Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiating a Systems Development Method

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Systems Development

Abstract

Systems development methods (or methods) are often applied in tailored version to fit the actual situation. Method tailoring is in most the existing literature viewed as either (a) a highly rational process with the method engineer as the driver where the project members are passive information providers or (b) an unstructured process where the systems developer makes individual choices, a selection process without any driver. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate that important design decisions during method tailoring are made by project members through negotiation. The study has been carried out using the perspective of actor-network theory. Our narratives depict method tailoring as more complex than (a) and (b) show the driver role rotates between the project members, and design decisions are based on influences from several project members. However, these design decisions are not consensus decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ågerfalk, P. J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Exploring the concept of method rationale: A conceptual tool for method tailoring. In Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research. pp. 63–78, Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Aydin, M. N., Harmsen, F., Van Slooten, K. and Stegwee, R. A. (2005). On the adaptation of an agile information systems development method. Journal of Database Management, 16(4): 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4): 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L. and O'kane, T. (2003). Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4): 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L. and Stolterman, E. (2002). Information Systems Development – Methods in Action, Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harmsen, A. F. (1997). Situational Method Engineering, Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Iivari, J. and Maansaari, J. (1998). The usage of systems development methods: Are we stuck to old practice? Information and Software Technology, 40: 501–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Introna, L. D. and Whitley, E. A. (1997). Against method-ism: Exploring the limits of method. Information Technology & People, 10(1): 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karlsson, F. and Ågerfalk, P. J. (2004). Method configuration: Adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology, 46(9): 619–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karlsson, F. and Wistrand, K. (2006). Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(1): 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klein, H. K. and Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretative field studies in information system. MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kling, R. (1987). Computerization as an ongoing social and political process. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (eds.) Computers and Democracy. A Scandinavian Challenge. Aldershot: Avery.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar, K. and Wellke, R. J. (1992). Methodology engineering: A proposal for situation specific methodology construction. In Cotterman, W. W. and Senn, J. A. (eds.) Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development. pp. 257–269, Washington, DC: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. pp. 103–131, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mcmaster, T., Vidgen, R. and Wastell, D. (1998). Information system development and 'due process': The case of the Van Sant map. In Buch, N. J., Damsgaard, J., Eriksen, L. B., Iversen, J. H. and Nielsen, P. A. (eds.) Information Systems Research in Collaboration with Industry. Proceedings of the 21st Information Systems Research seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS). Aalborg, Danmark: Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Monteiro, E. and Hanseth, O. (1996). Social shaping of information infrastructure. In Orlikowski, W., Walsham, G., Jones, M. and Degross, J. (eds.) Information Technology and Changes in Organisational Work. pp. 327–343, London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mumford (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2006). What is IT? Information and Organization, 16(3): 212–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C. and Davis, F. D. (2002). Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12): 1135–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rolland, C. and Prakash, N. (1996). A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In Brinkkemper, S., Lyytinen, K. and Welke, R. (eds.) IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering on Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, Atlanta, Georgia, United States, pp. 191–208.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rossi, M., Ramesh, B., Lyytinen, K. and Tolvanen, J.-P. (2004). Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of Association of Information Systems, 5(9): 356–391.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4: 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. In Lee, A. S., Liebenau, J. and Degross, J. I. (eds.) The IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 466–480.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wynekoop, J. L. and Russo, N. L. (1995). Systems development methodologies: Unanswered questions. Journal of Information Technology, 10(2): 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MELAB, Swedish Business School, Örebro University, SE-701 82, Örebro, Sweden

    Fredrik Karlsson & Karin Hedström

Authors
  1. Fredrik Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Hedström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George Angelos Papadopoulos

  2. College of Business & Economics, Dept. Information Technology &, Boise State University, Univesity Dr. 1910, Boise, 83725-1615, Idaho, USA

    Wita Wojtkowski

  3. College of Business & Economics, Dept. Information Technology &, Boise State University, Univesity Dr. 1910, Boise, 83725-1615, Idaho, USA

    Gregory Wojtkowski

  4. Dep. of Information Systems, University of Gdansk, 81-824 Sopot,Polska ul. Armii, Krajowej, 119121, Poland

    Stanislaw Wrycza

  5. University of Maribor, Presernova 11, Kranj, 4000, Slovenia

    Jože Zupancic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karlsson, F., Hedström, K. (2009). Negotiating a Systems Development Method. In: Papadopoulos, G., Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, G., Wrycza, S., Zupancic, J. (eds) Information Systems Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/b137171_51

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/b137171_51

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-84809-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-84810-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation