Information systems development methodologies are frequently classified according to themes or features. Yet potential users are more concerned with the situations in which different approaches are appropriate. In this paper, five problem situation types are identified: (1) well-structured problem situations with a well-defined problem and clear requirements, (2) well-structured problem situations with clear objectives but uncertain user requirements, (3) unstructured problem situations with unclear objectives, (4) situations where there is a high user interaction with the system and (5) complex problem situations. Typical information systems development methodologies are placed in each of these groups. Some strengths and weaknesses of this classification are discussed. One conclusion is that most projects will fall within the category of complex problem situations, for organizations (and therefore their information systems needs) are invariably complex in terms of the human and social aspects at least as much as any technological ones. The Multiview approach is discussed in more detail because the authors claim it is suitable for such situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshworthC., and GoodlandM. (1990). SSADM: A Practical Approach (McGraw Hill, Maidenhead).
2.
AvisonD.E. (1992). Information Systems Development: A Database Approach, 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead).
3.
AvisonD.E., and FitzgeraldG. (1988). Information systems development: current themes and future directions. Information and Software Technology, 30, 458–466.
4.
AvisonD.E., and FitzgeraldG. (1995). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead).
5.
AvisonD.E., and MyersM. (1995). Information systems and anthropology: an anthropological perspective on IT and organizational culture. Information Technology & People, 8, 43–56.
6.
AvisonD.E., and WilsonD. (1991). Controls for effective prototyping. Journal of Management Systems, SA-58, 41–53.
7.
AvisonD.E., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1990). Multiview: An Exploration in Information Systems Development (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead).
8.
AvisonD.E., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1991). Information systems development research: an exploration of ideas in practice. Computer Journal, 34, 98–112.
9.
AvisonD.E., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1995). Experience of using Multiview: some reflections, in Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, StowellF.A. (ed.) (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead) pp. 102–117.
10.
AvisonD.E., FitzgeraldG., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1988). Information systems development: a tool-kit is not enough. Computer Journal, 31, 458–466.
11.
AvisonD.E., GolderP.A., and ShahH.U. (1992). An SSM toolkit: rich picture diagramming. European Journal of Information Systems, 1, 397–407.
12.
AvisonD.E., Wood-HarperA.T., VidgenR.T., and WoodJ.R.G. (in press) Multiview: An Exploration in Information Systems Development, 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead).
13.
BenyonD., and SkidmoreS. (1987). Towards a tool-kit for the systems analyst. Computer Journal, 30, 2–7.
14.
BoarB.H. (1984). Application Prototyping: A Requirements Definition Strategy for the 80 ‘s (Wiley, New York).
15.
BrinkkemperS., LyytinenK., and WelkeR.J. (eds) (1996). Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support (Chapman & Hall, London).
16.
BubenkoJ.A.Jr., (1986). Information system methodologies -a research view, in Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, OlleT.W., SolH.G., and Verrijn-StuartA.A. (eds) (North Holland, Amsterdam).
17.
ChecklandP.B., and ScholesJ. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action (John Wiley, Chichester).
18.
ChenP.P.S. (1976). The entity-relationship model – toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1, 1.
19.
DanielsA., and YeatesD.A. (1971). Basic Training in Systems Analysis, 2nd edn (Pitman, London).
20.
DanielsA., and YeatesD.A. (1988). Basic Systems Analysis (Pitman, London).
21.
DavisG.B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal, 21, 4–30.
22.
DearnleyP.A., and MayhewP.J. (1983). In favour of system prototypes and their integration into the systems development cycle. Computer Journal, 26, 36–42.
23.
EpiskopouD.M., and Wood-HarperA.T. (1986). Towards a framework to choose appropriate IS approaches. Computer Journal, 29, 222–228.
24.
FitzgeraldG., StokesN., and WoodJ.R.G. (1985). Feature analysis of contemporary information systems methodologies. Computer Journal, 28, 223–230.
25.
GaneC.P., and SarsonT. (1979). Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
26.
IBM (1975). Business systems planning, in Advanged Systems Development/Feasibility Techniques, CougarJ.D., CotterM.A., and KnappR.W. (eds) (Wiley, New York) pp. 236–314.
27.
JacksonM.C., and KeysP. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. Journal of Operations Research, 35, 473–486.
28.
LandF.F., and HirschheimR. (1983). Participative systems design: rationale, tools and techniques. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 10, 91–107.
29.
LundebergM. (1982). The ISAC approach to specification in information systems and its application to the organization of an IFIP working conference, in Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, OlleT.W., SolH.G., and Verrijn-StuartA.A. (eds) (North Holland, Amsterdam) pp. 173–234.
30.
MacdonaldI.G. (1986). Information Engineering, in Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, OlleT.W., SolH.G., and Verrijn-StuartA.A. (eds) (North Holland, Amsterdam).
31.
MaddisonR.N. (ed.) (1983). Information System Methodologies (Wiley, Heyden).
32.
MahmoodM.A. (1987). Systems development methods – a comparative investigation. MIS Quarterly, 11, 293–311.
33.
MartinJ. (1989). Information Engineering: A Trilogy (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
34.
MartinJ. (1991). Rapid Application Development (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
35.
MumfordE. (1995). Effective Requirements Analysis and Systems Design: The ETHICS Method (Macmillan, Basingstoke).
36.
MyersB.A. (1988). Creating User Interfaces by Demonstration (Academic Press, New York).
37.
OligaJ. (1988). Methodological foundations of systems methodologies, in Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, FloodR.L., and JacksonM.C. (eds) (Wiley, Chichester).
38.
OlleT.W., SolH.G., and Verijn-StuartA.A. (eds) (1982). Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review (North Holland, Amsterdam).
39.
PaddockC.E. (1986). A critical view of factors affecting successful application of normative socio-technical systems development approaches. Information and Management, 10, 49–57.
40.
QuangP.T., and Chartier-KastlerC. (1991). Merise in Practice (Macmillan, Basingstoke) (translated by D.E. and M.A. Avison (1989) from the French Merise Appliquée (Eyrolles, Paris).
41.
SchovalP., and PliskinN. (1988). Structured prototyping: integrating prototyping into structural systems development. Information and Management, 14, 19–30.
42.
WastellD. (1996). The fetish of technique: methodology as a social defence. Information Systems Journal, 6, 1.
43.
WilsonB. (1990). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, 2nd edn (Wiley, Chichester) pp. 25–40.
44.
WilsonJ., and RosenbergD. (1988). Rapid prototyping for user interface design, in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, HelenderM. (ed.) (North Holland, Amsterdam).
45.
Wood-HarperA.T., and FitzgeraldG. (1982). A taxonomy of current approaches to systems analysis. Computer Journal, 25, 12–16.
46.
YourdonE. (1988). Managing the Systems Life Cycle (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
47.
YourdonE. (1989). Modern Structured Analysis (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
