Evaluating Information Systems Development Methods: A New Framework

  • Peter Bielkowicz
  • Preeti Patel
  • Thein Than Tun
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2425)


Our detailed investigation into various approaches to evaluate Information Systems Development methods has shown that numerous attempts to assess these methods only yield inconclusive and questionable results. There are two general trends as to how various criteria for evaluation are organised. There are relatively ad hoc lists of criteria for evaluation, and systematically organised frameworks, which generally provide more authoritative assessment results. However, the frameworks investigated are too generic and disproportionate in their emphases on certain parts of a method. Our initial motivation was the development of a framework for assessment of Component-based Software Development methods. However, in response to the shortcomings in existing approaches to method evaluation, a more generic framework that can be used to evaluate various types of Information Systems Development methods such as object-oriented methods, structured methods etc, is presented in this paper. The proposed framework defines three major elements of a method, namely, System Models, System Development Process and Software Architecture. This paper discusses the technique for evaluation of System Models and due to limitations on length of the paper, discussions on the evaluation of the other two elements are not included.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Booch G., Rumbaugh J., and Jacobson I. (1999). The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen P., and S. Frost. (1998). Component-Based Development for Enterprise Systems: Applying the SELECT Perspective. Cambridge University Press/SIGS Books.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avison D. E. and Fitzgerald G. (1995). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools (2nd Edition). Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bielkowicz P. and Tun T.T. (2001) A Comparison and Evaluation of Data Requirement Specification Techniques in SSADM and the Unified Process. In Proceedings of CAiSE 2001, Interlaken, Switzerland, pp.46–59.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodland M. and Slater C. (1995) SSADM Version 4: A Practical Approach McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong S., Goor G. van den and Brinkkemper S. (1993). A formal approach to the comparison of object-oriented analysis and design methodologies. In Proceedings of the 26th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January, pp. 689–698.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jayaratna N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies: NIMSAD A Systemic Framework. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rumbaugh J., Jacobson I., and Booch G. (1999) The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song X. (1995). A Framework for Understanding the Integration of Design Methodologies. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 20(1) pp. 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waring A. (1996). Practical Systems Thinking. London, UK: International Thompson Business PressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wieringa R. J. (1999). A Survey of Structured and Object-oriented Software Specification Methods and Techniques. ACM Computing Survey, 30(4), pp 459–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Bielkowicz
    • 1
  • Preeti Patel
    • 1
  • Thein Than Tun
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Computing, Information Systems and MathematicsLondon Guildhall UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations