Advertisement

Method Diffusion as a Social Movement

  • Paul Beynon-Davies
  • Michael D. Williams
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 66)

Abstract

This paper describes an investigation into the diffusion of information systems development methods (ISDMs). We portray method diffusion as an instance of technological diffusion. Technological diffusion is normally portrayed within the IS industry as an overtly rational process. In this paper, we postulate that the external diffusion process of ISDMs has many features in common with broader social movements and test a model of knowledge-based diffusion. We use the case of the recent history of the dynamic systems development method (DSDM), a public domain standard methodology for rapid application development (RAD), to illustrate some of the key features of method diffusion processes within a UK context.

Keywords

Social Movement Technological Diffusion External Diffusion Research Information System Information System Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beynon-Davies, P. Information Systems Development: An Introduction to Information Systems Engineering, London: Macmillan, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beynon-Davies, P., Mackay, H., Tudhope, D. S., and Slack, R. “Rapid Application Development: The Future for Business Systems Development?” in Business Information Technology Conference, R. Hackney (ed.), Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, October 20–21, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. (eds.). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. Button, G., and Sharrock, W. “Practices in the Work of Ordering Software Development,” in The Discourse of Negotiation, A. Firth (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1963, pp. 159–180Google Scholar
  5. Chatzoglou, P. D., and Macauley, L. A. “Requirements Capture and IS Methodologies,” Infor-mation Systems Journal (6), 1996, pp. 209–225.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, H. M., Thompson, J. B., and Smith, P. “Experiences in the Use of SSADM: Series of Case Studies. Part 1: First-Time Users,” Information and Software Technology, 1989, pp. 411–426.Google Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald, B. “Formalized Systems Development Methodologies: A Critical Perspective, ”Information Systems Journal (6), 1996, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  8. Fitzgerald, B. “Systems Development Methodologies: A Need for New Canons,” Working Paper, University College, Cork, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Iacono, S., and Kling, R. “Computerization Movements and Tales of Technological Utopianism,” in Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, R. Kling (ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996, pp. 34–56.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, T., and King, S. F. “Flexible Systems for Changing Organizations: Implementing RAD,” European Journal of Information Systems (7), 1998, pp. 61–73.Google Scholar
  11. Kautz, K., and McMaster, T. “The Failure to Introduce System Development Methods: A Factor-Based Analysis,” in Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, L. Levine (ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. Newell, S., Swan, J. A., and Galliers, R. D. “A Knowledge-Focused Perspective on the Diffusion and Adaptation of Complex Information Technologies: The BPS example,” Information Systems Journal (10), 2000, pp. 239–259.Google Scholar
  13. Orlikowski, W. T., and Gash, T. C. “Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (12:2), 1994, pp. 17–207.Google Scholar
  14. Pinch, T. J., and Bijker, W. B. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the`Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, W. J. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (3’ Edition), New York: Free Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. Stapleton, J. DSDM—Dynamic Systems Development Method: The Method in Practice, Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Stolterman, E. “How System Designers Think About Design and Methods: Some Reflections Based on an Interview Study,”Journal of Information Technology (3: 1 ), 1991, pp. 137–150Google Scholar
  18. Suchman, L. A. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. Veryard, R. “Implementing a Methodology,” Information and Software Technology (29: 9 ), 1987, pp. 469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wastell, D. “The Fetish of Technique: Methodology as a Social Defense,” Information Systems Journal (6), 1996, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
  21. Wynekoop, J. L., and Russo, N. L. “Studying System Development Methodologies: An Examination of Research Methods,” Information Systems Journal (7: I ), 1997, pp. 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wynekoop, J. L., and Russo, N. L. “Systems Development Methodologies: Unanswered Questions,” Journal of Information Technology (10), 1995, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Beynon-Davies
    • 1
  • Michael D. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.European Business Management SchoolUniversity of Wales SwanseaSwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations