DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS

David Avison, Jan Pries-Heje

Abstract

The number of information systems development methodologies has proliferated and practitioners and researchers alike have struggled to select a ‘one best’ approach for all applications. But there is no single methodology that will work for all development situations. The question then arises: ‘when to use which methodology?’ To address this question we used the design research approach to develop a radar diagram consisting of eight dimensions. Using three action research cycles, we attempt to validate our design in three projects that took place in a large administrative organization and elsewhere with groups of IT project managers. Our artefact can be used to suggest a particular one-off approach for a particular situation.

References

  1. Avison, D. E. and Fitzgerald, G. (2006) Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 4th edition.
  2. Avison, D. E. and Taylor, V. (1996) Information systems development methodologies: A classification according to problem situations, Journal of Information Technology, 11.
  3. Avison, D.E. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1990) Multiview: An Exploration in Information Systems Development, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
  4. Boehm, B. (1986). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 11, 4, 14-24.
  5. Bødker, K. & J. Bansler (1993). A reappraisal of structured analysis: design in an organizational context. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 11, 2.
  6. Checkland, P. (1999) Soft systems methodology: A 30- year retrospective, In Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, Chichester.
  7. Cole, R, S. Purao, M. Rossi & M.K. Sein (2005). Being Proactive: Where Action research meets Design Research. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
  8. Fitzgerald, B. (2000). Systems development methodologies: The problem of tenses. Information Technology and People, 13, 2, 13-22.
  9. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, 28, 1, 75-105.
  10. Highsmith, J. (1999). Adaptive Software Development. Dorset House, New York.
  11. ISWorld (2006) http://www.isworld.org/
  12. Researchdesign/drisISworld.htm, accessed November 21, 2006.
  13. Kock, N. (2006) Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, Springer, New York.
  14. Mathiassen, L and J. Stage (1990). Complexity and uncertainty in software design. In CompEuro 7890 - Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering, May 1990, Tel Aviv, 482-489.
  15. McConnell, S (1996). Rapid Development. Microsoft Press, New York.
  16. Papazoglou, M.P., and Georgakopoulos, D. (2003), Service Oriented Computing: Introduction, Communications of the ACM, 46, 10, 25-28.
  17. Pries-Heje, J., S. Tryde & A.F. Nielsen (2001). Framework for organizational implementation of SPI. Chapter 15 in: Mathiassen, L., J. Pries-Heje & O. Ngwenyama (eds.) (2001). Improving Software Organizations - From Principles to Practice. AddisonWesley.
  18. Pries-Heje, J. (2004). Managing Knowledge in IT Projects. IFCAI Journal of Knowledge Management, II, 4, 49-62.
  19. Pries-Heje, J. (2006). When to use what? - Selecting systems development method in a Bank. Australian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, December 2006.
  20. Susman, G. and Evered, R. (1978) An assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 4, 582-603.
  21. Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawam, H. (1990). Modeling Design Processes. AI Magazine, Winter, 37-48.
  22. Truex, D., Baskerville, R., & Travis, J. (2000). Amethodical Systems Development: The Deferred Meaning of Systems Development Methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 10, 53-79.
  23. Wastell, D. (1996) The fetish of technique: Methodology as a social defence, Information Systems Journal, 6, 1.
  24. Womack, J.P. (1996). Lean Thinking. Rawson, New York.
  25. Wynekoop, J. L., & Russo, N. L. (1997). Studying system development methodologies: An examination of research methods. Information Systems Journal, 7, 1, 47-65.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Avison D. and Pries-Heje J. (2007). DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS . In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-972-8865-90-0, pages 63-70. DOI: 10.5220/0002360100630070


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis07,
author={David Avison and Jan Pries-Heje},
title={DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2007},
pages={63-70},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002360100630070},
isbn={978-972-8865-90-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
SN - 978-972-8865-90-0
AU - Avison D.
AU - Pries-Heje J.
PY - 2007
SP - 63
EP - 70
DO - 10.5220/0002360100630070