Home ¦ Research ¦ Project Outputs ¦ People ¦ Links

Information Systems Development Methodologies: Literature Review

(Endnote File of all references available here)

1.  Introduction

 The literature on Information Systems Development Methodologies has reached a point of synthesis. Once, there was debate on how to find the “best” method to develop an Information System. Now, most commentators seem to agree on the following broad principles:

1. There is no best methodology, in fact, the quest for the perfect methodology is a journey of fantasy.
2. Methodologies do have a purpose, but in practice they are never fully followed and are customized depending on unique circumstances.
3. Nevertheless, methodology must not be disregarded completely. It brings certain benefits, and has a rightful place in the Systems Development process.

In light of this synthesis point, much academic literature has moved on into the following areas:

1. A higher level – where researchers examine the philosophical assumptions behind methodologies. In conjunction with this work is the development of concepts and paradigms that underpin debates about methodology.
2. A lower level – where researchers study phenomenon at a more detailed level of analysis such as requirements gathering, use of case tools, project management, etc.
3. New discussions of methodologies that can be applied to specific situations such as web applications, expert systems etc.

The following literature review will discuss in more details the synthesis of the debate, and then it will outline some of the more philosophical papers that have emerged in the field. Next, it will discuss some of the methodologies proposed in recent papers and will close with a discussion of some of the papers that examine the systems development process at a lower level of detail.

2.  Point of Synthesis

Many authors have summed up the arguments for and against the use of methodology. One of the more concise summaries was provided by Fitzgerald (1998a)

He conducted a postal survey of how people adopt and use methodologies. He found that a strong majority report that they don’t use methodologies. When they do, the methodologies are not applied rigorously or uniformly. A unique methodology-in-action is created for each project.

Elsewhere, Fitzgerald et. al (2003) examined this process in more detail through a case study at Motorola, and found that tailoring of the system development methodology occurs initially, and concurrently, as the system is being developed. Nevertheless, the authors argued that the methodology provided a useful framework.

As Nandhakumar and Avison (1999) wrote, IS methodologies are treated as a necessary fiction. The development process “is characterizes by improvisation, opportunism, interruption and mutual negotiation as much as by progress, milestones, planning and management control". They advocate an ecological approach to methodology, similar to Fitzgerald’s (1998b) idea of methodology in action.

What has come to light recently are the organizational constraints on the use of methodologies (Lang et al. 2001) and the dissenting views of methodologies within organizations. Huisman and Iivari (2006) reported that managers are generally more positive than developers about systems development methodologies.

The point of synthesis is expressed well in Avison and Fitzgerald (2003a). The provided an excellent history of the development of methodologies and the emergence of the backlash. They concluded that there will be a diversity of methodologies – and the risk for companies is that they will ignore methodology completely due to the backlash and the lessons of history will be ignored.

These summary points expressed by Avison and Fitzgerald seem to be generally agreed. As such, the academic literature as moved on into adjacent areas. On of these areas is the philosophical underpinnings of methodology.

3.  Philosophical Considerations

Some scholars have argued that most methodologies are too restrictive, especially when authors insist on an all-or-nothing approach (Henderson-Sellers 2001). To address this problem, they argued for Method Engineering, which they claim is a more flexible and inclusive approach to methodology. In some sense it seems like they are calling for methodologies for the development of methodologies.

These are sometimes referred to as “approaches” (see Goulielmos 2004). Juhani Iivari has done some considerable work in this area and has produced a paper that puts forth 5 major IS "approaches" and discusses them in terms of their underlying ontology and epistemology  (Iivari et al. 1998).

In later works, Iivari went further and proposed a new framework or "deep structure" to understand methodologies (Iivari et al. 2001, Iivari and Maasaari 1998). The framework has 4 levels:

1. Paradigms - Concerned with ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics. Examples: Functionalism, Social Relativism, Neo-Humanism, Radical Structuralism.
2. Approaches- Concerned with Goals, Guiding principles. Examples: Information modeling, socio-technical design, object oriented approaches.
3. Methodologies - Relationships between techniques and a detailed ISD process. Examples: structured analysis and design technique, object oriented software engineering.
4. Techniques - Detailed concepts and notations. Examples: data flow diagram, CATWOE, entity-relationship diagram.

The paradigms discussed by Iivari are a direct reference to a classic paper in the field by Hirschheim and Klein (1989), based on the work of Burrell and Morgan. The paper discusses the 4 research paradigms: Functionalism, Radical Structuralism, Social Relativism, Neo-humanism and outlines 4 story-lines on how these philosophical assumptions can impact an information system.

Along the same lines, Kendall and Kendall (1993) looked at how methodology choice is related to the metaphors that stakeholders use to interpret systems. For example, some describe IS development as a game (life-cycle), a journey (prototyping) a machine (CASE tools) a zoo (SSM) or a family (ETHICS). Similarly, Purao et al. (2003) studied how cognitive elements such as structured learning can improved the way we reuse ideas and the way we develop systems. These papers contribute to a more high-level discussion about the cognitive and discursive factors affecting methodology choice.

Vessey and Glass (1998) made a distinction between “Strong” methods designed for one kind of problem and “Weak” methods, designed for many problems. Often many methodologies are used in the same problem. Consistent with the point of synthesis described above, many authors have come to argue that the methodology chosen must be well-suited to the problem at hand (Meso et al. 2006), and can be customized for unique circumstances (Hidding 1997).

4.  Methodologies Revisited

In light of the synthesis point described above, many authors have returned to the study of methodology with a fresh perspective. In some cases, authors would enhance existing methodologies for a new purpose and in light of new philosophical (i.e. interpretivist) assumptions. In other cases, authors would propose new methodologies for certain applications.

Hirschheim and Klein (1994) revisited the debate about methodology and found a need for “emancipatory” methodologies, ones that free us from the shackles of routine and allow us to take into account social systems. He argued that ETHICS can meet this need.

Other fresh looks have found that:

• Critical Success Factors is a useful framework but needs to be extended to include IS attributes and Organizational Goals (Peffers et al. 2003).
• Object-Oriented Approaches are difficult to adopt. In some ways, the transition is revolutionary (Sircar et al. 2001).
• Agile Methodologies are a fad, companies used to doing things in a more formal way will have trouble adapting. Moreover, there are unacknowledged difficulties in embracing agile methodologies or combining them with other methods (Nerur et al. 2005).
• Rapid Application Development has many problems, sometimes bugs get introduced, projects are often badly managed and system are of low-quality and not reusable (Agarwal et al. 2000).
• SSM has a rich and illustrious history (with personal reflections) (Mingers 2000).
• Prototyping is very useful and should be done in certain specific circumstances. (Hardgrave et al. 1999, Doke and Swanson 1995)
• Expert Systems have tremendous potential.  The process of knowledge acquisition can be automated through a tool called "CONIS" Concept Induction System (Tam 1990).

This research tends to be case-study based. Although the findings may be generalisable, they are highly dependent on contextual factors.

The definitive textbook on Information Systems Development Methodologies is by Avison and Fitzgerald (2003b). Within their book, they discusses the major themes surrounding methodologies, and the various frameworks and CASE tools. Their list of methodologies is quite extensive and is presented below.

Other scholars have developed methodologies for specific applications. One example being web applications, which have unique requirements in terms of development time, customer focus, and the importance of the user interface (Vidgen 2002). Some authors have proposed new methodologies for web application development (Standing 2002) or have reformulated previous methodologies for this purpose (Vidgen 2002).

Other authors who have developed application-specific methodologies include:

• (Park et al. 1998) A very detailed methodology with classes and relationships for an ERP function.
• (Liu and Stewart 2004) A new methodology is justified and proposed for the development of DSS - one that includes multicriteria decision making (MCDM) in the content of natural resource management (like water).
• (Howard et al. 2003) A high-level methodology for an EOS or IOS system.
• (Arinze 1991) A contingency model of how to select a DSS Methodology.

While this work is interesting, the inherent contextual nature of this research means that potential for a contribution is limited. In light of the synthesis point described above, it seems reasonable that researchers would move to new ground in order to deliver cutting-edge research. As mentioned, interesting research has been conducted at a higher-level, looking at the philosophical considerations of methodology. Likewise, research has also been developed at a lower-level, examining certain aspects of the systems development process is closer detail.

5.  Detailed aspects of the ISD Methodologies

Case Tools

One aspect of the systems development process that has received considerable attention is the issues surrounding CASE (computer assisted software engineering) tools (for an overview see Vessey et al. 1992). These tools “hard-code” methodology within their instruction set, and so they are central to the development and use of systems development methodologies.

Norman and Nunamaker Jr. (1989) argued that it is the perception of software engineers that CASE tools improve their productivity because they usefully automate certain tasks, and force them to stick to a methodology. Guinan et al. (1998) disagreed, and argued that the success of a project is dependent on technical skill, managerial involvement and low variance in team experience, rather than software development tools and methods.

As CASE tools change and evolve (see Gennari et al. 2003), they bring about unintended consequences. Introducing CASE tools often triggers radical change in organizations (Orlikowski 1993). In time, the CASE tool becomes a “knowledge platform” that shapes how knowledge is produced, stored and interpreted (Purvis et al. 2001).

Requirements Gathering

Another element of systems development methodologies that has received attention is requirements gathering. Liou and Chen (1993) has proposed that an integrated framework for specifying requirements taking into account Joint Application Development (JAD) and CASE tools. Other authors have looked at different ways of gathering requirements, and their fit with various tasks and applications. (Agarwal et al. 1996, Browne and Rogich 2001, Vessey and Conger 1993, Vessey and Conger 1994)

The interest in requirements has led other authors to study other aspects of systems in general and how they relate to requirements gathering. Butcher and Schroeder (1999) studied software volatility, and produced a model to identify a software system's volatile points. Similarly, Xia and Lee (2005) developed concepts and measurements to assess the complexity of an information systems development project.

Other authors have tried to emphasis the importance of security issues at the requirements gathering phase. Villarroel et al. (2005) compared 11 design methodologies that incorporate security and assessed their strengths and weaknesses. Mouratidis et al. (2005) went further and developed a new approach.

Finally, more recent papers have looked at the social aspects of requirements gathering (Salmela 1993) and the need to validate the model with various stakeholders in the system (Shanks et al. 2003).

Social Factors

These social factors have come into view as researchers have started looking into the dark corners of the discipline. In particular, social issues have been raised to the forefront. For example, Sabherwal et al. (2003) examined the phenomenon of project escalation – and why people commit more resources to projects that are in trouble. Other authors looked at IS failures (Yetton et al. 2000) and the lack of learning that occurs because people get defensive and engage in defense-avoidance behavior patterns (Wastell 1999).

Related to system development methodologies, is the issue of user participation. Many have written with enthusiasm about the potential for user participation, but other are skeptical, and see it as a recipe for conflict (Beath and Orlikowski 1994, Webb 1996). The way users and analysts interact can be error-prone. New modes of interaction between these two groups are sorely needed (Salaway 1987).

6.  Conclusion

The debate about methodologies is ongoing, albeit in different contexts. For example, Dekleva (1992) inquired into whether using a methodology can lower maintenance costs in the long run, The answer is not really, but methodologies do reduce emergency correction time, system failures and seem to allow for greater functionality changes as the system ages. However, the impact of methodologies is limited. Some scholars have shown that quality is influenced by management leadership, infrastructure, and process efficacy, not methodology (Ravichandran and Rai 2000).

Work has been done on how to select a methodology (Naumann and Palvia 1982) or how to formalize a methodology (Hofstede and Proper 1998) but it does not go beyond the point of synthesis.

Some general conclusions can be made from the literature on systems development methodologies. It is often technical and organization factors inhibit/facilitate the success of IS development (Lai 1997) and one-size-fits-all methodologies don’t work (Middleton 1999). Yet often, certain business problems are well characterized by a particular methodology or approach (Bennetts et al. 2000).

Major opportunities for future research are in the social sphere: how do people interact with methodology? How does methodology enable or constrain innovation? In many ways, the methodologies we have available today are designed for yesterday’s problems. The challenge is to understand the place of methodology, in the development of future systems.

7.  References

 Agarwal, R., J. Prasad, M. T. Tanniru and J. Lynch (2000) "Risks of Rapid Application Development", Communications of the ACM.

Agarwal, R., A. P. Sinha and M. T. Tanniru (1996) "Cognitive Fit in Requirements Modeling: A Study of Object and Process Methodologies", Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (2).

Arinze, B. (1991) "A Contingency Model of DSS Development Methodology", Journal of Management Information Systems, 8 (1).

Avison, D. E. and G. Fitzgerald (2003) "Where Now for Development Methodologies?" Communications of the ACM, 46 (2).

Avison, D. E. and G. Fitzgerald (2003) Information Systems Development: Methodology, Techniques, and Tools, McGraw Hill Publishing Company, Maidenhead.

Beath, C. M. and W. J. Orlikowski (1994) "The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering." Information Systems Research, 5 (4).

Bennetts, P. D. C., A. T. Wood-Harper and S. Mills (2000) "An Holistic Approach to the Management of Information Systems Development - a View Using a Soft Systems Approach and Multiple Viewpoints", Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13 (2).

Browne, G. J. and M. B. Rogich (2001) "An Empirical Investigation of User Requirements Elicitation: Comparing the Effectiveness of Prompting Techniques", Journal of Management Information Systems, 17 (4).

Butcher, G. and C. Schroeder (1999) "A Model for Addressing Software Volatility in New System Development", Information Sciences, 118.

Dekleva, S. M. (1992) "The Influence of the Information Systems Development Approach on Maintenance", MIS Quarterly, 16 (3).

Doke, E. R. and N. E. Swanson (1995) "Decision Variables for Selecting Prototyping in Information Systems Development: A Delphi Study of MIS Managers", Information and Management, 29.

Fitzgerald, B. (1998a) "An Empirical Investigation into the Adoption of Systems Development Methodologies", Information and Management, 34.

Fitzgerald, B. (1998b) "An Empirically-Grounded Framework for the Information Systems Development Process". in International Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland,

Fitzgerald, B., N. L. Russo and T. O'Kane (2003) "Software Development Method Tailoring at Motorola", Communications of the ACM, 42 (4).

Gennari, J. H., et al. (2003) "The Evolution of Protege: An Environment for Knowledge-Based Systems Development", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58.

Goulielmos, M. (2004) "Systems Development Approach: Transcending Methodology", Information Systems Journal, 14.

Guinan, P. J., J. G. Cooprider and S. Faraj (1998) "Enabling Software Development Team Performance During Requirements Definition: A Behaviour Versus Technical Approach", Information Systems Research, 9 (2).

Hardgrave, B. C., R. L. Wilson and K. Eastman (1999) "Toward a Contingency Model for Selecting an Information System Prototyping Strategy", Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (2).

Henderson-Sellers, B. (2001) "Method Engineering for OO Systems Development", Communications of the ACM, 45 (10).

Hidding, G. J. (1997) "Reinventing Methodology: Who Reads It and Why?" Communications of the ACM, 40 (11).

Hirschheim, R. and H. K. Klein (1989) "Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development", Communications of the ACM, 32 (10).

Hirschheim, R. and H. K. Klein (1994) "Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The Case for Ethics", MIS Quarterly, 18 (1).

Hofstede, A. H. M. t. and H. A. Proper (1998) "How to Formalize IT? Formalization Principles for Information System Development Methods", Information and Software Technology, 40.

Howard, M., R. Vidgen and P. Powell (2003) "Overcoming Stakeholder Barriers in the Automotive Industry: Building to Order with Extra-Organizational Systems", Journal of Information Technology, 18.

Huisman, M. and J. Iivari (2006) "Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies: Perceptual Congruence between IS Managers and Systems Developers", Information and Management, 43.

Iivari, J., R. Hirschheim and H. K. Klein (1998) "A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies", Information Systems Research, 9 (2).

Iivari, J., R. Hirschheim and H. K. Klein (2001) "A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches", Journal of Management Information Systems, 17 (3).

Iivari, J. and J. Maasaari (1998) "The Usage of Systems Development Methods: Are We Stuck to Old Practices?" Information and Software Technology, 40.

Kendall, J. E. and K. E. Kendall (1993) "Metaphors and Methodologies: Living Beyond the Systems Machine", MIS Quarterly, 17 (2).

Lai, L. S. L. (1997) "A Synergistic Approach to Project Management in Information Systems Development", International Journal of Project Management, 15 (3).

Lang, S., M. Masoner and A. Nicolaou (2001) "An Empirical Examination of the Influence of Organizational Constraints on Information Systems Development", International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2.

Liou, Y. I. and M. Chen (1993) "Using Group Support Systems and Joint Application Development for Requirements Specification", Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (3).

Liu, D. and T. J. Stewart (2004) "Object-Oriented Decision Support System Modelling for Multicriteria Decision Making in Natural Resource Management", Computers & Operations Research, 31.

Meso, P., G. Madey, M. D. Troutt and J. Liegle (2006) "The Knowledge Management Efficacy of Matching Information Systems Development Methodologies with Application Characteristics - an Experimental Study." Journal of Systems and Software, 79.

Middleton, P. (1999) "Managing Information System Development in Bureaucracies", Information and Software Technology, 41.

Mingers, J. (2000) "An Idea Ahead of Its Time: The History and Development of Soft Systems Methodology", Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13 (6).

Mouratidis, H., P. Giorgini and G. Manson (2005) "When Security Meets Software Engineering: A Case of Modelling Secure Information Systems", Information Systems Journal, 30.

Nandhakumar, J. and D. E. Avison (1999) "The Fiction of Methodological Development: A Field Study of Information Systems Development", Information Technology & People, 12 (2).

Naumann, J. D. and S. Palvia (1982) "A Selection Model for Systems Development Tools", MIS Quarterly.

Nerur, S., R. Mahapatra and G. Mangalaraj (2005) "Challenges of Migrating to Agile Methodologies", Communications of the ACM, 48 (5).

Norman, R. J. and J. F. Nunamaker Jr. (1989) "Case Productivity Perceptions of Software Engineering Professionals", Communications of the ACM, 32 (9).

Orlikowski, W. J. (1993) "Case Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development", MIS Quarterly.

Park, H. G., et al. (1998) "An Object-Oriented Production Planning System Development in ERP Environment", Computers and Industrial Engineering, 35 (1).

Peffers, K., C. E. Gengler and T. Tuunanen (2003) "Extending Critical Success Factors Methodology to Facilitate Broadly Participatics Information Systems Planning", Journal of Management Information Systems, 20 (1).

Purao, S., V. C. Story and T. Han (2003) "Improving Analysis Pattern Reuse in Conceptual Design: Augmenting Automated Processes with Supervised Learning", Information Systems Research, 14 (3).

Purvis, R. L., V. Sambamurthy and R. W. Zmud (2001) "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation", Organization Science, 12 (2).

Ravichandran, T. and A. Rai (2000) "Quality Management in Systems Development: An Organizational System Perspective", MIS Quarterly, 24 (3).

Sabherwal, R., M. K. Sein and G. M. Marakas (2003) "Escalating Commitment to Information System Projects: Findings from Two Simulated Experiments", Information and Management, 40.

Salaway, G. (1987) "An Organizational Learning Approach to Information Systems Development", MIS Quarterly.

Salmela, H. (1993) "Designing Information Systems for Changing Organizations". in Conference on Computer personnel research, St. Louis, USA,

Schneider, J.-G. and L. Johnston (2005) "Extreme Programming - Helpful or Harmful in Education Undergraduates?" Journal of Systems and Software, 74.

Shanks, G., E. Tansley and R. Weber (2003) "Using Ontology to Validate Conceptual Models", Communications of the ACM, 46 (10).

Sheetz, S. D. and D. P. Tegarden (2001) "Illustrating the Cognitive Consequences of Object-Oriented Systems Development", Journal of Systems and Software, 59.

Sircar, S., S. Nerur and R. Mahapatra (2001) "Revolution or Evolution? A Comparison of Object-Oriented and Structured Systems Development Methods", MIS Quarterly, 25 (4).

Standing, C. (2002) "Methodologies for Development Web Applications", Information and Software Technology, 44.

Tam, K. Y. (1990) "Automated Construction of Knowledge-Bases from Examples", Information Systems Research, 1 (2).

Vessey, I. and S. Conger (1993) "Learning to Specify Information Requirements: The Relationship between Application and Methodology", Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (2).

Vessey, I. and S. Conger (1994) "Requirements Specification: Learning Object, Process and Data Methodologies", Communications of the ACM, 37 (5).

Vessey, I. and R. Glass (1998) "Strong Vs. Weak Approaches to Systems Development", Communications of the ACM, 41 (4).

Vessey, I., S. L. Javenpaa and N. Tractinsky (1992) "Evaluation of Vendor Products: Case Tools as Methodology Companions", Communications of the ACM, 35 (4).

Vidgen, R. (2002) "Constructing a Web Information System Development Methodology", Information Systems Journal, 12.

Villarroel, R., E. Fernandez-Medina and M. Piattini (2005) "Secure Information Systems Development - a Survey and Comparison", Computers & Security, 24.

Wastell, D. G. (1999) "Learning Dysfunctions in Information Systems Development: Overcoming the Social Defenses with Transitional Objects", MIS Quarterly, 23 (4).

Webb, B. R. (1996) "The Role of Users in Interactive Systems Design: When Computers Are Theatre, Do We Want the Audience to Write the Script", Behaviour & Information Technology, 15 (2).

Xia, W. and G. Lee (2005) "Complexity of Information Systems Development Projects: Conceptualization and Measurement Development", Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (1).

Yetton, P., A. Martin, R. Sharma and K. Johnston (2000) "A Model of Information Systems Development Project Performance", Information Systems Journal, 10.