The Individual Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies

  • Magda Huisman
  • Juhani Iivari
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2348)


This paper reports results of a survey that investigated factors affecting the deployment of systems development methodologies by individual systems developers. The results show that relative advantage, compatibility and trialability of a systems development methodology, an individual’s experience in systems development and his/her experience in systems development methodologies, management support and peer developer support, and uncertainty about the continued existence of the IS department significantly influence the deployment of systems development methodologies.


Relative Advantage Information System Research Case Tool Software Process Improvement Information System Development 
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.


  1. 1.
    Avison, D. E., Fitzgerald, G. (1995) Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chatzoglou, P. D., Macaullay, L. A. (1996) Requirements capture and IS methodologies, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Warshaw, P. R. (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietrich, G. B., Walz, D. B., Wynekoop, J. L. (1997) The failure of SDT Diffusion: A Case for Mass Customization, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fichman, R. G. (1992) Information Technology Diffusion: A review of empirical research, in DeGross, J. I., Becker, J. D., Elam, J. J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, TX, pp. 195–206Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzgerald, B. (1996) Formalized SDM: a critical perspective, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fitzgerald, B. (1998) An empirical investigation into the adoption of SDM, Information & Management, Vol. 34, pp. 317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D. W. (2000) The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 1, 2000Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ginzberg, M. J. (1981) Key recurrent issues in the MIS implementation process, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green, G. C. and Hevner, A. R., Perceived Control of Software Developers and its Impact on the Successful Diffusion of Information Technology, CMU/SEI-98-SR-013, Carnegie Mellon, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1999, Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hardy, C. J., Thompson J. B., Edwards H. M. (1995) The use, limitations and customization of structured systems development methods in the United Kingdom, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 37, No. 9, pp. 467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heineman, G. T., Botsford, J. E., Caldiera, G., Kaiser, G. E., Kellner, M. L, Madhavji, N. H. (1994) Emerging technologies that support a software process life cycle, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 501–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson, J. C, Cooprider, J. G. (1990) Dimensions of I/S planning and design aids: A functional model of CASE technology, Information Systems Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 227–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., Paulk, M. (1997) Software quality and the Capability Maturity Model, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iivari J. (1996) Why are CASE Tools not used?, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iivari, J., Hirscheim, R., Klein, H. K. (1999) Beyond Methodologies: Keeping up with Information Systems Development Approaches through Dynamic Classification, Proceedings of the 32 nd, Hawaian International Conference on Systems Sciences, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iivari, J. and Huisman, M. (2001) The relationship between organisational culture and the deployment of systems development methodologies, in Dittrich, K., Geppert, A. and Norrie, M. C, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. 234–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Introna, L. D., Whitley, E. A. (1997) Against methodism, Exploring the limits of methods, Information Technology & People, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Isoda, S., Yamamoto, S., Kuroki, H., Oka, A. (1995) Evaluation and Introduction of the Structured Methodology and a CASE Tool, Journal of Systems Software, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., Chervany, N. L. (1999) Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 183–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kwon, T. H., Zmud, R. W. (1987) Unifying the Fragmented Models of Information Systems Implementation, in Boland, R. J., Hirschheim, R. A. (eds.) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 227–251Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee, J., Kim, S. (1992) The relationship between procedural formalization and MIS success, Information and Management, Vol. 22, pp. 89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leonard-Barton, D. (1987) Implementing structured software methodologies: a case of innovation in process technology, Interfaces, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McChesney, I. R., Glass, D. (1993) Post-implementation management of CASE methodology, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moore, G. C, Benbasat, I. (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an Information Technology innovation, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 192–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nandhakumar, J., Avison, D. E. (1999) The fiction of methodological development: A field study of information systems development, Information Technology & People, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 176–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Orlikowski, W. J. (1993) CASE Tools as Organizational change: Investigating Incremental and Radical changes in Systems Development, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peacham, D. (1985) Structured methods-ten questions you should ask, Data Processing, Vol. 27, No. 9, pp. 28–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prescott, M. B., Conger, S. A. (1995) Information Technology Innovations: A Classification by IT Locus of Impact and Research Approach, The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 26, No. 2/3, pp. 20–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rai, A., Howard, G. S. (1994) Propagating CASE usage for Software Development: An Empirical Investigation of Key Organizational Correlates, OMEGA, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roberts, T. L., Hughes, C. T. (1996) Obstacles to implementing a systems development methodology, Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 47, pp. 36–40Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roberts, T. L., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., Rainer, R. K. (1998) Factors that impact implementing a SDM, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 640–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swanson, E. B. (1994) Information Systems Innovation Among Organizations, Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 1069–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tesch, D. B., Klein, G., Sobol, M. G. (1995) Information System Professionals’ Attitudes: Development Tools and Concepts, Journal of Systems Software, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N. (1992) Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools and methodology companions, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wynekoop J.L., Russo NX. (1997) Studying SDM: an examination of research methods, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magda Huisman
    • 1
  • Juhani Iivari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsPotchefstroom University for CHEPotchefstroomSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOulun yliopistoFinland

Personalised recommendations