5*1. '*l'»*»ijpw^iwv".*s *»* Ytf? ?')@bullet'

Information technology is increasingly an integral part of the competitive strategies for many organizations. As this trend continues, it is not surprising that there is an increasing emphasis placed on the ability oforganizations to plan, design and implement critical information systems. A major strategy to improve the effectiveness of these processes is to utilize computer-based planning and design aids. And yet, there is little empirical evidence that demonstrates a significant performance impact of this technology. One factor limiting research on the impact of technology on planning and design is the manner in which this technology has been conceptualized in order to provide measures of usage behavior. This research develops a functional model of I/S planning and design support technology that distinguishes among three general functional dimensions: Production Technology, Coordination Technology and Infrastructure Technology. An empirical analysis is used to test the robustness of the proposed model and its ability to discriminate between current design aids in a meaningful way. Implications for the use of this model in the study of I/S planning and design processes are discussed.

[1]  Yannis Bakos,et al.  Information Technology and Corporate Strategy: A Research Perspective , 2015, MIS Q..

[2]  K. Hunter,et al.  Making a Case , 2010 .

[3]  Karen Watterson,et al.  Making a case for CASE , 1988 .

[4]  Jahangir Karimi,et al.  A Framework for Comparing Information Engineering Methods , 1988, MIS Q..

[5]  Randall Davis,et al.  Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[6]  C. F. Martin,et al.  Second-generation CASE tools: a challenge to vendors , 1988, IEEE Software.

[7]  Elliot J. Chikofsky,et al.  CASE: reliability engineering for information systems , 1988, IEEE Software.

[8]  Ed Acly,et al.  Looking beyond CASE , 1988, IEEE Software.

[9]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Beyond the chalkboard: computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings , 1988, CACM.

[10]  Carl L. Gordon,et al.  Systems Analysis and Design: Current Practices , 1987, MIS Q..

[11]  A. Nico Habermann,et al.  Software Development Environments , 1987, Computer.

[12]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Coherent Cooperation Among Communicating Problem Solvers , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[13]  John A. Zachman,et al.  A Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1987, IBM Syst. J..

[14]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Using Partial Global Plans to Coordinate Distributed Problem Solvers , 1987, IJCAI.

[15]  David N. Card,et al.  Evaluating Software Engineering Technologies , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[16]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering , 1987 .

[17]  Stuart E. Madnick,et al.  Special Feature: Impact of Schedule Estimation on Software Project Behavior , 1986, IEEE Software.

[18]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Automating Planning Environments: Knowledge Integration and Model Scripting , 1986, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  A. I. Wasserman,et al.  Automated tools in the information system development environment , 1986, Trends in Information Systems.

[20]  Motoei Azuma,et al.  RESEARCH ON WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR SOFTWARE PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT. , 1985 .

[21]  Albert F. Case,et al.  Computer-aided software engineering (CASE): technology for improving software development productivity , 1985, DATB.

[22]  Karen A. Frenkel,et al.  Toward automating the software-development cycle , 1985, CACM.

[23]  Richard R. Rosinski,et al.  Programmer perceptions of productivity and programming tools , 1985, CACM.

[24]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  PLEXSYS-84: An Integrated Development Environment for Informational Systems , 1984, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Donald A. Schön.  Problems, frames and perspectives on designing , 1984 .

[26]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model , 1984 .

[27]  Leland L. Beck,et al.  A Survey of Software Engineering Practice: Tools, Methods, and Results , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[28]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Measures of Perrow's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale , 1983 .

[29]  M. K. Rajaraman.  A characterization of software design tools , 1982, SOEN.

[30]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Recommended: a Minimum Standard Software Toolset , 1982, SOEN.

[31]  L W Fry,et al.  Technology-structure research: three critical issues. , 1982, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[32]  Leon J. Osterweil,et al.  Software Environment Research: Directions for the Next Five Years , 1981, Computer.

[33]  Richard E. Fairley,et al.  Software Development Tools , 1980, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[34]  Phil Semprevivo,et al.  SIM Competition Papers: Incorporating Data Dictionary/Directory and Team Approaches into the Systems Development Process , 1980, MIS Q..

[35]  H. P. Sims,et al.  A Typology for Integrating Technology, Organization, and Job Design , 1980 .

[36]  Chris Gane,et al.  Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques , 1977 .

[37]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[38]  H. Simon,et al.  Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. , 1959 .

[39]  A. Nico Habermann,et al.  A methodology for evaluating environments , 1987, SDE 2.

[40]  Rajiv D. Banker,et al.  Factors Affecting Software Maintenance Productivity: an Exploratory Studyl , 1987, ICIS.

[41]  Ralph H. Sprague,et al.  Building Effective Decision Support Systems , 1982 .

[42]  M. Treacy.  Toward a Behaviorally Grounded Theory of Inforrmation Value , 1981, ICIS.

[43]  Benn R. Konsynski,et al.  An Examination of the Interaction between Technology, Methodology and Information Systems: a tripartite View · , 1980, ICIS.

[44]  Peter G. W. Keen,et al.  Decision support systems : an organizational perspective , 1978 .

[45]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .