Advertisement

Method Deployment in Small- and Medium-Sized Firms: Addressing the Organizational Context

  • T. Päivärinta
  • E. Å. Larsen
  • L. Ingulfsvann
  • Ø. Kristiansen
Chapter

Abstract

This paper presents results from a grounded theory analysis of method deployment in five small- and medium-sized system development organizations. The study confirms some observations from earlier research, such as the impact of project size and individual attitude and experience of developers. In addition, organizational factors, such as type of business, development goals, history of method use, employee turnover, geographical distribution and customer relationship, may explain method deployment decisions.

Keywords

Customer Preference Customer Relationship Project Coordination Project Size 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.

References

  1. Brinkkemper, S., Lyytinen, K. & Welke, R. K. (eds.) (1996) Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  2. Cockburn, A. (2002) Agile Software Development. Pearson Education, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Fitzgerald, B. (1997) The use of systems development methodologies in practice: A field study. The Information Systems Journal, 7(3), 201–212.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Fitzgerald, B. (1998) An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Information and Management, 34, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L. & Stolterman, E. (2002) Information Systems Development: Methods in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. & O'Kane, T. (2003) Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46 (4), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G. & Conboy, K. (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Hardgrave, B., Davis, F. D. & Riemenschneider, C. K. (2003) Investigating determinants of software developers' intentions to follow methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 123–151.Google Scholar
  10. Humphrey, W., Snyder, T. & Willis, R. (1991) Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, 8 (4), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Introna, L. D. & Whitley, E. A. (1997) Against method-ism: Exploring the limits of method. Information Technology and People, 10(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Rolland, C. & Shmitt, J.-R. (1994) Experience-based method evaluation and improvement: A process modeling approach. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. & Olle, T. W. (eds.), pp. 1–27. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Khalifa, M. & Verner, J. (2000) Drivers for software development method usage. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(3), 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kumar, K. & Welke, R. J. (1992) Methodology engineering: A proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, Cotterman, W. W. & Senn, J. A. (eds.), pp. 257–270. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  15. Lyytinen, K. & Rose, G. M. (2006) Information system development agility as organizational learning. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Madsen, S., Kautz, K. & Vidgen, R. (2006) A framework for understanding how a unique and local IS development method emerges in practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathiassen, L. & Purao, S. (2002) Educating reflective systems developers. Information Systems Journal, 12, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Päivärinta, T., Sein, M. K. & Peltola, T. (2007) From ideals towards practice: Paradigmatic mismatches and drifts in method deployment.Information Systems Journal.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00256.x [online] [Accessed 22, Nov. 2007]. Google Scholar
  19. Russo, N. L. & Stolterman, E. (2000) Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies. Information Technology and People, 13 (4), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stolterman, E. (1992) How system developers think about design and methods. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 3 (1), 137–150.Google Scholar
  21. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Truex, D., Baskerville, R. & Travis, J. (2000) Amethodical systems development: The deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10 (1), 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Whitley, E. A. (1998) Method-ism in practice: Investigating the relationship between method and understanding in Web page design. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Hirschheim, R., Newman, M. & DeGross, J. I. (eds.), pp. 68–75. ICIS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Päivärinta
    • 1
  • E. Å. Larsen
    • 1
  • L. Ingulfsvann
    • 1
  • Ø. Kristiansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems, School of ManagementAgder University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations