Advertisement

A Revised Perspective on Documentation Practices in the Modern Organisation

  • J. Coady
  • R. Pooley
Conference paper

There are a number of reasons for the use of various methodologies in the development of systems (Broady, Walters & Hartley (1994)), notably a reduction in user dissatisfaction and more effective communication between systems developers and users. These reduce the risk of a new system being presented to its users as a fait accompli. The use of an appropriate modelling paradigm can produce a better end product, improved consistency and the likelihood of improved user acceptance.

Keywords

Technical Artifact Soft System Methodology Information System Research Information System Development Documentation Process 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G. (1988). Information Systems Development, Method-ologies, Techniques and Tools, London: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1996). Organisational Learning П - Theory, Method and Practice. Reading Mass: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1976). Organisational Learning. Reading Mass: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Bednar, P. (1999). Informatics - a working chaos for individuals and organisa-tions. The impact of the notion of IS for System Analysis and Development (in Swedish). Lund: Dept. of Information and Computer Science, Lund University.Google Scholar
  5. Bocij, P., Chaffey, D., Greasley, A. & Hickie, S. (1999). Business Information Systems: Technology, Development & Management, Financial Times Pitman Publishing: London.Google Scholar
  6. Broady, J., Walters, S. and Hartley, R. (1994). “A Review of Information Systems Development Methodologies (ISDMS).” Library Management 15(6), 5-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland, P. & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Sys-tems: Making Sense of The Field, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Clegg, C. et al. (1996). The Performance on Information Technology and the Role of Human and Organizational Factors, Report to the Economic and Social Research Council, UK, Systems Concepts Ltd., Vol. 2 (3). Accessed April 29, 2003 at http://www.system-concepts.com/stds/clegg.html
  9. Coady, J. (2003). Information Systems Documentation: An Empirical Study of Current Practice in Irish Firms, Thesis for Degree of Master of Science of Waterford Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, R. (1988). ‘Review of management information systems research: a man-agement support emphasis’, Information Processing and Management, 24 (1).Google Scholar
  11. Davis, A. (1993). Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States, Prentice Hall: New Jersey.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewar, RG., Pooley, RJ., Lloyd, AD., Ure, J. & Cranmore, A. (2003). Enabling knowledge sharing in collaborative design using a socio-technical pattern lan-guage, 10th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Re-search and Applications, Madeira Island, Portugal, July 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. & Stolterman, E. (2002). Information Systems Develop-ment: Methods in Action. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, M. & Röben, P. (2002). Organisational learning and knowledge sharing: The use, documentation and dissemination of work process knowledge, Paper for The European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) for the European Educational Research Association (EERA) ,LISBON, 11-14th Sep-tember 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Garcia, L. & Quek, F. (1997). ‘Qualitative Research in Information systems: Time to be Subjective?’, Proceedings from the IFIP WG8.2 Working Conference on ‘Information Systems & Qualitative Research’, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Green, P. & Rosemann, M. (2002). ‘Perceived Ontological Weakness of Process Modeling Techniques: Further Evidence’, Paper for The European Confer-ence of Information Systems (ECIS), Poland, June 6th - 8th 2002.Google Scholar
  17. Hirscheim, R.A. & Newman, M. (1991). ‘Symbolism and Information Systems Development: Myth, Metaphor and Magic’, Information Systems Research, 2/1, pp. 29-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mumford, E. (1991). Information Systems Research-Leaking Craft or Visionary Vehicle? In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H.E. Nissen, H.K Klein, R. Hirschheim (Eds) NorthHolland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Nandhakumar J. and Avison D. (1999). The fiction of methodological develop-ment: A field study of information systems development, Information Tech-nology and People, 12, (2), 176-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nissen, H. (1985). Acquiring knowledge of information systems - Research in a methodological quagmire. In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and A.T. Wood-Harper (Eds) Research Methods in Information Systems. NorthHolland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Ossenbrugen, P.J. (1994). Fundamental Principles of Systems Analysis and Deci-sion Making, 1-3, Wiley & Sons Inc., USA.Google Scholar
  22. Stapleton, L. (2001). Information Systems Development: An Empirical Study in Irish Manufacturing Companies, Thesis for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
  23. Wynkoop, J. & Russo, N. (1995). ‘Systems Development Methodologies: Unan-swered Questions’, Journal of Information Technology, 10, pp. 65-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Coady
    • 1
  • R. Pooley
    • 1
  1. 1.School of MACSHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburgh

Personalised recommendations