It is a well-known fact that IS development methods are not used as prescribed in actual development projects. That is, every ISD method in a development project is subject to its modifications because its peculiarities and emerging situations cannot be understood adequately in a prescribed manner. Though the idea of method modifications has been studied exclusively under the subject matter called situational method development, the underlying notions (situation, context, agency, and method fragment) for its theoretical basis are not grounded explicitly in the literature. In this paper, we articulate appropriate accounts for these key notions and induce a conjecture so-called method adaptation referring to a process or capability in which agents holding intentions through responsive changes in, and dynamic interplays between, contexts, and method fragments develop a situated fragment for a specific project situation. As concluding remarks, theoretical implications of method adaptation are discussed.


Situational Awareness Method Adaptation Partial Plan Radical Constructivism Cognitive Element 
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.
    D. Avison, D and G. Fitzgerald, Reflections on Information Systems Development 1988–2002, in: Information Systems Development — Advances in Methodologies, Components, and Management, edited by M. Kirikova, J. Grundspenkis, W. Wojtkowskiet (Kluwer Academic/ Plenium Publishers, 2002), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Kumar and R. J. Welke, Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation-Specific Methodology Construction, in: Challanges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development Method, edited by W. W. Cotterman, J. A. Senn (John Wiley & Sons, 1992).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. J. Hidding, Reinventing Methodology: Communications of the ACM, 40(11) (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Fitzgerald, The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in Practice: A Field Study. Information Systems Journal, 7, 201–212 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Webster and R. T. Watson, Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: writing a Literature Review, MIS Quarterly 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Truex, R. Baskerville, and J. Travis, Amethodical system development: the deffered meaning of systems development method. Accounting, Management & Technology, 10,53–79 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Iivari and H. Linger, Knowledge Work as Collaborative Work: A Situated Activity Theory View. HICCS99, Hawaii, USA (1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. W. Olle, H. G., Sol, and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, Information Systems Design Methdologies: A Comparative Review. Amsterdam, North-Holland (1982).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Brinkkemper, Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools, Journal of Systems and Software, 38, 275–280 (1996).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. J. Welke, K. Kumar and H. van Dissel, Methodology Engineering: Een voorstel om te komen tot situationeel specifieke methode-ontwikkeling, Informatie, 33(5), 11–20 (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Kumar and R. J. Welke, Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation-Specific Methodology Construction. in: Challanges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development Method, edited by W. W. Cotterman, J. A. Senn (John Wiley & Sons, 1992).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. van Slooten, S. Brinkkemper, A Method Engineering Approach to Information Systems Development, in: Information System Development Process, by N. Prakash, C. Rolland and B. Pernici (Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, 1993).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    M. N. Aydin, F. Harmsen, and J. van Hillegersberg, Taxonomic Dimensions for Studying Situational Information Systems Development, In: Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, edited by J. Ralyté, S. Brinkkemper and B. Henderson-Sellers, IFIP Series in print (2007).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Baskerville and J. Stage, Accommodating emergent work practices: Ethnographic choice of method fragments. In: Realigning research and practice: The social and organisational perspectives (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2001), pp. 11–27.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merriam-Webster, (February 13, 2005);
  17. 17.
    OED — Oxford English Dictionary, (Feb 13, 2005;
  18. 18.
    J. Barwise and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes (Cambridge, MIT-Bradford, 1983).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. A. Suchman, Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. R. Endsley, Design and Evaluation for Situation Awareness Enhancement. the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, 97–101 (1988).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, Persistence, Intention and Commitment. In: Proceedings of Timberline workshop on Reasoning about Plans and Actions, 297–338 (1987).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Perry, Semantics and Situation, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from on March 13, 2002, (1987)
  23. 23.
    E. von Glasersfeld, Piaget’s Legacy: Cognition as Adaptive Activity In: A. Riegler, M. Peschl and A. von Stein (Eds.). Understanding representation in the cognitive sciences — Does representation need reality? New York/Dordrecht: (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1997) 283–287.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Piaget, Piaget’s Theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology. (Wiley, 1983).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Hasher and R. T. Zacks, Automatic Processing of Fundamental Information: the Case of Frequency of Occurrence. American Psychologist, 39(12), 1372–1388, (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Rogoff and J. Lave, Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context (Harvard University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Linell and D. P. Thunqvist, Moving in and Out of Framings: Activity Contexts in Talks with Young Unemployed People Within a Training project. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(3), 409–434 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    J.-Ch. Pomerol and P. Brézillon, About some relationships between knowledge and context. Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT-01). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, 461–464 (2001).Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    E. Schegloff, In another context, Duranti, in: Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by A. Goodwin, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 193–227Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. L. Mey, Context and (dis)ambiguity: a pragmatic view, Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 331–347.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Bratman, Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morrison, James C. (1970) Husserl and Brentano on Intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 31, 27–46 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. Jayaratna, Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies (McGraw-Hill, Berkshire 1994).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Andler. Context: the case for a principles epistemic particularism, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(3), 349–371 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    C. van Slooten, Situated Methods For Systems Development, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Twente (1995).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering. (Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, 1997).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aydin, M. N. Decision-Making and Support for Method Adaptation, PhD Dissertation, University of Twente, ISBN: 90-365-2375-3 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mirbel and J. Ralyté, Situational Method Engineering: Combining assembly-based and roadmap driven approaches, Requirements Engineering, 11(1):58–78 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet N. Aydin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Change ManagementUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations