Critical reflection in planning information systems: a contribution from critical systems thinking José-Rodrigo Córdoba Centre for Systems Studies, Business School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK, email: j.r.cordoba@hull.ac.uk Abstract. This paper presents a methodological framework to support the process of information systems (IS) planning in organizations. It draws on the ideas of critical systems thinking (CST), a research perspective that encourages the analysis of stakeholders’ understandings prior to the selection and implemen- tation of planning methods. The framework emphasizes continuous identification of concerns from stakeholders, and facilitates critical reflection in the exploration of possibilities for improvement. Some of these possibilities might require the support of IS and communication technologies. To define the framework, two systems theories are used: boundary critique and autopoiesis. The first one enables critical reflection on values and assumptions about potential situations or marginalization. The second one fosters continuous dialogue, listening and mutual collaboration between participants. With these theories, the framework enables people to reflect on issues of inclusion, exclusion and marginalization, and to participate in the design of plans for improvement. Ultimately, the definition of this framework suggests the importance of critical reflection about ethics to improve the practice of IS planning. Keywords: information systems planning, critical systems thinking, boundary critique, autopoiesis, improvement, ethics INTRODUCTION Organizations are currently using information technologies (IT) as a necessity for survival. The times when IT and information systems (IS) associated were considered rare, a luxury or even advantage are past. With increasing collaboration and new forms of networking (Castells, 1996), the use of IS can open new opportunities for communication and interaction. For IS planning, new technologies and ways of working bring new challenges for organizations. Their rapid incorporation to business processes makes it difficult to reflect on the thinking that underpins the definition of plans to design and implement IS in organizations (Galliers, 2004). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00284.x Info Systems J (2009) 19, 123–147 123 © 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd