Is There Only One Systems Development Life Cycle?



This paper contributes to the literature on information systems development life cycle (SDLC) by presenting an enhanced SDLC model, which integrated three interdependent and complementary, but different SDLCs. It is based on integration of the traditional and well-established idea of custom development with package development and commercially off the shelf (COTS) selection and implementation. Package development includes all software made for a market, whereas COTS selection and implementation refers to the selection and implementation of package software. Although there are many similarities between the life cycles, many differences are important to understand. We highlight both the differences and the intersection between the life cycles and outline an integrated SDLC model, which will be used to discuss future research and curricula issues.


Package Development Package Software Life Cycle Model Information System Development Methodological Support 
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.



The authors appreciate the helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers.


  1. Alter, S. (1999) A general, yet useful theory of information systems. Communications AIS 1(13) .Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, B. and Hedman, J. (2006) Issues in the development of a mobile based communication platform for the Swedish Police Force and appointed security guards. 3rd International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Newark.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, R. and Nilsson, A. (1996) The standard application package market – An industry in transition? In: M. Lundeberg and B. Sundgren (Eds.). Advancing Your Business: People and Information Systems in Consert. Sweden: EFI, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  4. Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G. (2006) Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools, 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, B.W. (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer 21(5), 61–72.Google Scholar
  6. Carmel, E. (1997) American hegemony in packaged software trade and the culture of software. The Information Society 13(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmel, E. and Becker, S. (1995) A process model for packaged software development. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management 41(5), 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmel, E. and Sawyer, S. (1998) Packaged software development teams: What makes them different?Information Technology and People11 (1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. George, J. (2000) The origins of software: Acquiring systems at the end of the century. In R. Zmud (Ed.).Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future…Through the Past. Cincinnati, Ohio: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 263–284.Google Scholar
  10. Hedman, J. (2003) On enterprise systems artifacts: Changes in information systems development and evaluation, Doctoral thesis, Department of Informatics, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Sweden. .Google Scholar
  11. Hedman, J. (2004) Understanding ERP implementation methods: The case of ASAP. 27th IRIS, Falkenberg.Google Scholar
  12. Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (1998) A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research 9(2), 164–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lind, M. (2002) Dividing businesses into processes – Foundations for modelling essentials. In: K. Liu, R.J. Clarke, P.B. Andersen, R.K. Stamper, E. Abou-Zeid (Eds.). IFIP TC8/WG8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Markus, L. and Tanis, C. (2000) The enterprise systems experience – From adoption to success. In:R. Zmud (Ed.). Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future…Through the Past. Cincinnati, Ohio: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 173–207.Google Scholar
  15. Regnell, B., Höst, M., Dag och Natt, J., Beremark, P. and Hjelm, T. (2001) An industrial case study on distributed prioritisation in market driven requirements engineering for packaged software. Requirements Engineering 6, 51–62.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosemann, M. (2001) Requirements engineering for enterprise systems. 7th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Sawyer, S. (2000) Packaged software: Implications of the differences from custom approaches to software development. European Journal of Information Systems 9, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sawyer, S. (2001) A market-based perspective on information system development. Communication of the ACM 44(11), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and InformaticsUniversity College of BoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations