Multi-Grounded Action Research in Method Engineering: The MMC Case

  • Fredrik Karlsson
  • Pär J. Ågerfalk
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


There appears to be two schools of information systems development methods research that largely pursue their own agendas without many cross-references. On the one hand there is the method engineering research and on the other hand there is the method-in-action research. There seems to be much to be gained from integrating these two schools, developing knowledge that both has the formality (rigor) and reflects its enactment in practice. To achieve this, the research approach adopted has to embrace this duality. In this paper we explore how Multi-Grounded Action Research (MGAR) can contribute to achieving this aim. MGAR has been used in the development of a Method for Method Configuration, a research product that integrates the strengths of both schools.


Action Case Method Component Change Request Method Rationale Configuration Package 
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.
    P.J. Ågerfalk and B. Fitzgerald, in: In Advanced Topics in Database Research, edited by K. Siau (PA: Idea Group, Hershey, 2006), pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Brinkkemper, Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools, Information and Software Technology. 38(4), 275–280, (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering, Information Systems. 24(3), 209–228, (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering (Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Ralyté, R. Deneckère, and C. Rolland, Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 15th International Conference, CAiSE 2003, LNCS 3084, Springer-Verlag, pp.202–218.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Rolland and N. Prakash, A Proposal For Context-Specific Method Engineering in: Method Engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, and R. Welke (Chapman & Hall, 26–28 August 1996).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.H.M. ter Hofstede and T.F. Verhoef, On the Feasibility of Situational Method Engineering, Information Systems. 22(6/7), 401–422, (1997).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.E. Avison and G. Fitzgerald, Where now for development methodologies? Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM. 46(1), 78, (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.D. Introna and E.A. Whitley, Against Method-ism: Exploring the limits of method, Information Technology & People. 10(1), 31–45, (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    N.L. Russo and E. Stolterman, Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies: their impact on past, present and future ISM research, Information Technology & People. 13(4), 313–327, (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    M. Lind and G. Goldkuhl, How to develop a Multi-Grounded Theory: The Evolution of a Business Process Theory, Australian Journal of Information Systems. 13(2), 69–85, (2006).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Baskerville and J. Pries-Heje, Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies. 9 1–23, (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.L. Strauss and J.M. Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures. for developing grounded theory (SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H.K. Klein and M.D. Myers, A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly. 1 67–94, (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.S. Lee, A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies, MIS Quarterly. 13(1), 33–51, (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Baskerville and A.T. Wood-Harper, Diversity in information systems action research methods, European Journal of Information Systems. 7 90–107, (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Braa and R. Vidgen, Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies. 9(1), 25–47, (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Mathiassen, Collaborative Practice Research, Information Technology & People. 15(4), 321–345, (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Goldkuhl and A. Röstlinger, Joint elicitation of problems: An important aspect of. change analysis, in Human, Organizational, and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, D.E. Avison, J.E. Kendall, and J.I. DeGross, Editors. 1993: North-Holland. p. 107–125.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Karlsson, P.J. Ågerfalk, and A. Hjalmarsson, Process Configuration with Development Tracks and Generic Project Types in: Proceedings of the 6th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modelling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD’01)(4–5 June 2001).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Karlsson, Method Configuration-A Systems Development Project Revisited in: The Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD 2005), edited by A.G. Nilsson, et al. (Springer, Karlstad, Sweden, 14–17 August, 2005).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Fitzgerald, N.L. Russo, and E. Stolterman, Information Systems Development-Methods in Action (McGraw-Hill, London, 2002).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Wistrand and F. Karlsson, Method Components-Rationale Revealed in: The 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004), edited by A. Persson and J. Stirna (Riga, Latvia, June 7–11, 2004).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P.J. Ågerfalk and K. Wistrand, Systems Development Method Rationale: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003) (Angers, France, 23–26 April 2003).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Karlsson and K. Wistrand, Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept, European Journal of Information Systems. 15 82–90, (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    F. Karlsson, Method Configuration-Method and Computerized Tool Support (Linköping University, Linköping, 2005).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Cameron, Configurable Development Processes, Communications of the ACM. 45(3), 72–77, (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Stevens and R. Pooley, Using UML-Software Engineering with Objects and Components (Addison Wesley, Essex, England, 2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Karlsson
    • 1
  • Pär J. Ågerfalk
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Methodology Exploration Lab, Dept. of Informatics (ESI)Örebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.Dept. of Information ScienceUppsala UniversitySweden
  3. 3.Jönköping International Business SchoolJönköpingSweden
  4. 4.Lero — The Irish Software Engineering Research CentreUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations