Situational Method Engineering

On the Differentiation of “Context” and “Project Type”
  • Tobias Bucher
  • Mario Klesse
  • Stephan Kurpjuweit
  • Robert Winter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


Based on the experience that there cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” method, different situational method engineering approaches are examined in this paper. The result of the analysis shows that “situations” are conceptualized very imprecisely. Therefore, we propose to differentiate between “context” and “project type” in situational method engineering. Especially context is neglected in existing method engineering approaches. To close this gap, we enhance existing method engineering processes by adding three steps to facilitate the identification of context factors and project type factors, enabling the engineering of both contextual and project type-specific methods. Furthermore, we propose a set of extensions to the method engineering meta model that allow the method engineer to differentiate between “context” and “project type” in describing situational methods.


Method Engineering Meta Model Project Type Situational Characteristic 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.

7 References

  1. 1.
    H.A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.R. Hevner, S.T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, Design Science in Information Systems Research, MS Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 75–105 (2004).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.T. March and G.F. Smith, Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology, Decision Support Systems, 15(4), pp. 251–266 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.G. Walls, G.R. Widmeyer, and O.A. El Sawy, Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research, 3(1), pp. 36–59 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Brinkkemper, Method Engineering-Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools, Information and Software Technology, 38, pp. 275–280 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Alter, Work Systems and IT Artifacts-Does the Definition Matter?, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(14), pp. 299–313 (2006).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Alter, 18 Reasons Why IT-reliant Work Systems Should Replace “The IT Artifact” as the Core Subject Matter of the IS Field, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(23), pp. 366–395 (2003).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering (Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Kumar and R.J. Welke, Methodology Engineering-A Proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Construction, in: Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, edited by W. Cotterman and J.A. Senn (John Wiley & Sons, 1992), pp. 257–269.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. van Slooten and B. Hodes, Characterizing IS Development Projects, in: Method Engineering-Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lytinnen, and R.J. Welke (Chapman & Hall, 1996), pp. 29–44.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F.E. Fiedler, A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, pp. 149–190 (1964).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Arinze, A Contingency Model of DSS Development Methodology, Journal of Management Information Systems, 8(1), pp. 149–166 (1991).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.J. Schonberger, MIS Design-A Contingency Approach, MIS Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 13–20 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Weill and M.H. Olson, An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), pp. 59–85 (1989).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Bucher and M. Klesse, Contextual Method Engineering, University of St. Gallen, Institute of Information Management, Working Paper, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Heym, Methoden-Engineering-Spezifikation und Integration von Entwicklungsme-thoden für Informationssysteme, University of St. Gallen, Ph.D. Thesis, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Gutzwiller, Das CC RIM-Referenzmodell für den Entwurf von betrieblichen, transaktionsorientierten Informationssystemen (Physica, Heidelberg, 1994).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Bucher, S. Kurpjuweit, and B. Dinter, Risikomanagement im Data Warehousing-Situative Komposition einer methodischen Vorgehensweise, in: DW2006-Integration, Informationslogistik und Architektur, edited by J. Schelp, R. Winter, U. Frank, B. Rieger, and K. Turowski (Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 2006), pp. 35–59.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Karlsson and P.J. Ågerfalk, Method Configuration-Adapting to Situational Characteristics while Creating Reusable Assets, Information and Software Technology, 46(9), pp. 619–633 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Karlsson, P.J. Ågerfalk, and A. Hjalmarsson, Method Configuration with Development Tracks and Generic Project Types, Paper Accepted for the 6th CAiSE/IFlP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in System Analysis and Design (EMM-SAD’01),, 2001.
  21. 21.
    U. Baumoel, Strategic Agility through Situational Method Construction, in: Proceedings of the European Academy of Management Annual Conference (EURAM2005), edited by R. Reichwald and A.S. Huff (, 2005).
  22. 22.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’98), Springer, LNCS 1413, 1998, pp. 381–400.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Punter and K. Lemmen, The MEMA-Model-Towards a New Approach for Method Engineering, Information and Software Technology, 38(4), pp. 295–305 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Ralyté, Ingénierie des Méthodes a base de Composants, Université Paris 1-Sorbonne, Ph.D. Thesis, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    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. Lytinnen, and R.J. Welke (Chapman & Hall, 1996), pp. 191–207.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L.J.B. Essink, A Modelling Approach to Information System Development, in: Information Systems Design Methodologies-Improving the Practice, edited by T.W. Olle, H.G. Sol, and A.A.V. Stuart (North-Holland, 1986).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L.J.B. Essink, A Conceptual Framework for Information Systems Development Methodologies, in: First European Conference on Information Technology for Organizational Systems (EurInfo 1988), edited by H.J. Bullinger (North-Holland, 1988).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Franckson, The Euromethod Deliverable Model and Its Contribution to the Objectves of Euromethod, in: IFIP-TC8 International Conference on Methods and Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, edited by A.A.V. Stuart and T.W. Olle (North-Holland, 1994), pp. 131–149.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Braun, F. Wortmann, M. Hafner, and R. Winter, Method Construction-A Core Approach to Organizational Engineering, in: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2005), edited by H.L. Haddad, Lorie M.; Omicini, Andrea; Wainwright, Roger L. (ACM, Santa Fe, 2005), pp. 1295–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    N. Prakash, On Method Statics and Dynamics, Information Systems Journal, 24(8), pp. 613–637(1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Truex and D. Avison, Method Engineering-Reflections on the Past and Ways Forward, Proceedings of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Ruegg-Stuerm, Das neue St. Galler Management-Modell-Grundkategorien einer integ-rierten Managementlehre (Paul Haupt, Bern, 2002).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    W.H. Inmon, Building the Data Warehouse (Wiley, New York, 2002).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W.H. Inmon, J.D. Welch, and K.L. Glassey, Managing the Data Warehouse (Wiley, New York, 1997).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. Kachur, Data Warehouse Management Handbook (Prentice Hall, 2000).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Ives, S. Hamilton, and G.B. Davis, A Framework for Research in Computer-Based Management Information Systems, Management Science, 26(9), pp. 910–934 (1980).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Winter and M. Meyer, Organization of Data Warehousing in Large Service Companies-A Matrix Approach Based on Data Ownership and Competence Centers, Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2001), 2001.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. Limacher, Organisationskonzept und Erfolgsfaktoren fuer den Betrieb und die Weiter-entwicklung einer Data Warehouse Loesung am Beispiel des Universitaetsspitals Zuerich, University of St. Gallen, Bachelor Thesis, 2005.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Cossentino, S. Gaglio, B. Henderson-Sellers, and V. Seidita, A Metamodelling-based Approach for Method Fragment Comparison, in: The 18th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, edited by T. Latour and M. Petit (Presses Universitaire de Namur, Luxembourg, 2006), pp. 419–432.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Office of the Government of Commerce, Introdction to ITIL (Stationary Office, London, 2005).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Cao, J.M. Crews, M. Lin, A. Deokar, J.K. Burgoon, and J.F. Nunamaker Jr, Interactions between System Evaluation and Theory Testing-A Demonstration of the Power of a Mul-tifaceted Approach to Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(4), pp. 207–235 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    E.J. Webb, D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz, L. Sechrest, and J.B. Grove, Unobtrusive Measures-Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences (Rand McNally, Chicago, 1966).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    R. Lamb and R. Kling, Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research, MS Quarterly, 27(2), pp. 197–235 (2003).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    R.B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Guilford Press, New York, 2005).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    C.A. van Lengen and J.N. Morgan, Chargeback and Maturity of IS Use, Information & Management, 25(3), pp. 155–163 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    W.P. McKinnon and E.A. Kallman, Mapping Chargeback Systems to Organizational Environments, MIS Quarterly, 11(1), pp. 5–20 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    D.M. Ahern, A. Clouse, and R. Turner, CMMI Distilled-A Practical Introduction to Integrated Process Improvement (Addison Wesley, 2003).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    M. Klesse and R. Winter, Organizational Forms of Data Warehousing-An Explorative Analysis, in: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-40), edited by IEEE Computer Society (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 2007).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    M.J. Earl, Management Strategies for Information Technologies (Prentice Hall, 1989).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    B.G. Tabachnick and L.S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics (Allyn & Bacon, 2006).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    P. Chamoni and P. Gluchowski, Integrationstrends bei Business-Intelligence-Systemen-Empirische Untersuchung auf Basis des Business Intelligence Maturity Model, Wirtschaftsinformatik, 46(2), pp. 119–128 (2004).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Klesse, Leistungsverrechnung im Data Warehousing-Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie, University of St. Gallen, Institute of Information Management, Working Paper, 2005.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    T. Bucher and R. Winter, Classification of Business Process Management Approaches-An Exploratory Analysis, BIT-Banking and Information Technology, 7(3), pp. 9–20 (2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Bucher
    • 1
  • Mario Klesse
    • 1
  • Stephan Kurpjuweit
    • 1
  • Robert Winter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations