Information System Development Methods

Introduction

Information system development methodologies can be defined as a set of procedures and techniques aided with the necessary documentation that is used to design and implement a new information system or update an existing information system (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006). The methods of development are usually based on a philosophical perspective that system developers consider in the process of information system development. Information systems are subject to changing technologies and therefore new design approaches must be implemented each and every time in order to meet the technological advancements. There are various system development approaches, however, a developer must choose the development approach that is tailored to meet the information needs of the organization for which the information system is being designed. A key factor to consider during the design of an information system is the availability and readiness of the organization to use information technology during the execution of its operations (McNurlin, Sprague & Bui, 2009). An effective information system should be able to meet the top-level design requirements and at the same time meet the low-level user requirements; this means that the system should use a top-down design approach and a bottom-up implementation. Through this approach, the information system is able to meet the user requirements without impairing the design functionality of the system (Stair & Reynolds, 2009).

Comparison frameworks

Comparison frameworks are primarily used to evaluate the effectiveness of the different information systems development methodologies in a given organizational context. In the field of information systems, comparison frameworks are used to offer a platform for understanding the methodology better (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995). They also help the information system developer to make a matching choice of methodology or a combination of methodologies that are tailored towards the realization of the business and information needs of a business enterprise or organization.

The two main variables that are used to compare different methodologies include (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995):

• Effectiveness: it is used to determine if the methodology results in an information system that performs what it was meant to perform. It is used to denote the ratio between the results of the system and the business organization goals and objectives
• Efficiency: refers to effectiveness in terms of the resources used by the methodology towards the system development. It is used to denote the ratio between the resources such as hardware, system development time, and technical expertise against the results achieved as a result of the information system use. It is a form of cost-benefit evaluation (Stahl, 2008).

Several attributes are inherent to all the various information system development methodologies. They include:

• Abstraction: it represents the conceptual design for all the information systems is uniform. Starting from the user input, data processing, and then output. The basic structure o an information system is always the same regardless of the level of technology, the information needs, and the business requirements of an organization (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).
• User involvement: user involvement is paramount for any information system regardless of the information system development methodology. User involvement facilitates the realization of user requirements during the system development phase. User involvement sometimes can pose the change requirements and ensure complete user satisfaction because he/she is part of the development process (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).
• Diagrammatic modeling: it is usually based on the abstraction of the system. The basic elements for any information system regardless of the methodology of approach and the technology include data, events, and processes (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).

However, certain aspects differ in information systems depending on the methodology. These concepts include:

• The business life-cycle coverage: is greatly determined by what the business deems as critical processes that are vital in ensuring operational continuity of the organization. Different organizations have different critical business processes and so does the method of information system development (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006).
• The underlying philosophy: the philosophical perspective underlying the information system development varies according to the development methodology (Stair & Reynolds, 2009).
• The user role: user role defines the user position in the information system development life cycle. Different information system methodologies place the user roles in different positions according to the diagrammatic model of the information system (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006).
• The structuredness of the information system development method: is usually determined y the structure of the problem situation and the clarity of the objectiveness of the information system development methodology.
• The size of the system: the information system development methods differ greatly depending on the size of the system under consideration.

Comparison methods

The nature of comparison frameworks is subject to the underlying technology and the subsequent information needs of the business organizations (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995). Early comparison frameworks were based on the methodology features to evaluate the effectiveness of an information system development method. Some of the features that early comparison frameworks deployed include:

• Purpose of the information system
• Ease of use of the information system
• The ease of maintenance of the information system
• Easy to read
• The stepwise incremental design of the information system
• The ease of modification of the information system to meet the changing user requirements.

Tudor and Tudor’s Comparison framework

This is a comparison framework that is primarily used for structured situations; contexts whereby the problem is well defined, clearly defined user and system requirements and there is a clear set of objectives. Methodologies that are structured are usually developed under the conventional System Development Life cycle (SDLC), which is commonly known as the waterfall model (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006).

The representation of the Tudor and Tudor comparison framework is through the use of tables that show the relationships between the various entities in the information system. This comparison framework evaluates the effectiveness of a methodology based on a clear definition of the problem and the user requirement of the information system (Stahl, 2008).

Tudor and Tudor comparison framework approach employs the use of comparing the methodologies through experimental tests on the information system under tightly controlled conditions such as the degree of user input and monitoring the output characteristics such as response time and accuracy of the output (Fitzgerald, Russo & Stolterman, 2002). The comparison also involves comparing selected elements of the information systems and evaluating their criticality in the overall performance of the information system. The comparison approach also depends on how the various information needs of the system will be met about another information system that is supposed to function under the same environment.

Tudor and Tudor’s comparison considers one variable of the information systems development methodology and evaluates its criticality in the process of the systems development and the overall criticality in the functionality of the system. This involves changing one variable in the different information systems development methods and then evaluating the deviation from the moving target. It also compares the inconsistency of one component of the problem area about the methodologies that are being compared (Fitzgerald, Russo & Stolterman, 2002).

This comparison criterion also emphasizes organizations that use the structured approach to problem definition and clarification of the business requirements, goals, and objectives. The comparison framework also puts into consideration the system variables such as the size of the system, the level of skill of the analyst among many other system-dependent variables. For the comparison to be reliable, there must reasonable number of information system methodology surveys. Feature analysis is also another important criterion that Tudor and Tudor’s comparison puts into consideration. Feature analysis is the most practical part during the comparison process and involves the analysis of the physical design and elements of the information system and evaluating their contribution towards the overall functionality of the information system (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).

Andersen Framework

It is also another type of comparison framework that is used to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of information system development methodologies. The Andersen framework identifies a checklist that includes criteria that relate to the values and the society (Fitzgerald, Russo & Stolterman, 2002).

One of the requirements that the Andersen comparison framework evaluates is the research paradigms or perspectives that form the building blocks for the information system development methodology. This involves the evaluation of the philosophy that the methodology employs during the system design and implementation process.

Another criterion that the Andersen Framework puts into consideration is the underlying information system values. The information value system defines the areas that the information system is deemed essential towards ensuring continuity of the business processes. Such areas may include the information technology department, database management systems, and other information system elements (Stair & Reynolds, 2009).

Another criterion that this framework uses to evaluate the information system development method is in terms of the context where the system development method is useful. This involves the evaluation of the usefulness of the methodology during the information system design and implementation process. If the methodology is useful in almost all the areas of the development process, then it is deemed efficient.

The Andersen comparison framework also attempts to evaluate the extent of scalability in the information system development methodology. This involves evaluations of the possibility of enhancing modification on the information system development methodology. Modifications are vital to facilitate the ease of management of change requests during the development of an information system.

The Andersen framework also puts into consideration the type of communication and the documentation of the methodology. Documentation evaluation involves considering aspects such as the technical know-how of the users, the language of documentation, and the evaluation of what the users expect when using the designed information system (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).

Another criterion that the Andersen framework puts into consideration is the level of transferability of the methodology. It attempts to answer questions such as: does the methodology exhibit transferability? And to what extent can the information system development methodology be applied to the development of other information systems.

The Andersen comparison framework also attempts to evaluate the impact of the system development methodology on the societal environment that the methodology is being executed. Issues under this criterion include the possible conflicts, management commitment, and staff apprehension of the methodology. It also evaluates the level of user participation in the information system development process (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).

The above criteria that Anderson bases on are important because the majority of those issues are always ignored by information system developers. Andersen’s comparison framework is subjective and makes use of some underlying assumptions.

NIMSAD approach

Normative Information Model-based system analysis and design is a comparison framework that evaluates based on the system thinking (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006). The three significant criteria that the NIMSAD comparison framework uses include:

• In terms of the context of methodology; which is determined by the problem definition.
• In terms of the user of development methodology user; this is largely determined by the projected problem solver.
• The process of problem-solving; which determined by the methodology itself.

The evaluations of the above elements are always represented in terms of a question checklist that requires some answers. Some of the elements that are evaluated under the criterion of methodology context include the clients and their level of understanding, the problem situation, the client’s experiences, the various ways under which the methodology might seem useful, the stakeholder’s views, and the perceptions towards the problem context (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006).

Some of the elements that can be evaluated under the criterion of the intended problem solver include the methodology user’s philosophical views, their experiences, the relationship between their views, and the methodology itself among many more

Evaluation of the methodology itself involves putting into consideration factors such as having an insight on the key areas of the problem domain, carrying out a diagnosis on the effectiveness of the methodology, designing the conceptual and physical models of the design and the actual implementation of the design (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006).

One outstanding feature of the NIMSAD comparison approach is that it recommends the evaluation of all three elements in a sequential manner. One stage cannot be skipped. These three stages are the most important feature of the framework and they facilitate the concept of organizational learning.

Avison and Taylor Comparison Approach

This approach identifies five distinct categories of a problem situation and the comparison approaches/ rules for each situation are as shown below:

• A conventional SDLC is appropriate for problem situations that are well structured with the problems and system requirements being well defined.
• A data Process modeling is ideal for well-structured problems situations that have the problems being clearly defined yet the requirements are unclear.
• A soft systems approach is suitable for problem contexts that are unstructured and have unclear objectives.
• A people-focused approach such as ETHICS is suitable for problem contexts that require high user interactions with the system.
• A contingency approach for example the multiview is suitable for very unclear problem contexts.

Avison and Fitzgerald comparison framework

This is a comparison framework that attempts to answer the following checklist requirements (Fitzgerald, Russo & Stolterman, 2002).

• The overall framework or model that the methodology utilizes.
• The type of representations that are used in the development process
• The tools and techniques that the methodology utilizes such as CASE, ETHICS
• The content of the methodology in terms of wellness is in the definition and description.
• The specific focus of the methodology such as people-focused, data, processes, and problem-oriented.
• The evaluation of each of the results achieved.
• The contexts under which the application can be deemed useful
• The aim of the methodology such as scientific, systematic, behavioral, or any other.
• The roles of the various participants in the information system development process
• The various control features and the criteria used for the evaluation of success such as is it goal-based?
• The underlying philosophical assumptions that the methodology uses.

Construction of comparison framework

The comparison framework will be constructed based on the evaluation of the following checklist items:

• Evaluation of inter-stage communication. This will involve analysis of the sequential step-wise development that the methodology uses and the existence of inter-stage communication platforms.
• The evaluation of the methodology performance in terms of the realization of user business needs and requirements, goals, and objectives.
• Evaluation of the concept of scalability in the methodology and the design process. Is the system subject to modifications and adjustments in situations of change requests?
• Evaluation of the user participation in the methodology and the design process investigate whether user requirements are matched. Does the methodology incorporate user involvement in the design and implementation processes?
• Evaluation of the environmental impact upon its implementation. This will involve analysis of the user perception towards the system if the top-level management is committed and involved in the system development process and the overall cost-benefit analysis of the system.
• Evaluation of the underlying philosophy behind the development methodology. This will involve the analysis of philosophical views of the methodology users and the perspective underlying the design of the information system such as user-oriented, process-oriented, goal-based, and other views.
• Evaluation of communication and methodology documentation. Does the documentation match the user dialect? Does the documentation incorporate any technical expertise that is beyond the user’s understanding?
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of problem definition. The problem situation has to be well structured with the problem requirements being well defined.
• Evaluation of the relevance of the information system with the business and information needs of the organization. Does the information system have to be in line with the business needs of the organization and also the information needs of the organization such as does the information system provide access to the organization’s corporate resources?
• Analysis of the model that the methodology adheres to. The model represents an abstraction of the environment under which the system is to operate. Some of the models can be commercial, academic, social, and other abstraction environments.

Evaluation of the constructed framework on Fixit TV and radio repairs

Evaluation of the Multiview approach on Fixit based on the constructed framework

The multi-view approach is an instance of information systems exploration. It involves the choice of tools and techniques according to the problem context. It also puts a major emphasis on documentation standards which are significant in the development of information systems (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995).

Using the constructed framework on Multi-view approach:

• The multi-view method divides the four distinct elements of Fixit: organizational analysis which in this case is the Proprietor, the administrator, and the subcontractors; informational analysis and modeling, which in this case is the bookkeeping, bill payments, and the proprietor memory; socio-technical design, whereby the organization relies on publicity; and technical design and construction whereby the Fixit Repairs and TV is in urgent need to eliminate paper the increasing paperwork.
• In terms of interstate communication, the implementation of the multi-view approach on Fixit will lack inter-stage communication, rather it implements the integration of the above four elements
• For the case of Fixit under the Multi-view approach, user participation is required. The proposed system will have to involve the participation of the proprietor, the part-time administrator, and the customers.
• Multi-View design is scalable about Fixit; other business requirements by the Fixit can be incorporated into the design during the development process.
• The problem Context of Fixit is explicitly defined.
• The business requirements are also explicitly defined in the Fixit system to be designed.
• The roles of the various system users are clearly defined under the Multi- view approach. The proprietor is given a distinct role during the information system design.

Evaluation of the traditional SDLC using the constructed comparison framework

• The system development lifecycle divides the Fixit context into five distinctive parts: planning, analysis, design, implementation, and maintenance. Each phase does not tend to align with the problem context under Fixit.
• The traditional SDLC will facilitate inter-stage communication between the development phases of the system. The process is cyclic although the information needs of the Fixit are not put into consideration.
• The roles of the information system users are not clearly defined under the SDLC such as the roles of the proprietor, the administrator, and the customers.
• When using the traditional SDLC, the Fixit system will lack scalability.

Conclusion

The comparison of the above system development methods suggests that the multi-view approach is the most suitable for the Fixit TV and radio repairs because the problem context and business requirements are clearly stated. This implies that the adoption of the multi-view approach will facilitate the design of an efficient system that will facilitate the realization of the user business needs and requirements.

References

Avison, D., & Wood-Harper, A. 1995. information systems provision: the contribution of soft systems methodology. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. Pp 125-130.

Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J. 2006. systems engineering and analysis (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Pp 196-200.

Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N., & Stolterman, E. 2002. Information Systems Development: Methods in Action. New York: McGraw Hill. Pp 23-30.

McNurlin, B. C., Sprague, H. J., & Bui, T. 2009. Information Systems Management in Practice. New York: Prentice-Hall. Pp 123-150.

Stahl, B. C. 2008. information systems: critical perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Stair, R., & Reynolds, G. 2009. Principles of Information Systems. Boston: Cengage Learning. Pp 96-102.