Balanced Scorecard for Method Improvement: Approach and Experiences

  • Kurt SandkuhlEmail author
  • Ulf SeigerrothEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 287)


Modelling methods provide structured guidance for performing complex modelling tasks including procedures to be performed, concepts to focus on, visual representations, tools and cooperation principles. Development of methods is an expensive process which usually involves many stakeholders and results in various method iterations. This paper aims at contributing to the field of method improvement by proposing a balanced scorecard based approach and reporting on experiences from developing and using it in the context of a method for information demand analysis. The main contributions of the paper are (1) a description of the process for developing a scorecard for method improvement, (2) the scorecard as such (as a tool) for improving a specific method, and (3) experiences from applying the scorecard in industrial settings.


Method improvement Balanced scorecard Method engineering Information demand analysis method 


  1. 1.
    Seigerroth, U.: Enterprise Modeling and Enterprise Architecture: the constituents of transformation and alignment of Business and IT. Int. J. IT/Bus. Alignment Gov. (IJITBAG) 2, 16–34 (2011). ISSN 1947-9611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ralyté, J., Backlund, P., Kühn, H., Jeusfeld, Manfred A.: Method chunks for interoperability. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 339–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11901181_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Eng. 11(1), 58–78 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 38(4), 275–280 (1996). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avison, D.E., Fitzgerald, G.: Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wieringa, R., Moralı, A.: Technical action research as a validation method in information systems design science. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 220–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technologies. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry, vol. 75. Sage (1985)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lind, M., Seigerroth, U., Forsgren, O., Hjalmarsson, A.: Co-design as social constructive pragmatism. In: AIS Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag 2008) at International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2008), France (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lundqvist, M., Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U.: Modelling information demand in an enterprise context: method, notation and lessons learned. Int. J. Syst. Model. Design 2(3), 74–96 (2011). IGI PublishingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business Press, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm. Sci. Q. 23(4), 582–603 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering, Doctoral dissertation University of Twente. Moret Ernst & Young, Utrecht, The Netherlands (1997). ISBN 90-75498-10-1Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). ISBN 978-3662437247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldkuhl, G.: The grounding of usable knowledge: an inquiry in the epistemology of action knowledge. In: CMTO Research Papers, No. 1999:03, Linköping University (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluating techniques for system analysis and design modelling methods – a review and comparative analysis. In: Information System Journal. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mooney, J., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K.: A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems, Amsterdam, pp. 17–27 (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parker, M., Benson, R.: Information Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLone, W., McLean, E.: Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.School of EngineeringJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations