Collaborative Practice Research

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

Abstract

This paper reports from a systems development research tradition, which emphasizes relating research activities to practice and establishing fruitful collaboration between groups of researchers and practitioners. The paper describes and evaluates a specific research project in which a large group of researchers and practitioners worked together to understand, support, and improve systems development practice over a period of three years. The case is used to reflect on the research goals, approaches, and results involved in this tradition for researching systems development practice. A combined approach—based on action research, experiments, and conventional practice studies—is suggested as one practical way to strike a useful balance between relevance and rigor in practice research. The paper concludes with a general discussion of the relation between research and practice as well as advice on how to design collaborative research efforts.

Keywords

Systems development research practice collaboration 

References

  1. Aaen, I., Siltanen, A., Sorensen, C., and Tahvanainen, V.-P. “A Tale of Two Countries: CASE Experience and Expectations, ” in The Impact of Computer Technologies on Information Systems Development, K. E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen, and J. I. DeGross (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Aaen, I., Arent, J., Mathiassen, L., O. Nwgenyama, O. “A Conceptual MAP of Software Process Improvement,“ The Computer Journal, 2000, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, C. V., Arent, J., Bang, S., and Iversen, J. “Project Assessments: Supporting Commitment, Participation, and Learning in SPI,” in Proceedings of Thirty-third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, N. E., Kensing, F., Lassen, M., Lundin, J., Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., and Sergaard, P. Professional Systems Development. Experiences, Ideas, and Action. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag (in Danish ), 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, N. E., Kensing, F., Lassen, M., Lundin, J., Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., and Sorgaard, P. Professional Systems Development. Experiences, Ideas, and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Applegate, L. M. “Rigor and Relevance in MIS Research,” MIS Quarterly (23: 1 ), 1999.Google Scholar
  7. Arent, J., and Nerbjerg, J. “SPI as Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Multiple Case Analysis,” in Proceedings of Thirty-third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Argyris, C., and Schön, D. Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. Avison, D. E., and Wood-Harper, A. T. “Information Systems Development Research: An Exploration of Ideas in Practice,” The Computer Journal (34: 2 ), 1991.Google Scholar
  10. Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., and Nielsen, P. A. “Action Research: Making Academic Research Relevant,” Communications of the ACM (42:1), 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Bang, S., Efsen, S., Hundborg, P., Janum, H., Mathiassen, L., and Schultz, C. Quality Management in Systems Development. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag. (in Danish ), 1991.Google Scholar
  12. Bansler, J., and K. Bedker “A Reappraisal of Structured Analysis. Design in an Organizational Context,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (11:2), 1993,Google Scholar
  13. Basili, V. R., and Weiss, D. M. “A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (10), 1984.Google Scholar
  14. Basili, V. R., Selby, R. W., and Hutchens, D. H. “Experimentation in Software Engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (12), 1986.Google Scholar
  15. Baskerville, R., and Wood-Harper, A. T. “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Technology (11), 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Baskerville, R. L., and Stage, J. “Controlling Prototype Development Through Risk Management,” MIS Quarterly (20: 4 ), 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Benbasat, I., Dexter, A. S., and Mantha, R. W. “Impact of Organizational Maturity on Information System Skill Needs,” MIS Quarterly (4: 1 ), 1980.Google Scholar
  18. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly (23: 1 ), 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Bjerknes, G. “Dialectical Reflection in Information Systems Development,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (3), 1991.Google Scholar
  20. Bjerknes, G., and Bratteteig, T. “User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on Systems Development,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (7:1), 1995.Google Scholar
  21. Bjerknes, G., and Mathiassen, L. “Improving the Customer-Supplier Relation in IT Development,” in Proceedings of Thirty-third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. Boehm, B. W., Gray, T. E., and Seewaldt, T. “Prototyping versus Specifying: A Multiproject Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (10:3), 1984.Google Scholar
  23. Boehm, B. W., and Papaccio, P. N. “Understanding and Controlling Software Costs,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (10: 4 ), 1988.Google Scholar
  24. Boland, R. J. “The Process and Product of System Design, ” Management Science (24: 9 ), 1978.Google Scholar
  25. Boland, R. J., and Day, W. “The Process of System Design: A Phenomenological Approach, ” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Systems, M. J. Ginzberg and C. A. Ross (eds.), Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1982.Google Scholar
