A Classification of Methodological Frameworks for Computerized Information Systems Support in Organizations

  • John Krogstie
  • Arne Sølvberg
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)


Although many conceptual frameworks for development and maintenance of information systems in organizations have been proposed, we experience a lack of integrated support of the evolutionary nature, the interconnectedness, and the social processes for developing such systems. This paper present a classification of methodological frameworks for evaluating important aspects of methodologies having this in mind. Contrary to most classification frameworks presented in literature which look solely upon different ways of supporting development of new information systems, we have in our framework a broader view, including larger parts of what we term computerized information systems (CIS) support in organizations.

In the end of the paper, we present the result of classifying a set of approaches to CIS-support in organizations described in academia and practice. No methodology is found to be sufficient in all respects, although newer approaches take more aspects into account.


Methodology classification 


  1. Alagappan, V. and Kozaczynski, W. (1991). The evolution of very large systems. In Lowry, M. R. and McCartney, R. D., editors, Automating Software Design, pages 1 - 24, California, USA. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, R. S. and Parker, D. A. (1982). The dimensions of healthy maintenance. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE),pages 10-17 IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  3. Avison, D. E. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1990). Multi view: An Exploration in Information Systems Development. Blackwell, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  4. Basili, V. R. (1990). Viewing maintenance as reuse-oriented software development. IEEE Software, 7(1):19-25.Google Scholar
  5. Bergersen, L. (1990). Prosjektadministrasjon i systemutvikling. Aktiviteter i planlegningsfasen som pâvirker suksess (In Norwegian). PhD thesis, ORAL, NTH, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  6. Blum, B. I. (1994). A taxonomy of software development methods. Communications of the ACM, 37 (11): 82 - 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer, pages 61 - 72.Google Scholar
  8. Boldyref, C., Burd, E. L., and Hather, R. M. (1994). An evaluation of the state of the art for application management. In (Müller and Georges, 1994 ), pages 161 - 169.Google Scholar
  9. Borgida, A., Greenspan, S., and Mylopoulos, J. (1985). Knowledge representation as the basis for requirements specification. IEEE Computer, 18 (4): 82 - 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks Jr., F. P. (1986). No silver bullet. Essence and accidents of software engineering. In Kugler, H. J., editor, Information Processing ’86,pages 1069-1076. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  11. Bubenko jr., J. A. (1983). On concepts and strategies for requirements and information analysis. In Information Modelling,pages 125-169. Chartwell-Bratt Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Burrel, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Heinemann.Google Scholar
  13. Capretz, M. A. M. and Munro, M. (1994). Software configuration management issues in the maintenance of existing system. Journal of Software Maintenance, 6: 1 - 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carey, J. M. (1990). Prototyping: Alternative systems development methodology. Information and Software Technology, 32 (2): 119 - 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley 000 Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, A. M. (1988). A comparison of techniques for the specification of external system behavior. Communications of the ACM, 31 (9): 1098 - 1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, A. M. (1995). Object-oriented requirements to object-oriented design: An easy transition? Journal of Systems and Software, 30 (1/2): 151 - 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, A. M., Bersoff, E. H., and Corner, E. R. (1988). A strategy for comparing alternative software development life cycle models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14 (8): 1453 - 1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dekleva, S. M. (1992a). Delphi study of software maintenance problems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Sofware Maintenance (CSM ’92), pages 10 - 17.Google Scholar
  20. Dekleva, S. M. (1992b). The influence of the information systems development approach on maintenance. MIS Quarterly, pages 355 - 372.Google Scholar
  21. Floyd, C., Reisin, F.-M., and Schmidt, G. (1989). STEPS to software development with users. In Ghezzi, C. and McDermid, J. A., editors, 2nd European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC’89), pages 48 - 63, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.Google Scholar
  22. FRISCO (March 1995). Personal communication with the FRISCO task group.Google Scholar
  23. Gjersvik, R. (1993). The Construction of Information Systems in Organization: An Action Research Project on Technology, Organizational Closure, Reflection, and Change. PhD thesis, ORAL, NTH, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  24. Glass, R. L. (1992). We have lost our way. Journal of Systems and Software, 18 (2): 111 - 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glasson, B. C. (1989). Model of system evolution. Information and Software Technology, 31 (7): 351 - 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenberg, E. S. (1975). The consequences of worker participation: A clarification of the theorethical litterature. Social Science Quarterly, 56 (2).Google Scholar
  27. Hagelstein, J. (1988). A declarative approach to information systems requirements. Knowledge Based Systems, 1 (4): 211 - 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hale, D. P., Haworth, D. A., and Sharpe, S. (1990). Empirical software maintenance studies during the 1980s. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Maintenance (CSM’90),pages 118-123. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heller, F. (1991). Participation and competence: A necessary relationship. In Russel, R. and Rus, V., editors, International Handbook of Participation in Organizations, pages 265 - 281.Google Scholar
  30. Henderson-Sellers, B. and Edwards, J. M. (1990). The object-oriented systems life cycle. Communications of the ACM, 33 (9): 142 - 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirschheim, R. A. (1984). A participative approach to implementing office automation. In Pro- Google Scholar
  32. ceedings from the Joint International Symposium on Information Systems,pages 306-329,Google Scholar
  33. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  34. Hirschheim, R. A. and Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32 (10):pages 1199 - 1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Iivari, J. (1990a). Hierarchical spiral model for information system and software development. Part 1: Theoretical background. Information and Software Technology, 32 (6): 386 - 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iivari, J. (1990b). Hierarchical spiral model for information system and software development. Part 2: Design process. Information and Software Technology, 32 (7): 450 - 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jorgensen, M. (1994). Empirical studies of Software Maintenance. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  38. Jorgensen, M. and Maus, A. (1993). A case study of software maintenance tasks. In Proceedings of Norsk Informatiok Konferanse 1993 (NIK’93), pages 101 - 112, Halden, Norway.Google Scholar
  39. Karlsson (ed.), E.-A. (1995). Software Reuse: A Holistic Approach. John Wiley 000 Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Krogstie, J. (1995). Conceptual Modeling for Computerized Information Systems Support in Organizations. PhD thesis, IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  41. Krogstie, J. and Sglvberg, A. (1994). Software maintenance in Norway: A survey investigation. In (Müller and Georges, 1994), pages 304-313. Received “Best Paper Award”.Google Scholar
  42. Layzell, P. J. and Macauley, L. (1994). An investigations into software maintenance - perception and practices. Software Maintenace: Research and Practice, 6: 105 - 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lientz, B. P. and Swanson, E. B. (1980). Software Maintenance Management. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  44. Loucopoulos, P., McBrien, P., Schumacker, F., Theodoulidis, B., Kopanas, V., and Wangler, B. (1991). Integrating database technology, rule-based systems and temporal reasoning for effective information systems: The TEMPORA paradigm. Journal of Information Systems, 1: 129 - 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lyytinen, K. (1987). A taxonomic perspective of information systems development: Theoretical constructs and recommendations. In Boland Jr, R. J. and Hirschheim, R. A., editors, Critical Issues in Information Systems Research,chapter 1, pages 3-41. John Wiley 000 Sons.Google Scholar
  46. Macauley, L. (1993). Requirements capture as a cooperative activity. In Proceedings of the First Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’93), pages 174 - 181.Google Scholar
  47. METHOD1:89 (1989). FOUNDATION - Method/i, Tools Reference Manual, Version 2.1. Andersen Consulting.Google Scholar
  48. METHOD1:95 (1995). Method/I, System Development Management. Andersen Consulting.Google Scholar
  49. Müller, H. A. and Georges, M., editors (1994). Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’94). IEEE COmputer Society Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mumford, E. (1983). Participation - from Aristotle to today. In Bemelmans, T. M. A., editor,Google Scholar
  51. Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, pages 95-104. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, J. W. and Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12 (2): 174 - 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prieto-Diaz, R. (1993). Status report: Software reuseability. IEEE Software, pages 61 - 66.Google Scholar
  54. Royce, W. W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In Proceedings WESCON.Google Scholar
  55. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., and Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  56. Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Swanson, E. B. and Beath, C. M. (1989). Maintaining Information Systems in Organizations. Wiley Series in Information Systems. John Wiley 000 Sons.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, I. and Nejmeh, B. A. (1992). Definitions of tool integration for environments. IEEE Software, 9 (2): 29 - 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Assche, F., Layzell, R, Loucopoulos, R, and Speltincx, G. (1988). Information systems development: A rule-based approach. Knowledge Based Systems, 1 (4): 227 - 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Swede, V. and van Vliet, H. (1994). Consistent development: Results of a first empirical study of the relation between project scenario and success. In Wijers, G., Brinkkemper, S., and Wasserman, T., editors, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’94), pages 80 - 93, Utrecth, Netherlands. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Wilkie, G. (1993). Object-Oriented Software Engineering - The Professional Developers’s Guide. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, G. B., Mui, C. K., Johnson, B. B., and Alagappan, V. (1988). Software design issues: A very large information systems perspective. Technical report, CStar, Arthur Andersen, Chicago.Google Scholar
  63. Yourdon, E. (1988). Managing the System Life Cycle. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  64. Zave, P. (1982). An operational approach to requirements specification for embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,8(3):250-269.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  • Arne Sølvberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceThe Norwegian Institute of Technology University of TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations