Exploring the concept of method rationale: A conceptual tool to understand method tailoring

Advanced Topics in Database Research

Volumn 5, Issue , 2006, Pages 63-78

  Ågerfalk, Pär J ^a   Fitzgerald, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901547881     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-935-9.ch004     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2004), Turku, Finland.
2. th Information Resources Management Association International Conference (pp. 184-190). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
3. Ågerfalk, P. J., & Goldkuhl, G. (2001). Business action and information modelling: The task of the new millennium. In M. Rossi & K. Siau (Eds.), Information modeling in the new millennium (pp. 110-136). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
4. Ågerfalk, P. J., & Wistrand, K. (2003). 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. Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Where now for development methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 79-82.
6. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (1999). The unified modeling language user guide. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley.
8. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275-280.
9. Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., & Harmsen, F. (1999). Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. Information Systems, 24(3), 209-228.
10. Cameron, J. (2002). Configurable development processes: Keeping the focus on what is being produced. Communications of the ACM, 45(3), 72-77.
11. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(4), 303-331.
12. th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003) (pp. 1-22). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
13. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Eriksén, S. (2002). Designing for accountability. In Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2002) (pp. 177-186). New York: ACM Press.
15. Fitzgerald, B., & Hartnett, G. (2005, May 8-11). A study of the use of agile methods within Intel. In L. M. R Baskerville, J. Pries-Heje, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP 8.6 International Conference on Business Agility and IT Diffusion, Atlanta, GA (pp. 187-202). New York: Springer.
16. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., & O'Kane, T. (2003). Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 65-70.
17. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2002). Information systems development: Methods in action. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
18. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
19. Goldkuhl, G. (1999). The grounding of usable knowledge: An inquiry in the epistemology of action knowledge. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, CMTO Research Papers 1999:03.
20. Harmsen, A. F. (1997). Situational method engineering. Doctoral dissertation, Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
21. Iivari, J., & Maansaari, J. (1998). The usage of systems development methods: Are we stuck to old practice? Information and Software Technology, 40(9), 501-510.
22. Introna, L. D., & Whitley, E. A. (1997). Against method-ism: Exploring the limits of method. Information Technology & People, 10(1), 31-45.
23. Karlsson, F., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2004). Method configuration: Adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology, 46(9), 619-633.
24. Lings, B., & Lundell, B. (2004, April 14-17). Method-in-action and method-in-tool: Some implications for CASE. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2004), Porto, Portugal.
25. MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3/4), 201-250.
26. Nandhakumar, J., & Avison, D. E. (1999). The fiction of methodological development: A field study of information systems development. Information Technology & People, 12(2), 176-191.
27. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (1996). Method rationale in method engineering and use. In S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen & R. Welke (Eds.), Method engineering: Principles of method construction and support (pp. 87-93). London: Chapman & Hall.
28. Parnas, D. L., & Clements, P. C. (1986). A rational design process: How and why to fake it. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12(2), 251-257.
29. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: Routledge & K. Paul.
30. th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2003), Klagenfurt, Austria (pp. 95-110). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
31. Ramesh, B., & Dhar, V. (1992). Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(6), 498-510.
32. 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.
33. Rolland, C., & Prakash, N. (1996). 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). London: Chapman & Hall.
34. Rolland, C., Prakash, N., & Benjamen, A. (1999). A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Engineering, 4(4), 169-187.
35. 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.
36. Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2000). Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies: Their impact on past, present and future ISM research. Information Technology & People, 13(4), 313-327.
37. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with SCRUM. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. th Annual Conference on Methodologies, Lancaster, UK.
40. ter Hofstede, A. H. M., & Verhoef, T. F. (1997). On the feasibility of situational method engineering. Information Systems, 22(6/7), 401-422.
41. 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). London: Chapman & Hall.
42. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.