Intranet facilitated knowledge management: A theory and tool for defining situational methods

  • Marnix Klooster
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
  • Frank Harmsen
  • Gerard Wijers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1250)


The methodical support of large systems development efforts is still problematic, due to the cumbersome access to paper manuals, the lack of modification capabilities, and the inflexible standard project structures. This paper presents a case in which a tool based on intranet technology is used to facilitate the management of systems development knowledge acquired in an empirical research project on situational method definition. A fundamental theory for situational method definition, called the S4 model, has been developed and validated. The S4 model expresses the argumented dependencies of the Situation factors that determine the Succes of a project, to which is contributed by Scenario aspects, that yield a Situational method. This systems development knowledge and experience was captured and recorded according to the ASSUME (Acquisition, Structuring, Storage, Utilization and Maintenance of Expertise) approach for knowledge management. The knowledge acquisition exercise took place in three large organizations for information systems development involving 43 experienced project managers. The collected results of the empirical work were filled in the Mouseion tool, an intranet application with hypermedia facilities (WWW, ftp, newsgroups and search engines) for situational method support to systems development.


Systems development method engineering situational method knowledge management intranet 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. •1.
    August, J.H., Joint application design: The group session approach to system design. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. •2.
    Avison, D.E., and G. Fitzgerald, Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, London, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. •3.
    Berry, D.C. The problem of implicit knowledge In: Expert Systems Vol. 4, pp. 144–151, 1987Google Scholar
  4. •4.
    Boehm, B., and P.N. Pappaccio, Understanding and controlling software costs. In: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-14, No. 10, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. •5.
    Brinkkemper, S., K. Lyytinen and R.J. Welke (Eds.), Method Engineering: principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference. Atlanta, USA. Chapman and Hall. 1996a.Google Scholar
  6. •6.
    Brinkkemper, S., Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Journal of Information and Software Technology, Vol. 38, Nr. 4, pp. 275–280, 1996b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. •7.
    Brulé, J.F. & Blount, A. Knowledge Acquisition McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1989Google Scholar
  8. •8.
    Conklin, J., M.L. Begeman, gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Explanatory Policy Discussions. In: ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 303–331, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. •9.
    Cooke, N. J. Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques In: International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Vol. 41, pp. 801–849, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. •10.
    Euromethod Architecture, Euromethod project deliverable Work Package 3, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. •11.
    Feigenbaum, E.A., & McCorduck, P. The Fifth Generation Pan books, London, 1984Google Scholar
  12. •12.
    Gilb, T., Principles of Software Engineering Management, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. •13.
    Harmsen, F., S. Brinkkemper, H. Oei, A Language and Tool for the Engineering of Situational Methods for Information Systems Development, In: J. Zupancic & S. Wrycza (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISD'94 Conference, pp. 206–214, Bled, Slovenia, 1994aGoogle Scholar
  14. •14.
    Harmsen, F., S. Brinkkemper, H. Oei, Situational Method Engineering for Information System Projects. In: Olle, T.W., and A.A. Verrijn Stuart (Eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS'94, North-Holland, pp. 169–194, Amsterdam, 1994bGoogle Scholar
  15. •15.
    Harmsen, F., I. Lubbers, G. Wijers, Success-driven Selection of Fragments for Situational Methods: The S3 model. In: Pohl, K., and P. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations of Software Quality (REFSQ'95), Aachener Beiträge zur Informatik, Band 13, pp. 104–115, Aachen, 1995aGoogle Scholar
  16. •16.
    Harmsen, F. and S. Brinkkemper, Design and Implementation of a Method Base Management System for a Situational CASE Environment. In: Proceedings of the APSEC'95 Conference, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1995bGoogle Scholar
  17. •17.
    Heym, M., and H. Österle. Computer-aided methodology engineering. In: Information and Software Technology, Vol. 35, pp. 345–354, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. •18.
    Hoffman, R. R., Shadbolt, N. R., Burton, A. M., & Klein, G. Eliciting Knowledge from Experts: A Methodological Analysis In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, Vol. 62, No. 2, May, pp. 129–158, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. •19.
    Humphrey, W.S., Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. •20.
    Isakowitz, T. Hypermedia, information systems, and organisations: A research agenda. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences '93, CA: IEEE Press, 1993Google Scholar
  21. •21.
    Jarke, M., K. Pohl, C. Rolland, J.-R. Schmitt, “Experience-Based Method Evaluation and Improvement: A process modelling approach”. In: Olle, T.W., and A.A. Verrijn Stuart (Eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS'94, North-Holland, pp. 1–27, Amsterdam, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. •22.
    Klooster, M.G.J. Empirical research on the Situational dependency of methods for information systems developments projects, Technical Report, University of Twente, 1996Google Scholar
  23. •23.
    Kumar, K. and R.J. Welke, Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation-Specific Methodology Construction. In: W.W. Cotterman, J.A. Senn (Eds.), Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. •24.
    Lindstrom, D.R., Five Ways to Destroy a Development Project In: IEEE Transactions on Software Egineering, September 1993Google Scholar
