at documenting everything that could be considered as background, or existing environment surrounding the events under investigation. Understanding of these existing environmental factors further reinforce (and in some cases negate) the researchers’ understanding.
The fourth cycle examined the decisions that were made by actors within their respective environments, and the impact of these decisions. The actors’ decisions indicate their intentions in influencing the events pertaining to the information systems development.
The cycles 1-4 were conducted by one of this article’s authors and the process resulted in a very thorough factual horizon of the DIA case study understanding. Three additional text documents were created in the form of tables that summarised and cross-referenced the original case study.
The second author, at this point, joined in to provide a completely different view of the case, thus developing an alternate horizon, which complemented and in some cases contrasted the views and conceptions of the first investigator. The ensuing process of collaborative hermeneutics, as we call the use of multiple hermeneutic investigators, introduced into the study a richness of views and insights, which clashed, were deconstructed and eventually fused.
The fifth cycle introduces the second investigator’s perspective of the events reported in the DIA's case study (Montealegre et al, 1999), to bring some new and independent insights. In contrast to the first investigator's approach, which was to immerse himself in the events surrounding the DIA case, the second investigator focused on the communicative intentions of the case study authors and on documenting his particular interpretations of each ‘event’ described. This approach brings in the dialectic perspective to this research by questioning the motivation, bias and prejudice of the case study authors.
Finally, another DIA centered document (Montealegre and Keil, 2000) was introduced and its contribution to the overall understanding then analysed. The analysis proceeds from the classical approach of Gadamer (1976) whereby the movement of understanding is from the particular to the whole then back again.
In the following sections, each of the cycles is described in some detail and examples from the DIA case study provided to illustrate the process.