Method-in-action and method-in-tool some implications for CASE

ICEIS 2004 - Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 623-628

  Lings, Brian ^a   Lundell, Björn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SKÖVDE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Automated support for methods; CASE tools; IS development method; Method use; Stakeholder triangle

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; MAINTENANCE; PRODUCT DESIGN; PRODUCTIVITY; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

AUTOMATED SUPPORT; INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT (ISD); STAKEHOLDER TRIANGLE; VENDORS;

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT;

EID: 8444241881     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

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, North-Holland, 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. livari, 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 User-Centred 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 Object-Oriented 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.