  25. •25.
    Marttiin, P., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M., Smolander, K., Tahvanainen V.-P., Tolvanen, J.P., Modeling requirements for future CASE: issues and implementation considerations. In: J.I. DeGross, J.D. Becker, J.J, Elam, Proceedings of the 13th ICIS, Dallas, USA, pp. 9–20, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. •26.
    McCall, R. Mikropolis: a hyprtext system for design, In: Design Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 228–238, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. •27.
    McGraw, K. L., & Harbison-Briggs, K. Knowledge Acquisition: Principles and Guidelines Prentice Hall, New Jesey, 1989Google Scholar
  28. •28.
    Morrison, J. Team memory: Information management for business teams. Proceedings of the twenty-sixth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences '93, CA: IEEE Press, 122–131, 1993Google Scholar
  29. •29.
    NATURE Team, Defining visions in context: models, processes and tools for requirements engineering. Information systems, vol. 21, Nr. 6, pp. 515–548, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. •30.
    Ngwenyama O. K., & Klein, H. K. An exploration of expertise of knowledge workers: towards a definition of the universe of discourse for knowledge acquisition In: Information Systems Journal, Vol. 4, 1994Google Scholar
  31. •31.
    Olle, T.W., J. Hagelstein, I.G. MacDonald, C. Rolland, H.G. Sol, F.J.M. van Assche, A.A. Verrijn-Stuart, Information Systems Methodologies — A Framework for Understanding, 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. •32.
    Parkinson, J., 60 Minute Software — Strategies for Accelerating the Information Systems Delivery Process, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. •33.
    Potts, C. A. Generic Model for Representing Design Methods, In: Proceedings of the 11th conference on software engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, pp. 217–226, 1989Google Scholar
  34. •34.
    Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. Competing for the future, MA: Havard Business School Press, 1994Google Scholar
  35. •35.
    Prakash, N., A Process View of Methodologies. In: G. Wijers, S. Brinkkemper, T. Wasserman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 811, Springer Verlag, pp. 339–352, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. •36.
    Punter, T. and K. Lemmen, The MEMA-model: Towards a new approach for Method Engineering. Information and Software Technology, vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 295–305, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. •37.
    Purba, S., D. Sawh, B. Shah, How to Manage a Successful Software Project Methodologies, Techniques, Tools, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  38. •38.
    Rittel, H. & W. Kunz, Issues as elements of information systems, working paper 131, Center for Planning and Development Research, University of California, Berkeley, 1970Google Scholar
  39. •39.
    Rolland, C., and G. Grosz, A General Framework for Describing the Requirements Engineering Process. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, San Antonio, 1994.Google Scholar
  40. •40.
    Rolland, C., and N. Prakash, A proposal for contextspecific method engineering. In: S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen and R.J. Welke, Method Engineering: Principles of method constructions and tool support. Chapman and Hall, pp. 191–208, 1996.Google Scholar
  41. •41.
    Rossi, M., M. Gustafsson, K. Smolander, L.A. Johansson, K. Lyytinen, Metamodeling Editor as a Front End Tool for a CASE Shell. In: P. Loucopoulos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  42. •42.
    Rumbaugh, J., M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, & W. Lorensen Object-Oriented Modelling and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  43. •43.
    Saeki, M., and K. Wen-yin, Specifying Software Specification and Design Methods. In: G. Wijers, S. Brinkkemper, T. Wasserman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 811, Springer Verlag, pp. 353–366, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  44. •44.
    Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline, The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, 1990Google Scholar
  45. •45.
    Shneiderman, B., Human Values and the Future of Technology: A Declaration of Empowerment. Keynote Address. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computers and the Quality of Life, pp. 1–6, Association for Computing Machinery, 1990.Google Scholar
  46. •46.
    S. Si-Said, S., C. Rolland and G. Grosz, MENTOR: A Computer Aided Requirements Engineering Environment. In: P. Constantopoulos, J. Mylopoulos and Y. Vassiliou (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference CAiSE *96. LNCS 1080, pp. 22–43, Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  47. •47.
    Slooten, K. van, and S. Brinkkemper, A Method Engineering Approach to Information SystemsDevelopment. In: N. Prakash, C. Rolland, B. Pernici (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Information Systems Development Process, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  48. •48.
    Standish Group International, The Chaos Report, 1995. Available from Scholar
  49. •49.
    Swede, V. van, and H. van Vliet, Consistent Development: Results of a first empirical study on the relation between project scenario and success. In: G. Wijers, S. Brinkkemper, T. Wasserman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 811, Springer Verlag, pp. 80–93, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  50. •50.
    Welbank, M. An overview of knowledge acquisition methods, In: Interacting with computers, Vol. 2, 1990Google Scholar
  51. •51.
    Wijers, G.M., P.S. Seligman, & H.G. Sol (1989) Analyzing the structure of I.S. methodologies, an alternative approach In: Proceedings of the First Dutch Conference on Information Systems, November 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marnix Klooster
    • 1
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
    • 2
  • Frank Harmsen
    • 3
  • Gerard Wijers
    • 4
  1. 1.Roccade, RCCHN ApeldoornThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Baan Company R&DBG EdeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Moret Ernst & YoungGC UtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.ID ResearchPV GoudaThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations