METHOD-IN-ACTION AND METHOD-IN-TOOL - Some implications for CASE

Brian Lings, Björn Lundell

Abstract

Tool support for Information Systems development can be considered from many perspectives, and it is not surprising that different stakeholders perceive such tools very differently. This can contribute on one side to poor selection processes and ineffective deployment of CASE, and on another to inappropriate tool development. In this paper we consider the relationship between CASE tools and Information Systems development methods from three stakeholder perspectives: concept developer, Information Systems developer and product developer. These perspectives, and the tensions between them, are represented within a ‘stakeholder triangle’, which we use to consider how the concept of method-in-action affects and is affected by the concept of method-in-tool. We believe that the triangle helps when interpreting seemingly conflicting views about CASE adoption and development.

References

  1. Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G., 2003. Where Now for Development Methodologies?. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 79-82.
  2. Brinkkemper, S., 1996. Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275-280.
  3. Brooks, A. & Scott, L., 2001. Constraints in CASE tools: results from curiosity driven research. In Proceedings 2001 Australian Software Engineering Conference, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 285-293.
  4. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L. & Stolterman, E., 2002. Information Systems Development: Methods in Action. McGraw-Hill, London.
  5. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L. & O'Kane, T., 2003. Software Development Method Tailoring At Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 65-70.
  6. Floyd, C., 1986. A Comparative Evaluation of System Development Methods. In Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, pp. 19-54.
  7. Fowler, M., 2003. What Is the Point of UML?, In UML 2003 - The Unified Modeling Language: Modeling Languages and Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 325.
  8. Glass, R.L., 1999. The Loyal Opposition: Of Open Source, Linux, and Hype. IEEE Software, 16(1), 126-128.
  9. Gray, J.P., 1997. CASE tool construction for a parallel software development methodology. Information and Software Technology, 39(4), 235-252.
  10. Hart, H., Boehm, B., Taft, S.T. & Wasserman, T., 1999. PANEL: What Happened to Integrated Environments?. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGAda Annual International Conference on Ada, pp. 225-226.
  11. Hickman, L. and Longman, C., 1994. CASE Method: Business Interviewing, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
  12. Iivari, J. & Lyytinen, K., 1999. Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia: Unity in Plurality. In Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 57-102.
  13. Introna, L.D. & Whitley, E.A., 1997. Against Method-ism: Exploring the limits of method. Information Technology & People, 10(1), 31-45.
  14. Jankowski, D., 1997. Computer-Aided Systems Engineering Methodology Support and Its Effect on the Output of Structured Analysis. Empirical Software Engineering, 2(1), 11-38.
  15. Jarzabek, S. & Huang, R., 1998. The Case for UserCentred CASE Tools. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 93-99.
  16. King, S. (1997) Tool support for systems emergence: A multimedia CASE tool. Information and Software Technology, 39(5), 323-330.
  17. Kollman, R., Selonen, P., Stroulia, E., Systä, T. & Zundorf, A., 2002. A Study of the Current State of the Art in Tool-Supported UML-Based Static Reverse Engineering. In Proceedings of the Ninth Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE'02), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 22-32.
  18. Lending, D & Chervany, N.L., 2002. CASE tool use and job design: a restrictiveness/flexibility explanation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43(1), 81- 90.
  19. Lundell, B. & Lings, B., 2003. The 2G method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks. Information Systems Journal, 13(4), 375-398.
  20. Lundell, B. & Lings, B., 2004, Changing perceptions of CASE-technology. Journal of Systems and Software, (to appear).
  21. Lyytinen, K., Martiin, P., Tolvanen, J.-P., Jarke, M., Pohl, K. & Weidenhaupt, K. (1998) CASE Environment Adaptability: Bridging the Islands of Automation, In Proceedings of the Eight annual Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems WITS'98, University of Jyväskylä.
  22. Maccari, A. & Riva C., 2000. Empirical Evaluation of CASE Tools Usage at Nokia. Empirical Software Engineering, 5(3), 287-299.
  23. Moody, D.L. 2002. Validation of a method for representing large entity relationship models: an action research study. In European Conference on Information Systems, Gdansk, pp. 391-405.
  24. Post, G. & Kagan, A., 2001. User requirements for OO CASE tools. Information and Software Technology, 43(8), 509-517.
  25. Rossi, M., Tolvanen, J.-P., Lyytinen, K. & Kaipala, J., 2000. Method Rationale in Method Engineering. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 1-10, Vol. 2.
  26. Scott, L., Horvath, L. & Day, D., 2000. Characterizing CASE Constraints. Communications of the ACM, 43(11), 232-238.
  27. Senn, J.A. & Wynekoop, J.L., 1995. The other side of CASE implementation: Best Practices for Success. Information Systems Management, 12(4), 7-14.
  28. Tolvanen, J.-P., Rossi, M. & Liu, H., 1997. Method Engineering: Current research directions and implications for future research, In Method Engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 296-317.
  29. Truex, D. & Avison, D., 2003. Method Engineering: Reflections on the Past and Ways Forward, In Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, pp. 508-514.
  30. Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J. & Jonckers, V., 2003. Using Description Logic to Maintain Consistency between UML Models. In UML 2003 - The Unified Modeling Language: Modeling Languages and Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 326-340.
  31. Wastell, D.G., 1996. The fetish of technique: methodology as a social defence. Information Systems Journal, 6(1), 25-49.
  32. Wieringa, R. 1998. A Survey of Structured and ObjectOriented Software Specification Methods and Techniques. ACM Computing Surveys, 30(4), 459-527.
  33. Viller, S. & Sommerville, I., 2000. Ethnographicaly informed analysis for software engineers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 169-196.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Lings B. and Lundell B. (2004). METHOD-IN-ACTION AND METHOD-IN-TOOL - Some implications for CASE . In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 972-8865-00-7, pages 623-628. DOI: 10.5220/0002609906230628


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis04,
author={Brian Lings and Björn Lundell},
title={METHOD-IN-ACTION AND METHOD-IN-TOOL - Some implications for CASE},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2004},
pages={623-628},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002609906230628},
isbn={972-8865-00-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - METHOD-IN-ACTION AND METHOD-IN-TOOL - Some implications for CASE
SN - 972-8865-00-7
AU - Lings B.
AU - Lundell B.
PY - 2004
SP - 623
EP - 628
DO - 10.5220/0002609906230628