Taxonomic Dimensions for Studying Situational Method Development

  • Mehmet N. Aydin
  • Frank Harmsen
  • Jos van Hillegersberg
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


This paper is concerned with fragmented literature on situational method development, which is one of fundamental topics related to information systems development (ISD) methods. As the topic has attracted many scholars from various and possibly complementary schools of thought, different interpretations and understandings of key notions related to method development are present. In this paper, we regard such understandings as both challenges and opportunities for studying this topic. Upon the extensive review of relevant research, this paper shows how this literature fragmentation has resulted in and what needs to be done to make sense of the various understandings for studying situational ISD methods. For the latter, we propose the use of a number of taxonomic dimensions. We argue that these dimensions can help to ease the conduct of literature review and to position disparate research endeavors concerning situational method development properly. In particular, we discuss three basic studies to demonstrate how the taxonomic dimensions can be useful in studying the subject matter.


Method Engineering Requirement Engineer Method Adaptation Information System Development Method Engineer 
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.
    N. Jayaratna, Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies (McGraw-Hill, Berkshire, 1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. van Slooten, Situated Methods for Systems Development, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Twente (1995).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki and F. Harmsen, Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering. CAiSE 1998, 381–400 (1998).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. N. Aydin, F. Harmsen, C. van. Slooten R. A. Stegwee, On the Adaptation of An Agile Information Systems Development Method, Journal of Database Management, Special issue on Agile Analysis, Design, and Implementation, 16(4): 24–40 (2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar and R. J. Welke, Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation-Specific Methodology Construction. in: Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development Method, edited by W. W. Cotterman, J. A. Senn (John Wiley & Sons, 1992).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. van Slooten and B. Schoonhoven, Contingent Information Systems Development, Journal of Systems and Software, 33(2) 153–161 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering (Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, 1997).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.-P. Tolvanen, Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools-Theoretical Principles and Empirical Evidence. Computer Science, Economics and Statistics. ER-Paino Ky, University of Jyväskylä: 301 (1998).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Harmsen, S. Brinkkemper, and H. Oei, Situational Method Engineering for Information Systems Projects. in: Methods and Associated Tools for Information Systems Life Cycle, edited by T. W. Olle and A. V. Stuart (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994) pp.169–194.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Avison and G. Fitzgerald, Reflections on Information Systems Development 1988–2002, in: Information Systems Development-Advances in Methodologies, Components, and Management, edited by M. Kirikova et al. (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002) pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.-P. Tolvanen, M. Rossi, and H. Liu, Method Engineering: Current research directions and implications for future research, in: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen and R. J. Welke (Chapman & Hall: 1996).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. van Hillegersberg and K. Kumar, Using metamodeling to integrate object-oriented analysis, design and programming concepts, Information Systems, 24(2), 113–129 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Kelly, A Matrix Editor for a metaCASE Environment, Information and Software Technology, 36( 6), 361–171 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Lyytinen, A Taxonomic Perspective of Information Systems Development: Theoretical Constructs, in: Critical issues in information systems research, edited by R. J. Boland, R. A. Hirschheim (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1987) pp. 3–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Iivari, R. Hirschheim, and H. K. Klein, A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches, Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 179–218 (2001).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. G. van Offenbeek and P. L. Koopman, Scenarios for system development: matching context and strategy, Behavior & Information Technology, 15(4), 250–265 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. D. Introna and E. A. Whitley Against method: Exploring the limits of method, Information Technology & People, March 10(1), 31–45 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. R. Truex, R. Baskerville, and J. Travis, Amethodical system development: the deferred meaning of systems development method, Accounting, Management & Technology, 10,: 53–79 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. F. Lanzara and L. Mathiassen, Mapping Situations. Information and Management, 8(1): 71–107 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Mathiassen, and J. Stage, The Principle of Limited Reduction in Software Design, Information, Technology and People, 6(2) (1992).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. B. Davis, Strategies for Information Requirements Determination, IBM Systems Journal, 20(1), 4–30 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Rolland, and N. Prakash, A proposal for context-specific method engineering, in: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen and R. J. Welke (Chapman & Hall: 1996) pp.191–208.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Karlsson and P.J. Ågerfalk, Method Configuration: Adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets, Information and Software Technology, 46(9): 619–633 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beck, K. et al., Manifesto for Agile Software Development [Online Web Site]. The Agile Alliance. Available WWW: (2001)
  25. 25.
    P. Abrahamsson, J. Warsta, M. T. Siponen, J. Ronkainen, New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis. ICSE 2003, May 3–10, Portland, Oregon, USA., 244–254 (2003).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Larman, V. R. Basili, Iterative and Incremental Developments: A Brief History, IEEE Computer, 36(6), 47–56 (2003).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Kaltio and A. Kinnula, Deploying the Defined SW Process, Journal of Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 5(1), 65–83 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Henninger and K. Baumgarten, A Case-Based Approach to Tailoring Software Processes. International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Vancouver, Canada, 249–262 (2001).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. Nguyen and P. A. Swatman, Managing the Requirements Engineering Process. Requirements Engineering Journal, 8, 55–68 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    C. Potts and G. Bruns, Recording the reasons for design decisions. the Proceedings of 10th Int. Conf. Software Eng., IEEE Comp. Soc. Press (1998).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Rossi et al., Method Rationale in Method Engineering. Proceedings of the HICSS-33, Maui, HI, IEEE Computer Society (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. van Slooten, B. Hodes, Characterizing IS development projects, in: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen and R. J. Welke (Chapman & Hall: 1996) pp. 29–44.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Ralyté, R. Deneckèr, C. Rolland, Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering. CAiSE 2003, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2003).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    I. Mirbel and J. Ralyté, Situational Method Engineering: Combining assembly-based and roadmap driven approaches, Requirements Engineering 11(1):58–78 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. Hirschheim, H. K. Klein, and K. Lyytinen, Exploring the Intellectual Structures of Information Systems Development: A Social Action Theoretic Analysis. Accounting, Management & Technology 6(1/2), 1–64 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Henderson-Sellers, Method Engineering for OO Systems Development. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 73–78 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. Parr, G. Shanks, and P. Darke, Identification of Necessary Factors for Successful Implementation of ERP Systems. New Information Technologies In Organisational Processes-Field Studies And Theoretical Reflections On The Future Of Work, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 99–119 (1999).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    H C. Lucas, J. Walton, and M. J. Ginzberg, M. J., Implementing Packaged Software., MIS Quarterly, 12(4) 537–549 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. L. Markus et al. Learning from Adopters’ Experiences with ERP-Successes and Problems, Journal of Information Technology, 15(4) (December) 245–265 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    W. J. Kettinger, J. T. C. Teng, and S, Guha, Business Process Change: A Study of Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools, MIS Quarterly, 21(3): 55–80 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Baskerville and J. Stage, Accommodating emergent work practices: Ethnographic choice of method fragments. In realigning research and practice: The social and organisational perspectives, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11–27 (2001).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky, Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making, in: Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions, edited by Bell, Raiffa, and Tversky (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1988).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. N. Aydin, F. Harmsen, Making a Method Work for a Project Situation, in: the Context of CMM, edited by Oivo and Komi-Sirvio, LNCS: 2559, Springer Verlag Berlin, 158–171 (2002).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    G. M. Wijers, Modelling Support in Information Systems Development, Delft University of Technology, Delft (1991).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    M. Leppänen, Conceptual Evaluation of Methods for Engineering Situational ISD Methods, in: Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 11(5), 539–555 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. A. Zachman, A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3) (1987).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    C. van Slooten, Systeemontwikkelingsmethoden (In English: Systems Development Methods) Informatie, 4 (1987).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    R. Baskerville, Structural artifacts in method engineering: the security imperative in: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen and R. J. Welke (Chapman & Hall: 1996) pp. 8–28.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    I. van de Weerd, S. Brinkkemper, J. Souer, and J. Versendaal,. A Situational method for web-based content management system-applications: Method engineering and validation in practice. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 11:521–538 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    T. Tsumaki and T. Tamai. Framework for matching requirements elicitation techniques to project characteristics, Software Process Improvement and Practice, 11, 505–519 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    K. Wistrand and F. Karlsson, Method Components — Rationale Revealed. In: A. Persson and J. Stirna (Eds.). CAiSE 2004, LNCS: 189–201 (2004).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    A. Parr, G. Shanks, and P. Darke, Identification of Necessary Factors for Successful Implementation of ERP Systems. New Information Technologies, in: Organisational Processes-Field Studies and Theoretical Reflections on the Future of Work (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), pp. 99–119.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet N. Aydin
    • 1
  • Frank Harmsen
    • 2
  • Jos van Hillegersberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Change ManagementUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Practice Manager Technology Advisory ServicesCap GeminiThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations