Systems analysis for everyone else: Empowering business professionals through a systems analysis method that fits their needs

18th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Truex, Duane ^a   Alter, Steven ^b   Long, Cherie ^c  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO   (United States)

^c CLAYTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Implementation; Requirements specification; Systems analysis; User participation; Work system method

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS; DESIGN SCIENCE; EAST COAST; IMPLEMENTATION; IS FAILURE; REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATIONS; USER PARTICIPATION; WORK SITES; WORK SYSTEM;

DESIGN; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; ITERATIVE METHODS; MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH; SPECIFICATIONS;

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

EID: 84870631726     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Alter, S. (1995). How should business professionals analyze information systems for themselves? pp. 284-299 in E. Falkenberg, et al, Information System Concepts: Toward a Consolidation of Views, IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Basic Information System Concepts, Marburg, Germany, .
2. Alter, S. (1999). A General, Yet Useful Theory of Information Systems, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(13).
3. Alter, S. (2002). Navigating the Collaboration Triangle, CIO Insight, Jan., pp. 21-27. http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Past-News/Whiteboard-the- Collaboration-Triangle/.
4. Alter, S. (2003). 18 Reasons why IT-Reliant Work Systems Should Replace the IT Artifact as the Core Subject Matter of the IS Field, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(23), 365-394.
5. Alter, S. (2008a). Defining Information Systems as Work Systems: Implications for the IS Field. European Journal of Information Systems (17:5), 448-469.
6. Alter, S. (2008b). Service system fundamentals: work system, value chain, and life cycle, IBM Systems Journal 47(1), 71-85.
7. Beath, C. and W. Orlikowski (1994). The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 350-377.
8. Dennis, A., B.H. Wixom, and D. Tegarden. (2002). Systems Analysis & Design: An Object-Oriented Approach with UML, New York, Ny: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9. Dobing, B. and J. Parsons (2006). How UML is used Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 109-113.
10. Gregor, S. (2006) The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
11. Hevner, A., S.T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.
12. Hoffer, J.A., J.F George, and J.S. Valacich (2008). Modern Systems Analysis and Design, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
13. Kendall, K.E. and J.E. Kendall (2008). Systems Analysis and Design. 7th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
14. Lee, J., and D.P. Truex (2000). Exploring the impact of formal training in ISD methods on the cognitive structure of novice information systems developers, Inform Syst J 10(4), 347-367.
15. Markus, M.L. and J-Y. Mao (2004) Participation in Development and Implementation - Updating An Old, tired Concept for Today's IS Contexts, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(11), pp. 514-544.
16. Mathiassen, L., A. Munk-Madsen, P.A. Neilsen, and J. Stage (2000) Object Oriented Analysis & Design, Aalborg, Denmark: Marko Publishing ApS.
17. Postman, N. (1988) Conscientious Objections: Stirring up trouple about language, technology and Education Vintage Books, New York, 201.
18. Siau, K., J. Erickson, J., and L. Lee (2005) Theoretical versus Practical Complexity: The Case of UML, Journal of Database Management 16(3), 40-57.