Limitations and Opportunities of System Development Methods in Web Information System Design

  • Lars Bo Eriksen
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 41)


This article addresses the question of whether traditional object-oriented system development methods can be applied in the transformation of organizations toward web-based dissemination of information. System development methods have traditionally been argued as valuable tools in the process of capturing the complexity of information technology, organizations, and the interplay between the two. Relatively little is known about the application of traditional methods in web-based information system design. This is due partly to the limited history of web use, but also based in the normative argument that traditional methods do not play a significant role in WIS design. Through an action research project, the application of two system development methods (OMT and RMM) is evaluated. The research suggests that system development methods and a “traditional ”IT-system perspective are applicable as a tool to capture central properties of a web information system. However, the use is limited to an interior organizational perspective: that of the information provider. From the audience context, the system development methods used did not provide proper guidance. The research suggests that future research should pursue the goal of providing better support for making and capturing design decisions about IT, individual, and organizational use from the perspective of the audience side.


Web information system system design development methods action research emerging development contexts 


  1. Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., and Nielsen, P. A. “Action Research,” Communications of the ACM (42:1), 1999, pp. 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskerville, R. L., and Stage, J. (1996). “Controlling Prototype Development Through Risk Analysis,” MIS Quarterly (20), December 1996, pp. 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braa, K., and Sorensen, C. “The Internet Factor,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (10:2), 1998, pp. 235–240.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., and Duguid, J. “Keeping It Simple,” in Bringing Design to Software, T. Winograd (ed.). New York: 1996, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  5. Crowston, K., and Williams, M. “Reproduced and Emergent Genres of Communication on the World-Wide Web,” in Proceedings of Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Ehn, P., and Malmborg, L. “The Design Challenge,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (10:2), 1998, pp. 211–218.Google Scholar
  7. Eriksen, L. B., and Ihlström, C. “Evolution of the Web News Genre: The Slow Move Beyond the Print Metaphor,” in Proceedings of Thirty-third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Harmsen, F., Brinkkemper, S., and Oei, H. “Situational Method Engineering for Information System Project Approaches,” in Proceedings ofIFIP WG8. 1 Working Conference on Methods an Associated Tools for the Information System Life Cycle, A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (ed.). Maastrict, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. Horton, W. Designing and Writing Online Documentation. New York: Wiley Technical Communication Library, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. Isakowitz, T., Bieber, M., and Vitali, F. “Introduction to Special Issue on Web Information Systems,” Communications of the ACM (41:7), 1998, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  11. Isakowitz, T., Stohr, E. A., and Balasubramanian, P. “RMM: A Methodology for Structured Hypermedia Design,” Communications of the ACM(38: 8 ), August 1995, pp. 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lau, F. “A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies,” in Information Systems and Qualitative Research, A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (eds.). London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 31–68.Google Scholar
  13. Lyytinen, K. “A Taxonomy Perspective of Information Systems Development: Theoretical Constructs and Recommendations,” in Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, R. J. Boland and R. Hirschheim (eds.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. Mathiassen, L. Reflective System Development. Doctoral thesis, Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Denmark, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P. A., and Stage, J. Object Oriented Analysis and Design. Aalborg: Marko (in Danish; to appear in English ), 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Orlikowski, W. J., and Yates, J. “Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly (39:4), 1994, pp. 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. Rice, J., Farquhar, A., Piernot, P., and Gruber, T. “Using the Web Instead of a Window System,” in Proceedings of CHI’96, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. New York: ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., and Lorensen, W. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. Schwabe, D., and Barbosa, S. D. J. “Navigation Modeling in Hypermedia Applications,” Internal Paper, PUC-rio, Departamento de Informatica, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. Sumner, T., and Taylor, J. “New Media, New Practices: Experiences in Open Learning Course Design,” in Proceedings of CHI’98,Los Angeles. New York: ACM Press, 1998, pp. 432–439.Google Scholar
  22. Susman, G. I., and Evered, R. D. “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research,” Administrative Science Quarterly (23:4), 1978, pp. 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vessey, I., and Glass, R. “Strong vs. Weak Approaches to System Development,” Communications of the ACM (41:4), April 1998, pp. 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vidgen, R., and Braa, K. “Balancing Interpretation and Intervention in Information System Research: The Action Case Approach,” in Information Systems and Qualitative Research, A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (eds.). London: Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. Watters, C., and Shepard, M. “The Role of Genre in the Evolution of Interfaces for the Internet,” in Proceedings of NET’97, 1997 (
  26. Yates, J., and Orlikowski, W. J. “Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media,” Academy of Management Review (17:2), 1992, pp. 299–326.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Bo Eriksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityDenmark

Personalised recommendations