Towards structured flexibility in information systems development: Devising a method for method configuration

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 51-75

  Karlsson, Fredrik ^a   Par J ^b,c  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Is development approaches; Is development methodologies; Is project management methods and tools; Software development methodologies; Systems development process

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

IS DEVELOPMENT; IS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY; IS PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES; SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 70149106483     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: 15338010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2009070103     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ågerfalk, P. J., Brinkkemper, S., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Karlsson, F., Kelly, S., et al. (2007). Modularization constructs in method engineering: Towards common ground? In J. Ralyté, S. Brinkkemper, & B. Henderson-Sellers (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences (pp. 359-368). Springer.
2. Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Exploring the concept of method rationale: A conceptual tool for method tailoring. In K. Siau (Ed.), Advanced topics in database research (Vol. 5). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
3. Ågerfalk, P. J., & Ralyté, J. (2006). Situational requirements engineering processes: Reflecting on method engineering and requirements practice. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 11(5), 447-450.
4. Ågerfalk, P. J., & Wistrand, K. (2003, April 23-26). Systems development method rationale: A conceptual framework for analysis. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003), Angers, France.
5. Ägerfalk, P. J., Wistrand, K., Karlsson, F., Börjesson, G., Elmberg, M., & Möller, K. (2003). Flexible processes and method configuration: Outline of a joint industry-academia research project. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003), Angers, France.
6. Ambler, S. W. (2002). Agile modelling: Effective practices for eXtreme programming and the unified process. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7. Bajec, M., Vavpotič, D., & Krisper, M. (2006). Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Information and Software Technology, 49(4), 345-365.
8. Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management & Information Technologies, 9, 1-23.
9. Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 90-107.
10. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Braa, K., & Vidgen, R. (1999). 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.
12. Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1996). Key issues in information systems management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi results. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 225-242.
13. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275-280.
14. Cameron, J. (2002). Configurable development processes. Communications of the ACM, 45(3), 72-77.
15. Cockburn, A. (2000). Selecting a project's Methodology. IEEE Software, 64-71.
16. Evans, G. (2003, September). Agile RUP for nonobject- oriented projects. The Rational Edge.
17. Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., & Conboy, K. (2006). Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 197-210.
18. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., & O'Kane, T. (2003). Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 65-70.
19. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2002). Information systems development - methods in action. London: McGraw-Hill.
20. Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., & Seigerroth, U. (1998). Method integration: The need for a learning perspective. IEE Proceedings - Software, 145(4), 113-118.
21. Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (1993). Joint elicitation of problems: An important aspect of change analysis. In D. E. Avison, J. E. Kendall, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Human, organizational, and social dimensions of information systems development (pp. 107-125). North-Holland.
22. Hares, J. S. (1992). Information engineering for the advanced practitioner. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
23. Harmsen, A. F. (1997). Situational method engineering. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants.
24. Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002). Process metamodelling and process construction: Examples using the OPEN process framework (OPF). Annals of Software Engineering, 14(1-4), 341-362.
25. Henderson-Sellers, B., & Serour, M. K. (2005). Creating a dual-agility method: The value of method engineering. Journal of Database Management, 16(4), 1-24.
26. Hirsch, M. (2002). Making RUP agile. In OOPSLA 2002 Practitioners Reports. Seattle, Washington.
27. Karlsson, F. (2005). Method configuration - a systems development project revisited. In A. G. Nilsson, R. Gustas, W. Wojtkowski, W. G. Wojtkowski, S. Wrycza, & J. Zupancic (Eds.), The Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD 2005). Karlstad, Sweden: Springer.
28. Karlsson, F., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2004). Method configuration: Adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology, 46(9), 619-633.
29. Karlsson, F., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2007). Multigrounded action research in method engineering: The MMC case. In J. Ralyté, S. Brinkkemper, & B. Henderson-Sellers (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences (pp. 19-32). Springer.
30. Karlsson, F., Ägerfalk, P. J., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2001, June 4-5). Process configuration with development tracks and generic project types. Paper presented at the 6th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modelling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'01), Interlaken, Switzerland.
31. Karlsson, F., & Wistrand, K. (2004, June 7-8). MC sandbox: Tool support for method configuration. Paper presented at the Ninth CAiSE/IFIP8.1/ EUNO International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'04), Riga, Latvia.
32. Karlsson, F., & Wistrand, K. (2006). Combining method engineering with activity theory: Theoretical grounding of the method component concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 82-90.
33. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 1, 67-94.
34. Kumar, K., & Wellke, R. J. (1992). Methodology engineering: A proposal for situation specific methodology construction. In W. W. Cotterman & J. A. Senn (Eds.), Challenges and strategies for research in systems development (pp. 257-269). Washington, DC: John Wiley & Sons.
35. Lind, M., & Goldkuhl, G. (2006). How to develop a multi-grounded theory: The evolution of a business process theory. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), 69-85.
36. Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People, 15(4), 321-345.
37. McIlroy, M. D. (1968). Mass produced software components. Paper presented at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Conference on Software Engineering, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
38. Mirbel, I., & Ralyté, J. (2006). Situational method engineering: Combining assembly-based and roadmap- driven approaches. Requirements Engineering, 11(1), 58-78.
39. Nilsson, A. G. (1999). The business developer's toolbox: Chains and alliances between established methods. In A. G. Nilsson, C. Tolis, & C. Nellborn (Eds.), Perspectives on business modelling: Understanding and changing organisations (pp. 217-241). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag.
40. Odell, J. J. (1996). A primer to method engineering. In S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, & R. J. Welke (Eds.), Method engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support (IFIP TC8, WG8.7/8.2 Working conference on method engineering). Atlanta, GA.
41. Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., & Rolland, C. (2003). Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In M. M. Johann Eder (Ed.), Advanced information systems engineering, 15th International Conference, CAiSE 2003 2681 (pp. 95-110). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
42. Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., & Davis, F. D. (2002). Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12), 1135-1145.
43. Roberts, T. L., Jr., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., & Rainer, R. K., Jr. (1998). Factors that impact implementing a system development methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(8), 640-649.
44. Rolland, C., Souveyet, C., & Moreno, M. (2006). An approach for defining ways-of-working. Information Systems, 20, 337-359.
45. Rolland, C., & Prakash, N. (1996, August 26-28). A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, & R. Welke (Eds.), Method engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support (pp. 191-208). Chapman & Hall.
46. Rolland, C., Prakash, N., & Benjamen, A. (1999). A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Engineering, 4(4), 169-187.
47. Ropponen, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2000). Components of software development risk: How to address them? A project manager survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(2), 98-112.
48. Rossi, M., Ramesh, B., Lyytinen, K., & Tolvanen, J.-P. (2004). Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(9), 356-391.
49. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
50. Stevens, P., & Pooley, R. (2006). Using UML: Software engineering with objects and components. Essex, England: Addison Wesley.
51. Stolterman, E. (1991). Designarbetets dolda rationalitet: En studie av metodik och praktik inom systemutveckling. Doctoral Dissertation in Swedish, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
52. Stolterman, E., & Russo, N. L. (1997). The paradox of information systems methods: Public and private rationality. Paper presented at the British Computer Society 5th Annual Conference on Methodologies, Lancaster, England.
53. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54. van Slooten, K., & Hodes, B. (1996). Characterizing IS development projects. In S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, & R. Welke (Eds.), Method engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support (pp. 29-44). Chapman & Hall.
55. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
56. Wistrand, K., & Karlsson, F. (2004). Method components - rationale revealed. In A. Persson & J. Stirna (Eds.), The 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004), 3084 (pp. 189-201). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
57. Xiping, S., & Osterweil, L. J. (1998). Engineering software design processes to guide process execution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(9), 759-775.