Multi-grounded action research in method engineering: The MMC case

IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

Volumn 244, Issue , 2007, Pages 19-32

  Karlsson, Fredrik ^a   Ågerfalk, Pär J ^b,c,d  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c JÖNKÖPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT; METHOD ENGINEERING; RESEARCH APPROACH;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

RESEARCH;

EID: 38049091243     PISSN: 15715736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-73947-2_4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. P.J. Ågerfalk and B. Fitzgerald, in: In Advanced Topics in Database Research, edited by K. Siau (PA: Idea Group, Hershey, 2006), pp. 63-78.
2. S. Brinkkemper, Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools, Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275-280, (1996).
3. S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering, Information Systems 24(3), 209-228, (1999).
4. A.F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering (Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1997).
5. J. Ralyté, R. Deneckère, and C. Rolland, Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 15th International Conference, CAiSE 2003, LNCS 3084, Springer-Verlag, pp.202-218.
6. C. Rolland and N. Prakash, A Proposal For Context-Specific Method Engineering in: Method Engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, and R. Welke (Chapman & Hall, 26-28 August 1996).
7. A.H.M. ter Hofstede and T.F. Verhoef, On the Feasibility of Situational Method Engineering, Information Systems. 22(6/7), 401-422, (1997).
8. D.E. Avison and G. Fitzgerald, Where now for development methodologies? Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM. 46(1), 78, (2003).
9. L.D. Introna and E.A. Whitley, Against Method-ism: Exploring the limits of method, Information Technology & People. 10(1), 31-45, (1997).
10. N.L. Russo and E. Stolterman, Exploring the assumptions underlying inform ation systems methodologies: Their impact on past, present and future ISM research, Information Technology & People. 13(4), 313-327, (2000).
11. F. Karlsson and P.J. Ågerfalk, Method Configuration: Adapting to Situational Characteristics while Creating Reusable Assets, Information and Software Technology. 46(9),61 9-633, (2004).
12. M. Lind and G. Goldkuhl, How to develop a Multi-Ground ed Theory: The Evolution of a Business Process Theory, Australian Journal of Information Systems. 13(2), 69-85, (2006).
13. R. Baskerville and J. Pries-Heje, Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies. 9 1-23, (1999).
14. A.L. Strauss and J.M. Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures fo r developing grounded theory (SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
15. H.K. Klein and M.D. Myers, A Set of Principles for Condu cting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly. 1 67-94, (1999).
16. A.S. Lee, A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies, MIS Quarterly. 13(1), 33-51, (1989).
17. R. Baskerville and A.T. Wood-Harper, Diversity in information systems action research methods, European Journal of Information Systems. 7 90-107, (1998).
18. K. Braa and R. Vidgen, Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 9(1), 25-47, (1999).
19. L. Mathiassen, Collaborative Practice Research, Information Technology & People. 15(4), 321-345, (2002).
20. G. Goldkuhl and A. Röstlinger, Joint elicitation of problems: An important aspect of change analysis, in Human, Organizational, and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, D.E. Avison, J.E. Kendall, and J.I. DeGross, Editors. 1993: North-Holland. p. 107-125.
21. F. Karlsson, P.J. Ågerfalk, and A. Hjalmarsson, Process Configuration with Development Tracks and Generic Project Types in: Proceedings of the 6th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modelling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'01)(4-5 June 2001).
22. F. Karlsson, Method Configuration - A Systems Development Project Revisited in: The Fourteenth International Conference on Informati on Systems Development (lSD 2005), edited by A.G. Nilsson, et al. (Springer, Karlstad, Sweden, 14-17 August, 2005).
23. B. Fitzgerald, N.L. Russo, and E. Stolterman, Information Systems Development - Methods in Action (McGraw-Hill, London, 2002).
24. K. Wistrand and F. Karlsson, Method Components - Rationale Revealed in: The 16th Internation al Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004), edited by A. Persson and J. Stirna (Riga, Latvia, June 7 - 11, 2004).
25. P J. Ågerfalk and K. Wistrand, Systems Development Method Rationale: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003)(Angers, France, 23-26 April 2003).
26. F. Karlsson and K. Wistrand, Combining method engineering with activity theory: Theoretical grounding of the method component concept, European Journal of Information Systems. 15 82-90, (2006).
27. F. Karlsson, Method Configuration - Method and Computerized Tool Support (Linköping University, Linköping, 2005).
28. J. Cameron, Configurable Developm ent Processes, Communications of the ACM. 45(3), 72-77, (2002).
29. P. Stevens and R. Pooley, Using UML - Software Engineering with Objects and Components (Addison Wesley, Essex, England, 2006).