Bridging the Gap between IS Definition and IS Specification

  • R. Lander
  • S. McRobb
  • F. A. Stowell


Fitzgerald (1996) gives a useful overview of the benefits claimed for Information Systems Development Methodologies (ISDMs) which encompassing structured and Object-Oriented (OO) approaches and the problems associated with their use. Humphreys (1989) found that only 3% of companies in the United States could be said to have achieved a level of IS process maturity such that systems were developed using formal documented processes. Yourdon (1992) comments on the majority of software development organisations found in the initial level of maturity “ where anarchy prevails... where programmers consider themselves to be creative artists”. Taylor and Moynihan (1996) suggest reasons for non-use of methods and highlight one case where an informal approach was highly practical—analysts knew the application areas well, designers were skilled in the use of development tools and communication between all parties was rated excellent.


Participatory Design Learning Cycle Soft System Methodology Information System Development Data Flow Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avison, D. and Wood-Harper, A. T., 1990, Multiview: An Exploration in Information Systems Development, Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Avison, D. E. and Fitzgerald, G., 1995, Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2nd ed: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Bjornestad, S., 1994, “A research program for object-orientation”. European Journal of Information Systems, 3 (1):13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bødker, S., Grønbaek, K. and Kyng, M., 1993, “Cooperative design: techniques and experiences from the Scandinavian scene”, in: Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (A. Namioka and D. Shuler, eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N. J.Google Scholar
  5. Burrel, G. & Morgan, G., 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann: London.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., 1990, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., 1995, “Soft Systems Methodology and its relevance to the development of Information Systems”, in: Information Systems Provision: the contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, (F. A. Stowell, ed), McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  8. Checkland, P. and Casar, A., 1986, “Vickers’ concept of an appreciative system: a systemic account”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 13:109–15.Google Scholar
  9. Clement, A. and Van den Besselar, P., 1993, “A retrospective look at participatory projects”, CACM, 36 (4):29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coad, P. and Yourdon, E., 1990, Object-Oriented Analysis, 2nd ed: Yourdon Press / Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, S. and Daniels, J., 1994, Designing Object-Oriented Systems: object-oriented modelling with Syntropy, Prentice-Hall International: Hemel Hempstead.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlbom, B. & Mathiassen, L., 1993, Computers in Context: The Philosophy and Practice of Systems Design, NCC Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. De Raadt, J. D. R., 1989, “Multi-modal System Design: a concern for the issues that matter”, Systems Research, 6(1):17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobbin, T. J. and Bustard, D. W., 1994, “Combining soft systems methodology and object-oriented analysis: the search for a good fit”, Proceedings of the 2 nd Information Systems Methodologies Conference, August 1994, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald, B., 1996, “Formalized systems development methodologies: a critical perspective”, Information Systems Journal, 6, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flood, R. L. and Jackson, M. C., 1991, Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  17. Floyd, C., 1993, “STEPS: A methodical approach to participatory design”, CACM, 36 (4):83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, I., 1994, Object-Oriented Methods, 2nd ed: Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.Google Scholar
  19. Haack, S., 1993, Evidence and Enquiry, Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Howarth, S., 1984, The Way People Work, OUP: Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Humphreys, W., 1989, Managing the Software Process, Addison Wesley: Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Kyng, M., 1995, “Making Representations Work”, CACM, 38 (9):46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lane, D. C., 1994, “With a little help from our friends: how system dynamics and soft OR can learn from each other”, System Dynamics Review, 10 (2–3): 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levin, M., 1996, “The quest for quality in participatory inquiry: a critical reflection on validity”, Forum One: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking, Hull University, April 1996.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, P. J., 1993, “Linking soft systems methodology with data-focused information system development”, Journal of Information Systems, 3, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mingers, J., 1988, “Comparing conceptual models and data flow diagrams”, The Computer Journal, 31 (4):376–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mingers, J., 1995, “Using soft systems methodology in the design of information systems”, in: Information Systems Provision: the contribution of Soft Systems Methodology (F. A. Stowell, ed), McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  28. Mingers, J. and Stowell, F. A. (eds) 1997, Information Systems: an Emerging Discipline? McGraw Hill, Maidenhead (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Prior, R., 1990, “Deriving data flow diagrams from a’ soft systems’ conceptual model”, Systemist, 12 (2):65–75.Google Scholar
  30. Probert, 1996, “The metaphysical foundations of soft and hard information systems methodologies”, UK Operational Research Society Conference 1995.Google Scholar
  31. Probert, S. K., 1997, “The Actuality of Information Systems”, in: The Discipline of Information Systems, (F. A. Stowell and J. Mingers, eds).Google Scholar
  32. Robey, D., Farow, D. L. and Franz, C. R., 1989, “Group Process and Conflict in Systems Development”, Management Science, 15 (10):1172–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W, Eddy, F. and Lorensen, W, 1991, Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice-Hall International: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  34. Savage, A. and Mingers, J., 1996, “A framework for linking soft systems methodology and Jackson System Development”, Information Systems Journal, 6, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stowell, F. A. (ed), 1995, Information Systems Provision, McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  36. Stowell, F. A., 1985, “Experience with soft systems methodology and data analysis”, Information Technology Training, May 1985:48–50.Google Scholar
  37. Stowell, F. A. and West, D. (eds), 1994, Client-Led Design, McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, M. J. and Moynihan, E., 1996, “The Evolution of systems methodologies and why they are sometimes not used”, Research Paper, Liverpool John Moores University.Google Scholar
  39. West, D., Liang, Y. and Stowell, F. A., 1996, “Identifying, selecting and specifying objects in object-oriented analysis: an interpretivist approach”, Proceedings of the Ist UKAIS Conference, Cranfield, April 1996.Google Scholar
  40. Yourdon, E., 1992, The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer, Yourdon Press: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Lander
    • 1
  • S. McRobb
    • 1
  • F. A. Stowell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceDe Montfort University Milton KeynesKents HillUK

Personalised recommendations