The article discusses four paradigms of information systems development, emphasizing the role of implicit assumptions in shaping system outcomes. These paradigms are based on differing views of reality and knowledge acquisition. The first paradigm, the analyst as systems expert, assumes an objective, rational reality and focuses on technical solutions to achieve organizational goals. The second, the analyst as facilitator, emphasizes social construction of reality and the importance of user perspectives in system development. The third, the analyst as labor partisan, highlights social class conflict and the role of systems in either supporting or opposing labor interests. The fourth, the analyst as emancipator or social therapist, focuses on rational discourse to promote social change and mutual understanding. The article uses two case studies to illustrate these paradigms. The first case, UTOPIA, emphasizes the importance of preserving typesetting craftsmanship and involves collaboration between typesetters and management. The second case, an expert system for airline maintenance, highlights the challenges of integrating human judgment with automated systems. These examples show how different assumptions lead to different system designs and outcomes. The four paradigms are analyzed through the lens of epistemological and ontological assumptions. The functionalist paradigm assumes an objective reality and rational explanations, while the social relativist paradigm views reality as socially constructed. The radical structuralist paradigm emphasizes social class conflict, and the neohumanist paradigm focuses on social change and emancipation. The article argues that these paradigms are not mutually exclusive but rather represent different ways of understanding and approaching systems development. They highlight the importance of considering social, economic, and political factors in system design. The analysis of these paradigms provides a framework for understanding the complexities of information systems development and the social consequences of different development approaches.The article discusses four paradigms of information systems development, emphasizing the role of implicit assumptions in shaping system outcomes. These paradigms are based on differing views of reality and knowledge acquisition. The first paradigm, the analyst as systems expert, assumes an objective, rational reality and focuses on technical solutions to achieve organizational goals. The second, the analyst as facilitator, emphasizes social construction of reality and the importance of user perspectives in system development. The third, the analyst as labor partisan, highlights social class conflict and the role of systems in either supporting or opposing labor interests. The fourth, the analyst as emancipator or social therapist, focuses on rational discourse to promote social change and mutual understanding. The article uses two case studies to illustrate these paradigms. The first case, UTOPIA, emphasizes the importance of preserving typesetting craftsmanship and involves collaboration between typesetters and management. The second case, an expert system for airline maintenance, highlights the challenges of integrating human judgment with automated systems. These examples show how different assumptions lead to different system designs and outcomes. The four paradigms are analyzed through the lens of epistemological and ontological assumptions. The functionalist paradigm assumes an objective reality and rational explanations, while the social relativist paradigm views reality as socially constructed. The radical structuralist paradigm emphasizes social class conflict, and the neohumanist paradigm focuses on social change and emancipation. The article argues that these paradigms are not mutually exclusive but rather represent different ways of understanding and approaching systems development. They highlight the importance of considering social, economic, and political factors in system design. The analysis of these paradigms provides a framework for understanding the complexities of information systems development and the social consequences of different development approaches.