Abstract
Action research is used to gain understanding of how an IS development methodology emerges in practice and how it can contribute to value creation in organizations. The Multiview framework is used to guide the action research project. A graphical notation for mapping the unfolding of IS development projects is developed and applied to the project. Reflection on the project leads to a number of lessons being drawn about the organization of the IS development process, addressing themes such as vision, time pacing, and the role of architecture. The paper concludes with ideas about how the theoretical underpinnings of IS development might be bolstered by complex adaptive systems.
Chapter PDF
References
Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. and Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action Research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97.
Avison, D. E. and Fitzgerald, G. (2002), Information System Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Avison, D. E. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1990). Multiview An Exploration in Information Systems Development, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead.
Avison, D. E., Wood-Harper, A T, Vidgen, R. T. and Wood, J. R. G. (1998). A Further Exploration into Information Systems Development: the evolution of Multiview 2. Information, Technology & People, 11(2), 124–139.
Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (2001). Racing the e-bomb: How the Internet is Redefining Information Systems Development. In: Realigning Research and Practice in Information System Development, (Eds, Russo, L., Fitzgerald, B. and DeGross, J.), IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference, Boise, Idaho, USA, July 27–29
Baskerville, R. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research. Journal of Information Technology, 11 235–246.
Braa, K. and Vidgen, R. (1999). Interpretation, intervention and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information systems research. Accounting, Management & Information Technology, 9(1), 25–47.
Brown, S., and K. Eisenhardt (1998). Competing on the Edge of Chaos. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
Checkland, P. (1991). From Framework through Experience to Learning: the essential nature of Action Research. In: Information Systems Research Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, (Eds, Nissen, H.-E., Klein, H. K. and Hirschheim, R.), North Hoalland, Amsterdam.
Emery, F. E. and Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-Technical Systems. In: Management Sciences, Models and Techniques, Vol. 2 (Eds, Churchman, C. W. and Verhulst, M.), Pergamon, pp. 83–97, Oxford.
Davison, R., Martinsons, M., and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of Canonical Action Research. Information Systems Journal, 14, pp. 65–86.
Fitzgerald B. (1997), The use of Systems Development Methodologies in Practice: A Field Study, Information Systems Journal, 7(3), pp. 201–212
Goodwin, S. and Vidgen, R., (2002). Content, Content Everywhere …. Time to Stop and Think? The Process of Web Content Management. IEEE Computing and Control Engineering Journal, 13(2): 66–70.
Highsmith, J., (2000), Adaptive Software Development a collaborative approach to managing complex systems, Dorset House, NY.
Highsmith, J. (2002).Agile Software Development Ecosystems, Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Jacobsen I., Booch G. and Rumbaugh J. (1999), The Unified Software Development Process, Addison-Wesley.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D., (1993). Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business Review, Sept–Oct, 134–147.
Langley, A., and Truax, J., (1994). A process study of new technology adoption in smaller manufacturing firms. Journal of Management Studies, 31(5): 619–652.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts, Harper, New York.
Miles, M., and Huberman, A., (1984). Qualitative DataAnalysis. Sage, CA
Stolterman E. (1994), The ‘transferof rationality’, acceptability, adaptability and transparency of methods, Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Nijehrode University Press, Breukeln, pp. 533–540.
Streatfield, P., (2001). The Paradox of Control in Organizations. Routledge, London.
Thorp, J., (1998). The Information Paradox. McGraw-Hill, Montreal.
Truex, D. P., Baskerville, R. and Travis, J. (2000). Amethodical Systems Development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 10(1), 53–79.
Vidgen, R. (2002). WISDM Constructing a Web Information System Development Methodology. Information Systems Journal, 12 247–261.
Vidgen, R., Avison, D.E., Wood, R., and Wood-Harper, A.T. (2003), Developing Web Information Systems, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Vidgen, R., & Madsen, S., (2003). Exploring the Socio-Technical Dimension of Information System Development: use cases and job satisfaction. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy, June 19–21.
Watson, H. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1995). Methodology as Metaphor: The Practical Basis for Multiview Methodology (a reply to M. C. Jackson). Information Systems Journal, 5(1), 225–231.
Wood-Harper, A. T., Antill, L. and Avison, D. E. (1985), Information Systems Definition the Multiview Approach, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this paper
Cite this paper
Vidgen, R., Madsen, S., Kautz, K. (2004). Mapping the Information System Development Process. In: Fitzgerald, B., Wynn, E. (eds) IT Innovation for Adaptability and Competitiveness. TDIT 2004. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 141. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8000-X_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8000-X_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-7999-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8000-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive