Advertisement

Refinement of the OSSAD Methodology by Multiclient Field Testing

  • Mauri Leppänen
  • Vesa Savolainen

Abstract

The OSSAD methodology was developed in the multinational OSSAD project under the ESPRIT program. The methodology offers methods and tools for the analysis, design, and implementation of office support systems. This chapter dis­cusses the interaction of the theoretical and empirical work in the methodology construction, first on a general level and second by using OSSAD as a reference. A framework for the research settings is presented to classify empirical research methods. The goals, conventions, and results of the empirical tests of OSSAD methodology are reported.

Keywords

Explanatory Statement Prescriptive Statement Office System Information System Development Sales Department 
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. Antin L. (1985) Selection of a research method. In Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 203–218.Google Scholar
  2. Auramäki E, Leppänen M, Savolainen V. (1988) Universal framework for information activities. Data Base 19(1), pp. 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avison DE, Fitzgerald G. (1995) Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2nd ed., London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Bariff ML, Ginzberg MJ. (1982) MIS and the behavioral sciences: research patterns and prescriptions. Data Base Fall, pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
  5. Baron R, Beslmüller E (eds.). (1989) OSSAD Field Test Report, ESPRIT Project No. 285, R&D Area 4.1, Office Systems Science and Human Factors. Munich: IOT.Google Scholar
  6. Boughard TJ. (1979) Field research methods: interviewing, questionnaires, participant observation, systematic observation, unobstrusive measures. In Dunnette MD (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  7. Bunge M. (1967) Scientific Research I, the Search for System. New York: Springer-Ver­lag.Google Scholar
  8. Conrath DW, Dumas PJ (eds.). (1989) Office Support Systems Analysis and Design, Final Report on Office Modelling, Language and OSSAD Methodology, ESPRIT Project No. 285, R&D Area 4.1, Office Systems Science and Human Factors. Munich: IOT.Google Scholar
  9. Davis G. (1982) Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Syst. Journal 21(1), pp. 4–30.Google Scholar
  10. Goldkuhl G. (1980) Framställning och Användning av Informationsmodeller, Ph.D. The­sis, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  11. Goldkuhl G. (1981) On foundations for information systems science—a tentative para­digm analysis. In Kerola P, Koskela E (eds.), Report of the Fourth Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering. Oulu: Institute of Data Processing Science, Uni­versity of Oulu, pp. 2–14.Google Scholar
  12. Hietala P. (1985) Combining logging, payback and verbal protocols: a method for evaluat­ing interactive systems. In Proc. of the Third Symposium on Empirical Foundations on Information and Software Sciences, Riso, Roskilde.Google Scholar
  13. Hirschheim R. (1985) Information systems epistemology. A historical perspective. In Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 13–38.Google Scholar
  14. Hirschheim R, Earl M, Feeny D, Lockett M. (1987) An exploration into the management of the information systems function: key issues and an evolutionary model. Working paper, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  15. Hirschheim R, Klein H, Lyytinen K. (1995) Information Systems Development and Data Modeling, Conceptual and Philosophical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iivari J. (1984) On the dimensions of IS design. Research papers series A5. Oulu: Univer­sity of Oulu, Institute of Data Processing.Google Scholar
  17. Järvinen P (ed.). (1980) Empirical research and systemeering models. In Lyytinen K, Pel­tola E (eds.), Report of the Third Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering Models. Jyväskylä: Institute of Computer Science, University of Jyväskylä, pp. 386-­397.Google Scholar
  18. Jayaratna N, Fitzgerald B (eds.). (1996) Information Systems Methodologies: Lessons Learned from the Use of Methodologies. Cork: British Computer Society, University College Cork, Ireland.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins AM. (1985) Research methodologies and MIS research. In Mumford E, Hir­schheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
  20. Jokinen J, Savolainen V, Siefen M. (1987) Notes on office systems and modelling. In Järv­inen P (ed.), Report of the 10th IRIS Seminar, Vol. 27. Tampere: University of Tam­pere, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, pp. 295–302.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lau F. (1997) A review on the use of action research in information systems studies. In Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Quali­tative Research. Philadelphia: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Lawler EE. (1985) Challenging traditional research assumptions. In Lawler EE, Mohr-mann AM, Mohrman SA, Ledford GE, Gummings TG (eds.), Doing Research that Is Useful for Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Leppänen M. (1988) Abstraction Analysis: A Method for Methodology Development. Manuscript, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  25. Leppänen M, Savolainen V. (1988) Refinement of OSSAD methodology by multiclient field tests. In Kaasboll J (ed.), Report of the 11th IRIS Seminar, Oslo, pp. 395–420.Google Scholar
  26. Leppänen M, Savolainen V. (1989a) A classification framework for OIS methodologies. In Boyanov K, Angelinov R (eds.), Network Information Processing Systems. Amster­dam: North-Holland, pp. 299–307.Google Scholar
  27. Leppänen M, Savolainen V. (1989b) OSSAD application in a Finnish paper machine com­pany—developing strategies for implementation of teleservices in a sales department. In Baron R, Beslmüller E (eds.), OSSAD Field Test Report, ESPRIT Project No. 285, R&D Area 4.1, Office Systems Science and Human Factors. Munich: IOT, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  28. Lundeberg M. (1982) The ISAC approach to specification of information systems and its application to the organization of an IF1P working conference. In Olle W, Sol HG, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds.), Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 173–234.Google Scholar
  29. Markus ML. (1997) The qualitative difference in information systems research and prac­tice. In Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Philadelphia: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Morgan G, Smircich L. (1980) The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review 5(4), pp. 491–500.Google Scholar
  31. Mowday RT, Steers RM (eds.), (1979) Research in Organizations: Issues and Controver­sies. Santa Monica: Goodyear.Google Scholar
  32. Nissen H-E. (1985) Choosing methods for information systems research. Working paper, University of Lund.Google Scholar
  33. Nolan R. (1979) Managing the crisis in data processing. Harvard Business Review, March-April.Google Scholar
  34. Olle TW, Sol HG, Tully CJ (eds.). (1983) Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  35. Olle TW, Sol HG, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds.). (1982) Information Systems Design Method­ologies: A Comparative Review. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  36. Pettigrew AM. (1985) Contextualist research and the study of organizational change pro­cesses. In Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 53–78.Google Scholar
  37. Sandberg A. (1985) Socio-technical design, trade union strategies and action research. In Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
  38. Seashore SE. (1985) Institutional and organizational issues in doing useful research. In Lawler EE, Mohrmann AM, Mohrman SA, Ledford GE, Gummings TG (eds.), Doing Research that Is Useful for Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45-­78.Google Scholar
  39. Sisk HL. (1973) Management and Organization. Cincinnati: South-Western.Google Scholar
  40. Susman GI, Evered RD. (1978) An assessment of scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23, pp. 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thorsrud E. (1976) Complementary roles of action research. In Clark A (ed.), Experiment­ing with Organizational Life. New York: Addison-Wesley, pp. 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Veryard R. (1987) Implementing a methodology. Information Management 29(9), pp. 469–474.Google Scholar
  43. Vogel DR, Wetherbe JC. (1984) MIS research: a profile of leading journals and universi­ties. Data Base Fall, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  44. Wood-Harper T. (1985) Research methods in information systems: using action research. In Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 169–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauri Leppänen
  • Vesa Savolainen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations