Information Systems Development Methodolgies in a Developing
Higher Education
Adam Marks
Department of Business Administration – Worldwide, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, U.S.A.
Keywords: IS, ISDM, Methodology, Higher Education, UAE.
Abstract: Studies concerned with the status of Information Systems Development Methodologies usage in many
developing countries including the factors that influence and motivate their use, current trends, difficulties,
and barriers to adoption are lacking, especially within the higher education sector. This paper examines
these identified gaps in a developing country, namely the United Arab Emirates. The initial findings reveal
that there is limited knowledge and understanding of the concept of ISDM in federal higher education
institutions in the UAE. This is reflected in the quality of the software products being developed and
released. However, the analysed data also reveals a trend whereby federal higher education institutions in
the UAE are gradually moving towards increased ISDM adoption and deployment.
1 INTRODUCTION
Despite the arguments about the usefulness of
ISDM, ISDM are expected to be largely used in the
current era more than ever before (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 2003). A review of literature shows that
there is insufficient empirical research on ISDM
adoption. For instance, Beynon-Davies and Williams
(2003) state that there are “few studies that were
conducted in order to identify how ISDM are
selected or adapted, or how they are used.” A survey
of prior studies of ISDM adoption shows clear
differences between the number of studies of ISDM
adoption that have been undertaken in developed
and third / developing countries (Wynekoop and
Russo, 1997). None has been conducted in the UAE
or the greater Middle East area.
The objective of this research is to investigate
Information Systems Development Methodologies
(ISDM) adoption in the federal higher education
sector of a developing country, namely the United
Arab Emirates (UAE). An empirical study was
conducted by means of a survey, using a
questionnaire and a number of face-to-face
interviews with Information Systems (IS) managers
in federal higher education institutions in the UAE,
to empirically examine ISDM practices and
ascertain the extent to which there was a need for an
ISDM adoption model for these institutions. The
survey was also intended to enable the testing of
hypotheses formulated at an early stage of the
research program. The Delphi method was
undertaken to generate a confirmed list of ISDM
adoption variables for decision making.
2 MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION
We Defining ISDM is not a simple task as there is
no standard accepted definition (Huisman and Iivari,
2002), (Huisman and Iivari, 2006). For instance, the
British Computer Society (BCS) Information System
Analysis and Design Working Group defined ISDM
as “A recommended collection of philosophies,
phases, rules, techniques, tools, documentation,
management, and training for developers of
information systems”. Avison and Fitzgerald (2006)
extended this definition as follows: “A
recommended means to achieve the development, or
part of the development, of information system
based on a set of rationales and an underlying
philosophy that support, justifies and makes
coherent such a recommendation for a particular
context”. The recommended means usually includes
the identification of phases, procedures, tasks, rules,
techniques, guidelines, documentation and tools.
They might also include recommendations
concerning the management and organization of the
135
Marks A..
Information Systems Development Methodolgies in a Developing Higher Education.
DOI: 10.5220/0003913201350141
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2012), pages 135-141
ISBN: 978-989-8565-11-2
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
approach and the identification and training of the
participants. In terms of ISDM classifications,
various classifications of ISDM were identified in
the literature such as those reported by (Iivari and
Huisman, 2001), (Charvat, 2003). Beynon-Davies
and Williams (2003) identified three major types of
ISDM, including structured methodologies (e.g.
SSADM), rapid application development (e.g.
DSDM), and Object-oriented methodologies (e.g.
RUP). Avison and Fitzgerald (2006) introduced a
more comprehensive classification of ISDM as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of information systems development
methodologies.
Types of ISDM Examples
Process-oriented
methodologies
Structured analysis, design, and
implementation of information systems
(STRADIS).
Yourdon system method (YSM).
Jackson system development (JSD).
Blended
methodologies
Structured systems analysis and design
method (SSADM).
Information Engineering Methodology (
IEM).
Object-oriented
methodologies
Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOA
& D ) by Coad and Yourden.
Rational Unified Process (RUP).
Rapid
development
methodologies
Dynamic Systems Development Method
(DSDM).
Extreme Programming (XP).
Web IS Development Methodology
(WISDM).
People-oriented
methodologies
Effective technical and human
implementation of computer-based systems
(ETHICS).
KADS.
Organizational-
oriented
methodologies
Soft System Methodology (SSM)
Information system work and analysis of
changes (ISAC).
Process innovation (PI).
Frameworks
Strategic options development and analysis
(SODA).
Capability maturity model (CMM).