  26. Boland, R. J., and Hirschheim, R. A. (eds.). Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. Chichester: John Wiley, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. Cash, J. I., Benbasat, I., Kraemer, K. L., and Lawrence, P. R. (eds.). The Information Systems Research Challenge, Volumes 1-3. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: John Wiley, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. Ciborra, C., and Lanzara, G. F. “Formative Contexts and Information Technology: Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation in Organizations,” Accounting, Management and Information Technology (4: 2 ), 1994.Google Scholar
  31. Cotterman, W., and Senn, J. Challenges and Strategies for Research in Information Systems Development. Chichester, England: Wiley Series in Information Systems, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N. “A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems,” Communications of the ACM (31: 11 ), 1988.Google Scholar
  33. Davenport, T. H. Process Innovation—Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. Davenport, T., and Markus, M. L. “Rigor vs. Relevance Revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud,” MIS Quarterly (23: 1 ), 1999.Google Scholar
  35. Elam, J. J., Waltz, D. B., Krasner, H., and Curtis, B. “A Methodology for Studying Software Design Teams: An Investigation of Conflict Behaviors in the Requirements Definition Phase,” Empirical Studies of Programmers. Second Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  36. Emam, K. E., Drouin, J-N., and Melo, W. SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 1998. Google Scholar
  37. Floyd, C. “A Comparative Evaluation of Systems Development Methods,” in Information Systems Design Methodologies. Improving the Practice,T. W. 011e et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986. Google Scholar
  38. Galliers, R. D. “Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Approaches: A Revised Taxonomy,” in Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions,H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991. Google Scholar
  39. Galliers, R. D., and Land, F. F. “Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodologies,” Communications of the ACM(30:11), 1987.Google Scholar
  40. Gould, J. D., and Lewis, C. “Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think,” Communications of the ACM(28:3),1985. Google Scholar
  41. Guindon, R., Krasner, H., and Curtis, B. “Breakdowns and Processes During the Early Activities of Software Design by Professionals,” Empirical Studies of Programmers. Second Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  42. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. “Paradigmatic Influences of Information Systems Development Methodologies: Evolution and Conceptual Advances,” in Advances in Computers (33), M. Yovits (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  43. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., and Lyytinen, K. Information Systems Development and Data Modeling. Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1995a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., and Lyytinen, K. “Exploring the Intellectual Structures of Information Systems Development: A Social Action Theoretic Analysis,” Accounting, Management and Information Technology (6:1-2), 1995b. Google Scholar
  45. Humphrey, W. S. “Characterizing the Software Process,” IEEE Software (5:5, 1988, pp. 73 - 79.Google Scholar
  46. Humphrey, W. S. Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  47. livari, J., and Lyytinen, K. “Information Systems Research in Scandinavia: Unity in Plurality,” in Rethinking Management Information Systems, W. Currie and R. D. Galliers (eds.). London: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  48. Iversen, J., Johansen, J., Nielsen, P. A., and Pries-Heje, J. “Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Methods in Software Process Improvement,” in Proceedings of 1998 European Conference on Information Systems,Aix-en-Provence, France, 1998. Google Scholar
  49. Iversen, J., and Mathiassen, L. “Lessons from Implementing a Metrics Program,” in Proceedings of Thirty-third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2000. Google Scholar
  50. Iversen, J., Mathiassen, L., and Nielsen, P. A. “Risk Management in Software Process Improvement,” in Proceedings of the 1999 European Conference on Information Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.Google Scholar
  51. Iversen, J., Nielsen, P. A., and Norbjerg, J. “Problem Diagnosis in Software Process Improvement,” in Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, T. J. Larsen, L. Levine, and J. I. DeGross (eds.). Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP, 1998, pp. 111 – 130.Google Scholar
  52. Jakobsen, A. B. “Tricks of Bottom-Up Improvements,” IEEE Software, January 1998.Google Scholar
  53. Johansen, J., and Mathiassen, L. “Lessons Learned in a National SPI Effort,” EurOSPI'98, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1998.Google Scholar
  54. Kaiser, K. M., and Bostrom, R. P. “Personality Characteristics of MIS Projects Teams: An Empirical Study and Action-Research Design,” MIS Quarterly (6: 4 ), 1982.Google Scholar
  55. Knuth, D. “The Errors of TEX,” Software—Practice and Experience (19:1), 1989.Google Scholar
  56. Kozar, K. A. “Adopting Systems Development Methods. An Exploratory Study, ” Journal of Management Information Systems (5:4), 1993. Google Scholar
  57. Krasner, H., Curtis, B., and Iscoe, N. “Communication Breakdowns and Boundary Spanning Activities of Software Design by Professionals,” Empirical Studies of Programmers. Second Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  58. Kuvaja, P., Similä, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Saukkonen, S., and Koch, G. Software Process Assessment and Improvement—The Bootstrap Approach. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lee, A. “Rigor and Relevance in MIS Research: Beyond the Approach of Positivism Alone,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999. Google Scholar
  61. Lee, A. S., Liebenau, J., and DeGross, J. I. (eds.). Information Systems and Qualitative Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1997/ Google Scholar
  62. Lyytinen, K. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: On the Relevance of Practice in Thinking of IS Research,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999.Google Scholar
  63. Madabushi, S. V. R., Jones, M. C., and Price, R. L. “Systems Analysis and Design Models Revisited: A Case Study,” Information Resources Management Journal. Winter 1993.Google Scholar
  64. Markus, M. L. “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM(26:7), 1983.Google Scholar
  65. Mathiassen, L. Reflective Systems Development. Unpublished Dr. Techn. Thesis, Aalborg University, 1998a (available at http://www.cs.auc.dk/∼larsm).
  66. Mathiassen, L. “Reflective Systems Development,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (10:1-2),1998b. Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. McFarlan, F. W. The Information Systems Research Challenge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  69. McFeeley, B. IDEAL: A User's Guide for Software Process Improvement. Pittsburgh: SEI Handbook, CMU/SEI-96-HB-001, 1996.Google Scholar
  70. McKeen, J. D. “Successful Development Strategies for Business Application Systems,” MIS Quarterly (7:3),1983. Google Scholar
  71. Mumford, E. Designing Human Systems: The ETHICS Method. Manchester, England: Manchester Business School, 1983.Google Scholar
  72. Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R. A., Fitzgerald, G., and Wood-Harper, A. T. (eds.). Research in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985. Google Scholar
  73. Munk-Madsen, A. Knowledge About Systems Development. MARS Report No. 13. Aarhus University (in Danish), 1986.Google Scholar
  74. Necco, C. R., Gordon, C. L., and Tsai, N. W. “Systems Analysis and Design: Current Practices,” MIS Quarterly (11:4), 1987. Google Scholar
  75. Nielsen, P. A. “Action Research and the Study of IT in Organizations: Making Sense of Change,” Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, 1999.Google Scholar
  76. Nissen, H.-E., Klein, H. K., and Hirschheim, R. A. (eds.). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  77. Nonaka, I. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science (5:1), 1994.Google Scholar
  78. Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., and Purdin, T. D. M. “Systems Development in Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (7: 3 ), 1991.Google Scholar
  79. Nygaard, K., and Bergo, O. T. “The Trade Unions. New Users of Research, ” Personnel Review (4:2), 1975. Google Scholar
  80. Pamas, D. L., and Clements, P. C. “A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (12:2), 1986. Google Scholar
  81. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Curtis, B., and Chrissis, M. B. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  82. Pettigrew, A. M. “Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice,” Organization Science (1: 3 ), 1990.Google Scholar
  83. Robey, D. “Theories that Explain Contradiction: Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Information Systems, J. I. DeGross, G. Ariav, C. Beath, R. Hoyer, and C. Kemerer (eds.), Amsterdam, 1995.Google Scholar
  84. Salaway, G. “An Organizational Learning Approach to Information Systems Development,” MIS Quarterly (11:2),1987. Google Scholar
  85. Selby, R. W, Basili, V. R., and Baker, F. T. “Cleanroom Software Development: An Empirical Evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (13: 9 ), 1987.Google Scholar
  86. Schein, E. K. Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1985.Google Scholar
  87. Schön, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  88. Stolterman, E. “How Systems Designers Think about Design and Methods: Some Reflections Based on an Interview Study,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (4), 1992.Google Scholar
  89. Stowell, F., West, D., and Stansfield, M. “Action Research as a Framework for IS Research,” in Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline, J. Mingers and F. Stowell (eds.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  90. Tan, M. “Establishing Mutual Understanding in Systems Design: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Management Information Systems (10:4), 1994. Google Scholar
  91. Vidgen, R., and Braa, K. “Balacing Interpretation and Intervention in Information Systems 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, pp. 524 - 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vinter, O. “Using Defect Analysis to Initiate the Improvement Process,” in EuroSPI’98,Gothenburg, Sweden, 1998. Google Scholar
  93. Vitalari, N. P. “Knowledge as a Basis for Expertise in Systems Analysis: An Empirical Study,” MIS Quarterly (9: 3 ), 1985.Google Scholar
  94. Vitalari, N. P., and Dickson, G. W. “Problem Solving for Effective Systems Analysis: An Experimental Exploration,” Communications of the ACM(26: 11 ), 1983.Google Scholar
  95. Waltz, D. B., Elam, J. J., and Curtis, B. “Inside a Software Design Team: Knowledge Acquisition, Sharing, and Integration,” Communications of the ACM(36:10), 1993.Google Scholar
  96. White, K. B. “MIS Project Teams: An Investigation of Cognitive Style Implications,” MIS Quarterly (8:2), 1984. Google Scholar
  97. White, K. B., and Leifer, R. “Information Systems Development Success: Perspectives from Project Team Participants,” MIS Quarterly (10: 3 ), 1986.Google Scholar
  98. Wynekoop, J. L., and Russo, N. L. “System Development Methodologies: Unanswered Questions and the Research-Practice Gap,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems, J. I. DeGross, R. P. Bostrom, and D. Robey (eds.), Orlando, Florida, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Mathiassen
    • 1
  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityDenmark

Personalised recommendations