The Organisational Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies

It is generally assumed that systems development methodologies (SDM) are used in practice (Saeki, 1998), and there exists a widespread belief that adherence to SDM is beneficial to an organisation (Fitzgerald, 1996; Hardy et al., 1995). Furthermore, organisations are facing a lot of pressure to use SDM (Fitzgerald, 1996). Despite the high investment in the development of SDM and the pressure to use it, their practical usefulness is still a controversial issue (Fitzgerald, 1996; Introna and Whitley, 1997; Nandhakumar and Avison, 1999). While many organisations claim that they do not use any methodologies (Hardy et al., 1995; Chatzoglou and Macauly, 1996; Fitzgerald, 1998), others are using it with positive results (Chatzoglou and Macauly, 1996; Rahim et al.,1998). Apart from this, we do not know why SDM are used or not used, or what factors influence its use and effectiveness.

[1]  Linda A. Macaulay,et al.  Requirements capture and IS methodologies , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[2]  Sasa M. Dekleva,et al.  Measuring Software Engineering Evolution: A Rasch Calibration , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  A method for assessing the software engineering capability of contractors , 1987 .

[4]  David E. Avison,et al.  The fiction of methodological development: a field study of information systems development , 1999, Inf. Technol. People.

[5]  Clifford C. Huff,et al.  Elements of a realistic CASE tool adoption budget , 1992, CACM.

[6]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Beyond methodologies: keeping up with information systems development approaches through dynamic classification , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[7]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings , 1979 .

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

[9]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Formalized systems development methodologies: a critical perspective , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  W. Currie.  Organizational structure and the use of information technology: Preliminary findings of a survey in the private and public sector , 1996 .

[11]  Diane B. Walz,et al.  The failure of SDT diffusion: a case for mass customization , 1997 .

[12]  J. Barrie Thompson,et al.  The use, limitations and customization of structured systems development methods in the United Kingdom , 1995, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  Studying system development methodologies: an examination of research methods , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[14]  Motoshi Saeki,et al.  A meta-model for method integration , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  F. Damanpour.  Organizational Size and Innovation , 1992 .

[16]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[17]  Gail E. Kaiser,et al.  Emerging Technologies that Support a Software Process Life Cycle , 1994, IBM Syst. J..

[18]  John E. Ettlie,et al.  Firm size and product innovation , 1987 .

[19]  T. H. Kwon,et al.  Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation , 1987 .

[20]  Varun Grover,et al.  Empirical Evidence on Swanson's Tri-Core Model of Information Systems Innovation , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  E. B. Swanson,et al.  Information systems innovation among organizations , 1994 .

[22]  Arun Rai,et al.  External information source and channel effectiveness and the diffusion of CASE innovations: an empirical study , 1995 .

[23]  G. Premkumar.  An empirical study of IS planning characteristics among industries , 1992 .

[24]  D. Glass,et al.  Post-implementation management of CASE methodology , 1993 .

[25]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The Relationship Between Organisational Culture and the Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies , 2001, CAiSE.

[26]  James A. Senn,et al.  The other side of case implementation: best practices for success , 1995 .

[27]  David Peacham.  Structured methods — ten questions you should ask , 1985 .

[28]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Arun Rai,et al.  Propagating CASE usage for software development: An empirical investigation of key organizational correlates , 1994 .

[30]  Mary Sumner.  Factors Influencing the Success of Computer-Assisted Software Engineering , 1995 .

[31]  Shuichiro Yamamoto,et al.  Evaluation and introduction of the structured methodology and a CASE tool , 1995, J. Syst. Softw..

[32]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Dimensions of I/S Planning and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[33]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption , 2000, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1992 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION : A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH , 2017 .

[35]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[36]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodology companions , 1992, CACM.

[37]  M. Fleischer,et al.  processes of technological innovation , 1990 .

[38]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Why are CASE tools not used? , 1996, CACM.

[39]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies , 1998, Inf. Manag..

[40]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The Individual Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies , 2002, CAiSE.

[41]  Afzaal H. Seyal,et al.  Use of software systems development methods An empirical study in Brunei Darussalam , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[42]  V. Lai,et al.  An assessment of the influence of organizational characteristics on information technology adoption decision: a discriminative approach , 1997 .