Abstract
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.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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.
References
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.
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).
G. J. Hidding, Reinventing Methodology: Communications of the ACM, 40(11) (1997)
B. Fitzgerald, The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in Practice: A Field Study. Information Systems Journal, 7, 201–212 (1997).
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).
D. Truex, R. Baskerville, and J. Travis, Amethodical system development: the deffered meaning of systems development method. Accounting, Management & Technology, 10,53–79 (2000).
J. Iivari and H. Linger, Knowledge Work as Collaborative Work: A Situated Activity Theory View. HICCS99, Hawaii, USA (1999).
T. W. Olle, H. G., Sol, and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, Information Systems Design Methdologies: A Comparative Review. Amsterdam, North-Holland (1982).
S. Brinkkemper, Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools, Journal of Systems and Software, 38, 275–280 (1996).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
Merriam-Webster, (February 13, 2005); http://www.m-w.com.
OED — Oxford English Dictionary, (Feb 13, 2005; http://www.oed.com
J. Barwise and J. Perry, Situations and Attitudes (Cambridge, MIT-Bradford, 1983).
L. A. Suchman, Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).
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).
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).
J. Perry, Semantics and Situation, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from http://www.www-csli.stanford.edu/~john/PHILPAPERS/sitsem.pdf on March 13, 2002, (1987)
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.
J. Piaget, Piaget’s Theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology. (Wiley, 1983).
L. Hasher and R. T. Zacks, Automatic Processing of Fundamental Information: the Case of Frequency of Occurrence. American Psychologist, 39(12), 1372–1388, (1984).
B. Rogoff and J. Lave, Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context (Harvard University Press, 1984).
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).
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).
E. Schegloff, In another context, Duranti, in: Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by A. Goodwin, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 193–227
J. L. Mey, Context and (dis)ambiguity: a pragmatic view, Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 331–347.
M. Bratman, Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987).
Morrison, James C. (1970) Husserl and Brentano on Intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 31, 27–46 (2003).
N. Jayaratna, Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies (McGraw-Hill, Berkshire 1994).
D. Andler. Context: the case for a principles epistemic particularism, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(3), 349–371 (2003)
C. van Slooten, Situated Methods For Systems Development, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Twente (1995).
F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering. (Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, 1997).
Aydin, M. N. Decision-Making and Support for Method Adaptation, PhD Dissertation, University of Twente, ISBN: 90-365-2375-3 (2006)
Mirbel and J. Ralyté, Situational Method Engineering: Combining assembly-based and roadmap driven approaches, Requirements Engineering, 11(1):58–78 (2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Aydin, M.N. (2007). Examining Key Notions for Method Adaptation. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. ME 2007. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 244. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73947-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73947-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73946-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73947-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)