Negotiating a Systems Development Method

Systems development methods (or methods) are often applied in tailored version to fit the actual situation. Method tailoring is in most the existing literature viewed as either (a) a highly rational process with the method engineer as the driver where the project members are passive information providers or (b) an unstructured process where the systems developer makes individual choices, a selection process without any driver. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate that important design decisions during method tailoring are made by project members through negotiation. The study has been carried out using the perspective of actor-network theory. Our narratives depict method tailoring as more complex than (a) and (b) show the driver role rotates between the project members, and design decisions are based on influences from several project members. However, these design decisions are not consensus decisions.

[1]  Kees van Slooten,et al.  On the Adaptation of an Agile Information Systems Development Method , 2005, J. Database Manag..

[2]  Juha-Pekka Tolvanen,et al.  Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets , 2004, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  Trevor Hopper,et al.  What is IT?: SAP, accounting, and visibility in a multinational organisation , 2006, Inf. Organ..

[5]  Colette Rolland,et al.  A proposal for context-specific method engineering , 1996 .

[6]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[7]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[8]  Fredrik Karlsson,et al.  Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  Systems development methodologies: unanswered questions , 1995, J. Inf. Technol..

[10]  A. F. Harmsen,et al.  Situational Method Engineering , 1997 .

[11]  V. Mosco.  Computers and Democracy , 1990 .

[12]  Donald A. Schön.  The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[13]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Software development method tailoring at Motorola , 2003, CACM.

[14]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools , 1996, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  B. Latour.  Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[16]  Keng Siau,et al.  Advanced Topics In Database Research , 2005 .

[17]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[18]  G. Walsham.  Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects , 1997 .

[19]  William E. McCarthy,et al.  Agility---: the key to survival of the fittest in the software market , 2003, CACM.

[20]  Lucas D. Introna,et al.  Against method-ism: Exploring the limits of method , 1997, Inf. Technol. People.

[21]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[22]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The usage of systems development methods: are we stuck to old practices? , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[23]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Explaining Software Developer Acceptance of Methodologies: A Comparison of Five Theoretical Models , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[24]  B. Latour.  Technology is Society Made Durable , 1990 .

[25]  James A. Senn,et al.  Challenges and strategies for research in systems development , 1992 .

[26]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Exploring the Concept of Method Rationale: A Conceptual Tool to Understand Method Tailoring , 2006 .

[27]  J. Law.  A Sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination , 1991 .