ISDM adoption remains a controversial issue
among many organizations (Fitzgerald, 1998). On
the one hand, many practitioners view ISDM as the
means for improving the quality of the information
system development process and there are
significant pressures to use ISDM as a requirement
to obtain ISO certification or adhere to standards
required by some governments. On the other hand,
there are also considerable arguments against the use
of ISDM, including (a) mismatches with
organizational or Information Systems (IS) projects
requirements, (b) ISDM vendor dependency, (c)
system development delay, (d) system development
stagnation (Fitzgerald, 1998).
Table 2: Prior studies of ISDM adoption.
Developed
country
Description
Fitzgerald et al.
(1999)
Holt (1997)
Chatzoglou and
Macaulay (1996)
Beynon-Davies
and Williams
(2003)
Venable and Lim
(2002)
Russo et al.
(1996)
Rouse et al.
(1995)
Iivari and
Maansaari
(1998)
Fitzgerald
(1998)
Investigated systems development and
maintenance in the UK. 57% respondents
claim to be using ISDM
Examined software engineering practice in
50 UK organizations. About 31% of the
surveyed organizations did not use any
structured ISDM
Surveyed the use of ISDM in 72 IS projects
in the UK. Reported that 47% do not use any
ISDM in IS development.
Examined the adoption of ISDM in two
organizations in UK. The study utilized
Dynamic Systems Development Method
(DSDM) to explain some of the key features
of the ISDM adoption processes.
Surveyed consulting organizations in Austria
that develop web information systems (WIS).
67% use a type of methodology and about
10% use WISDM to guide their WIS
development activities.
Surveyed the use of ISDM in 92 US
organizations. 6% of the organizations claim
that they always use ISDM.
Presented a comparison of ISDM adoption
between Australian and US organizations.
The adoption rate among Australian
organizations found to be slower than that of
US organizations
Investigated the use of ISDM in 44 CASE
user organizations in Finland. Results
indicate considerable problems in adopting
the Object-oriented methodologies.
Examined ISDM usage across organizations
in Ireland. Only 6% of the respondent
reported using ISDM rigorously.
Developing
country
Description
Huisman and
Iivari (2001;
2002a; 2002b;
2003a; 2003b;
2003c; 2006)
Rahim et al.
(1998)
Selamat et al.
(1994) (cited
from Rahim et
al., 1998)
Conducted a comprehensive analysis of
ISDM adoption and deployment in South
Africa involving 83 organizations, 234
developers, and 73 IS managers.
Investigated ISDM adoption in public and
private sectors in Brunei Darussalam. Nine
different ISDM reported to be used by the
surveyed organizations.
Studied CASE tools usage and associated
ISDM in 40 Malaysian organizations.
SSADM reported to be used by 8% of the
surveyed organizations.
A review of literature shows that while some
ICEIS2012-14thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
136
organizations claim that they use ISDM successfully
with positive results and view them as an essential
approach to improve the quality and to increase the
productivity of the software development process,
others argue about the benefit of using these
methodologies and affirm that they do not use any
ISDM in practice (Fitzgerald, 1998), [4]. There are
few studies in the literature about the use of ISDM.
In a survey conducted by Wynekoop and Russo
(1997) regarding ISDM usage studies, it was found
that only 19 papers addressed the issue. The same
view has been shared and reported by (Iivari and
Maansaari, 1998) as well as by (Huisman and Ivari,
2003). In addition, (Huisman and Iivari, 2001) added
that most of these studies have been published
during the 1980s and 1990s, and that the vast
majority of ISDM studies were undertaken to
address the experience of developed countries
(Rahim and Seyal, 1998). A review of literature
shows that there is insufficient empirical research on
ISDM adoption. A survey of prior studies of ISDM
adoption is depicted in Table 2.
3 METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted using four research
methodologies: survey, Interviews, Delphi method,
and Case study. Survey mode of enquiry and
interviews were employed to obtain data beyond the
physical vision of the researcher in order to provide
insights into ISDM adoption practices (112 surveys
and 16 semi-structured interviews). Delphi method
was used to identify and analyze the variables that
contribute to effective evaluation and selection of
ISDM (128). The research model was developed
using a combination of Delphi, and Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) techniques aiming to assist
IS managers to determine which ISDM is most
suitable for their organization’s IS development. The
case study therefore, was a supplementary research
methodology to customize, quantify, and examine
the usefulness of the model.
The main objective of the study was to describe
the information system environment, the activities
performed, and the use of system development
methodologies in IS departments in the surveyed
organizations within the federal higher education
sector, as well as to develop a suitable model for
ISDM adoption using two decision-making tools:
Delphi technique, and AHP. The model was
designed to detect the most appropriate choice
among various alternative ISDM. The research
sought to resolve the following three main research
questions:
Q1. What is the current status of ISDM practices
in the federal higher education sector in the UAE?
Q2. What are the critical variables and their level
of importance in evaluating and selecting the most
suitable ISD methodology?
Q3. What is the requisite model for ISDM
adoption to assist organizations to evaluate and
select the most appropriate ISD methodology for
their software development activities?
The results of the study provide three main
contributions. First, the survey stage of the study
reported important information for both the research
community and to practitioners. For the research
community not much is known about the use of
ISDM in developing countries. Far less is known
about their use in the UAE and its federal higher
education system. For practitioners, this research
could assist them in changing or improving their
current systems development practice. One of the
key quality control requirements is to employ a
formalized information system development process
(Fitzgerald, 1998); (Huisman and Ivari, 2003).
Secondly, on the conceptual side, the study
shows how two well-known decision-making
approaches, Delphi technique, and AHP, could be
combined effectively to develop an ISDM decision
model. Initially, Delphi technique was suitably
employed to analyze and produce reliable variables
for decision making. AHP was subsequently
employed for model development and for detailed
analyses of these variables. On the application side,
the study shows how Delphi technique and AHP
could be used to develop a requisite group model of
ISDM adoption for a large organization in selecting
the most suitable ISDM.
Third, the models were developed as a decision
support tool. With user friendly software, decision-
makers may improve their decision-making
processes by running sensitivity analyses, applying
the models based on their available information,
intuition, and experience, visualizing their decision
outcomes, and modifying the models to other
relevant issues or scenarios.
Generally, the ISDM adoption model was
developed starting from a conceptual model using
data from Delphi technique and respondents’
perceptions, and then evolved to a user friendly
model that can be put to practical use for decision-
making in an organization. The case study was
employed in order to customize the generic model to
fit specific case study using real information and
perceptions.
InformationSystemsDevelopmentMethodolgiesinaDevelopingHigherEducation
137
4 FINDINGS, DATA ANALYSIS,
AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Current Status of ISDM Practices
(Research Question 1)
The results of the study indicate that the information
systems adopted by federal higher education
institutions in the UAE are operated in a multi-
platform environment, supported by multiple
operating systems, using both local and wide area
networks, and supporting a variety of development
and programming languages. It is worth noting that
certain hardware and software platforms, including
PCs (computing terminals), Oracle (software),
UNIX and Windows (operating systems), and local
area networks based environments are the most
dominant among federal higher education UAE
institutions.
In relation to the activities of IS departments in
the responding organizations, the findings reveal that
the IS departments spend 62% of their time on
system support and maintenance, 11% of their time
on IS project outsourcing, 17% on the development
of new in-house IS, and 10% on the customization
and integration of commercial packages.
In relation to ISDM usage, the data analysis
reveals that 8% of responding organizations adopted
ISDM to develop their information systems. Larger
IS departments are more likely to adopt ISDM. In
addition, the results of the study show that the older
the IS department, the more likely it is to adopt
ISDM for IS development. Furthermore, in-house
methodologies are the most common ISDM in UAE
higher education institutions, followed by Oracle
Development Methodology; followed by Rapid
Development Method and Information Engineering
Methodology (IEM).
In relation to the decision-makers of ISDM
adoption, the findings of the empirical survey reveal
that a large percentage of the respondents indicate
that the decision to adopt ISDM is undertaken by IS
managers.
This suggests that IS managers are the key
decision makers for ISDM adoption. In addition, the
ISDM training provided by organizations to their
developers largely relies on in-house trainers
followed by external trainers, external institutes, or
self-training. Furthermore, an important finding of
the empirical survey indicates that the trend of
ISDM adoption among the examined organizations
will increase over time.
The empirical survey tested a number of
variables to examine the extent to which these
variables affect ISDM adoption. Nine variables were
empirically tested including type of organization,
business activity, organization size, IS department
size, age of IS department, knowledge barrier,
relative advantage, complexity, and compatibility.
The findings of the survey reveal that a significant
relationship is lacking between type of organization
and ISDM adoption, and between complexity and
ISDM adoption. However, the remaining seven
variables were found to have some relationship with
ISDM adoption and the degree of the impact of these
variables varies from one variable to other.
4.2 Variables and their Level of
Importance (Research Question 2)
The overall aim of the second empirical stage was to
determine and analyse the variables that contribute
to effective ISDM adoption. Judgments were
solicited from a group of experts in a sequence of
successive rounds. A questionnaire containing 30
variables obtained from the literature regarding the
ISDM adoption (evaluation and selection) was sent
to 370 prospective panel members.
The potential members were IT/IS managers. In
the first round of Delphi method, potential members
were asked to rate the level of importance of each of
the ISDM adoption variables, and identify more
variables that they think are important for the study.
The received responses were compiled and
consolidated, and a final list of 40 variables was
produced. The same procedure was followed for
each successive round. Three rounds of Delphi
surveys were performed to achieve consensus. Data
from the three iterations of the questionnaire were
collected during July through September 2009. The
analyses of each of the 40 variables were
accomplished employing SPSS software. The
statistical Median (MD), Quartile One (Q1), Quartile
Three (Q3), and Interquartile Range (IQR) were
employed to identify the critical ISDM adoption
variable, measure level of importance of these
variables, and to assess group consensus about these
variables. The Delphi process provided three
important categories of information about ISDM
adoption variables including assent, consensus, and
level of importance.
A group rating of assent for each of the 40 ISDM
adoption variables was driven using a Likert five-
value scale (0, 1, 2, 3, 4). That is, to eliminate
variables considered not applicable or not important,
a median criterion of less than 2.0 was selected. All
remaining variables with a 2.0 median or higher
ICEIS2012-14thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
138
were therefore included in the list of accepted
variables (i.e. 4 = Very Important, 3 = Moderately
Important, 2 = Somewhat Important). The results
obtained indicate that the median of the 40 variables
included in the Delphi research questionnaire
revealed that none of the variables fell below the
criterion of 2.0. Therefore, the Delphi study
provided a confirmed group of 40 ISDM adoption
variables that can be used for ISDM evaluation and
selection as shown in table 3.
Perceived Relative Advantage: This is the key
variable that drives an organization to adopt ISDM
or any technology. Relative advantages are
perceived benefits gained from ISDM usage. In
general, expected advantages from ISDM use may
include better end product, better development
process, standardizing system development process,
increasing productivity and quality, better system
documentation, etc. (Rogers, 1995); (Fitzgerald,
1998); (Huisman and Iivari, 2002); (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 2006).
Table 3: ISDM adoption variables.
Relative
Advantage
Variables
ISDM Properties
and
Features
Variables
Organizational
Environment
Variables
Better end
product
Cost of ISDM Resources
Better devel.
process
Customizable Management support
Standardizing Compatibility Developer
acceptance
Productivity Techniques Developer experience
Quality Rules Developer skills
Documentation Scope Customer acceptance
Speed of
development
Problem analysis Customer satisfaction
Schedule and
budget
IS project
management
Speed of
development
Communication
Maintainable Simplicity
Learning Development
Model
Acceptance Observability
Requirements Trialability
Configuration
control
Reductionist
ISO
compliance
Flexibility
Reduce risk Supplier Support
Tools support
ISDM Properties and Features: This directly
influences new ISDM adoption. ISDM feature
variables include: ISDM costs, ability to customize
ISDM on a project-by-project basis, simple to
understand and teach, compatibility with existing
systems, techniques utilized within ISDM,
observability, trialability, and flexibility (Rogers,
1995); (Fitzgerald, 1998); (Huisman and Iivari,
2002); (Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006).
Organizational Environment: These should be
suitable for accommodating new ISDM in order to
obtain advantages from ISDM use. Organizational
issues include: sufficient resources and facilities,
management support, developer acceptance,
developer experience, and developer skill and
knowledge (Fitzgerald and Russo, 2002); (Huisman
and Iivari, 2003); (Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006).
4.3 Requisite Model of ISDM Adoption
(Research Question 3)
The third empirical stage of this study focused on
developing a general ISDM adoption decision model
based on the variables obtained from the Delphi
technique. In addition, this stage concentrated on
adjusting and quantifying the general ISDM model
based on the selected organization employees’
perspective in order to examine the practicality of
the model. The design of the ISDM adoption model
allows decision-makers to decide which ISDM is
more appropriate for their IS department. The model
developed in this study consists of four levels. The
top level represents the goal/objective of selecting
suitable ISDM in order to adequately meet the
organization requirements, needs, and preferences.
The last level is represented by the ISDM
alternative. The second and third levels constitute
the main variables and sub variables respectively,
which affect the decision to select the appropriate
ISDM. These variables, affecting the choice of
ISDM, were determined from the literature review
and subsequently evaluated and analyzed using
Delphi technique. The model is simple to use and
the computations can be run using available
specialized software such as "Expert Choice".
AHP technique was employed for ISDM
evaluation and selection for the case study. The
model development comprised three stages:
structuring the problem/objective, driving
information and values, and evaluation.
The first stage was to identify the objectives that
the case study is aiming to achieve. Then, all
potential ISDM alternatives were identified for
evaluation under a set of specific variables. The five
ISDM alternatives perceived to fulfill the needs of
the IS department of the case study objective are:
Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM),
Extreme Programming (XP), in-house methodology,
InformationSystemsDevelopmentMethodolgiesinaDevelopingHigherEducation
139
Structured System Analysis and Design
Methodology (SSADM) and Rational Unified
Process (RUP). Each of these ISDM alternatives was
evaluated using the same variables. High level
variables consisted of relative advantages, features
of ISDM, and case study environments. Each high
level variable was sub-divided into low level
variables, including specific issues detailed from the
main variables.
During the second stage, respondents were asked
to weigh the level of importance (i.e. a pair-wise
comparison judgment) of each criterion and then
score all the alternatives against the specified
criteria.
The last stage evaluated the alternatives and
conducted sensitivity analysis using the
ExpertChoice software. Results from the AHP
analysis revealed that the preferred ISDM was in-
house methodology and the second alternative was
RUP.
In effect, the proposed model of ISDM adoption
helps decision-makers to increase their level of
understanding and solving of problems, compares
the rational results with their intuition, detects
possible relevant reasons behind objective results,
and allows them to improve their decision-making
by adjusting weighting and scoring, and conducting
sensitivity analyses.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This research "ISDM Adoption within the Context
of a Developing Country" combines three study
areas of information systems: information system
development methodologies adoption, Delphi
technique, and Analytical Hierarchy Process. The
study was conducted using four research
methodologies: survey research, Interviews, Delphi
method and a case study in large federal higher
education institutions in the UAE. The data were
collected from three empirical stages using three
data collection methods (i.e. questionnaires,
interviews, and documents).
ISDM are perceived to play a critical role in
information system development processes.
However, the findings of this study indicate that a
very small percentage of the examined IS units
utilize ISDM for their IS development activities,
which means that federal higher education
institutions in the UAE have a long way to go before
achieving standardization of information system
development processes. The study has raised the
importance of studying the practice of ISDM in a
developing country and within the federal higher
education sector in specific. It is clear that even
though a wide range of published ISDM are cited in
the IS literature, their adoption is quite low within
the federal higher education sector in the UAE. This
study further found that the adoption of ISDM is
related with the nature of business activities. For
example, IS units supporting students’ registrations
used a somewhat more structured ISDM approach
than IS units supporting Purchasing and
Procurement.
Furthermore, a clear difference in ISDM
adoption was noticed between different size IS
departments. Such a difference was also noted
between mature and novice organizations. Older
universities seemed to adopt a more structured
ISDM than newer ones. Interestingly, most of the
factors believed to be a reason for not using ISDM
could not be supported by the survey results.
However, lack of understanding and lack of
appropriate knowledge of ISDM concepts and
principles and their implications is a significant
barrier to adoption; successful adoption exists only if
those concerned have a full understanding of the
ISDM. Surprisingly, the majority of respondents
disagreed with the statement that ISDM are too
complex or hard to use. This could be explained due
to the fact that most of the surveyed IS units are not
using ISDM. Thus, they might not have a clear
picture of its complexity. It is, however, expected
that the growth of popular ISDM is likely to increase
with time.
The proposed model of ISDM adoption based on
Delphi technique and AHP analysis demonstrated an
easy procedure to select the best alternatives from
various conflicting variables. Using the AHP tool
supported by "ExpertChoice" software may help IS
practitioners evaluate ISDM alternatives more
efficiently and effectively, compared to the
traditional method.
First, AHP is a suitable tool for ISDM
evaluation. Second, AHP software applications are
inexpensive and available in the market. Third, the
software applications are easy to learn and use
within a short time. Fourth, outcomes from an AHP
analysis can be compared with the intuition or
experience of decision-makers and provide insight
into differences. Fifth, AHP allows decision-makers
to conduct sensitivity analysis to test for different
scenarios and conditions of problems. Sixth, the
proposed model mitigates conflicts and promotes
consensus of group decision-making by identifying
reasons of outcomes. Finally, an AHP analysis is
applicable to other issues in regard to choice
ICEIS2012-14thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
140
selection or alternative evaluations.
This study has examined a systematic way of
assessing alternatives of ISDM, which is a complex
and controversial issue. It has endorsed the idea that
good decision-making should focus on objectives
and not on alternatives. It has drawn attention to the
use of the Delphi technique and Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) in evaluating ISDM alternatives in a
complex decision-making process. The purpose of
the ISDM adoption decision model was to find a
better way to assess ISDM alternatives. Both Delphi
technique and AHP have never been used before to
evaluate ISDM in order to select the appropriate ISD
methodology for organizations. The contribution of
this study is not to do just anything that has never
been done before, but something that is important
and better. In this case, it is to apply suitable
techniques that are more effective and can produce
better results.
6 FUTURE RESEARCH
The knowledge gained from conducting the research
relating to ISDM adoption, Delphi technique, and
AHP technique areas can be further developed and
expanded to deal with many prospects. This research
intended to investigate ISDM adoption based on the
views of senior IS managers who were in charge of
IT/IS departments within the surveyed
organizations. Therefore, the investigation was
limited to the UAE and the examined federal higher
education sector in terms of ISDM use, techniques,
IS environment, trend of ISDM adoption, barrier,
etc. The study did not make an effort to investigate
the ISDM practices from the IS developer point of
view. Accordingly, future studies should focus on
the views of those individual IS developers who
work in information system development projects.
Their opinions could differ considerably from that of
their senior IS managers. Future studies on ISDM
practices within the context of developing countries
are highly recommended to manifest the status of
ISDM practices in these countries.
In terms of Decision Making, the proposed
model using Delphi technique and AHP technique is
suitable for evaluation and selection. However, the
best selection does not always guarantee successful
deployment or implementation, nor ensure a good
return on investment. Therefore, this research can be
expanded by using other decision-making techniques
such as System dynamics (SD). Research combining
the three areas of Delphi technique, AHP and SD is
a fruitful area to be developed.
REFERENCES
Avison, D. E., and Fitzgerald, G., 2006. Information
Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques &
Tools, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Avison, D. E., and Fitzgerald, G., 2003. Where Now for
Development Methodologies. Communication of the
ACM 46(1).
Beynon-Davies, P., and Williams, D. M. 2003. The
diffusion of information system development methods.
Journal of Strategic Information System 12: 29-46.G.
Charvat, J., 2003. The Project Management
Methodologies: Selecting, Implementing and
Supporting Methodologies and Processes for Projects,
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Fitzgerald, B., and Russo, L. 2002. Information system
Development: Method in Action", Mcgraw-Hill
education.
Fitzgerald, B., 1998. An empirical investigation into the
adoption of system development methodologies.
Information and Management 34(6): 317-328.
Huisman, M., and Iivari, J., 2006. Deployment of systems
development methodologies: Perceptual congruence
between IS managers and systems developer".
Information & Management 43: 29–49.
Huisman, H. M., and Iivari, J., 2003. Adaptation and the
deployment of systems development methodologies".
Proceedings of the international conference on
computer, communication and control technologies
and the 9th international conference on information
systems analysis and synthesis, Tampa, Florida, USA,
Computing/ Information systems analysis and
synthesis.
Huisman, M., and Iivari, J., 2002. The individual
deployment of systems development methodologies".
Lecture notes in Computer Science, Springer 2348:
134-150.
Huisman, M., and Iivari, J., 2001. The Relationship
Between Organisational Culture and the Deployment
of Systems Development Methodologies". CAiSE:
234-250.
Iivari, J., and Huisman, M., 2001. The relationship
between organisation culture and the deployment of
systems development methodologies. Lecture notes in
Computer Science 2068: 234-250.
Iivari, J., and Maansaari, J., 1998. The usage of systems
development methods: are we stuck to old practices?"
Information and Software Technology 40(9): 501-510.
Rahim, M., and Seyal, A. H., 1998. Use of software
system development methods. An empirical study in
Brunei Darussalam. Information and Software
technology 39: 949-963.
Wynekoop, J. L, and Russo, N. L., 1997. Studying system
development methodologies: an examination of
research methods. Information Systems Journal 7: 47-
65.
InformationSystemsDevelopmentMethodolgiesinaDevelopingHigherEducation
141
