Information System Development Methodologies - Essay Example

?INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES The frameworks used in comparing system development approaches include the iterative and incremental approaches, the level into which a methodology is structured and its linearity. The ability of the developed system for adaptability to change is another framework used in comparing information development methodologies. The adaptive nature of an information system defines the effectiveness of comparing frameworks as opposed to systems that are developed with a predictive methodology. The comparison of information system development methodologies is also established through either people oriented or goal oriented evaluation frameworks. The comparison of information system development strategies is effective if it helps in ensuring that developed systems are in line with the customer requirements and user needs. The contemporary organizations, departments, agencies and business environments have demonstrated increased adoption and application of information and communication technologies in various processes and activities. This is motivated to the benefits of efficiency and effectiveness which are associated with the use of technology. As a result, information systems have been developed to facilitate various processes within organizations such as communication and exchange of information and data. Hughes (2006, p. 36) says that the adoption and implementation of information and communication technology is achieved through various methodologies of system development. This paper gives a critical analysis, evaluation and discussion of the existing comparison frameworks for information system development methodologies. The paper further evaluates the effectiveness of these frameworks in relation to their effectiveness. In addition, a detailed discussion of the criteria used in comparing the information system development comparison frameworks is given. Comparison frameworks for information system development are focused at drawing differences and similarities among the various methodologies for system development. In accordance to Fernandez and Fernandez (2008, p. 13), information system development methodologies include the incremental, waterfall, prototyping, rapid application development (RAD) and the extreme programming approaches. Lindstrom and Jeffries (2004, p. 45) point out that iterative and incremental frameworks are used in comparing the various methodologies in information system development. The iterative and incremental system development frameworks are part of the agile approach to system development. The agile frameworks are based on the premise that effectiveness in information system development is achieved through a combination of two approaches. These approaches are system development in small portions in an incremental manner and through repeated cycles which is referred to as iterative approach to the system development. Rob (2006, p. 32) says that the commonly used agile methods in system development include Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), Extreme Programming (XP) and Adaptive Software Development (ASD). The organization of DSDM is presented in Appendix I. According to Sol and Stojanovic (2003, p. 20), the iterative and incremental (agile) framework focuses in interactions and individuals within an information system. This is opposed to focus on tools and processes of system development. In this regard, it is arguable that the interactive and incremental framework is effective in the analysis of the development process of information systems. This is due to the fact that this framework presents a development approach in relation to its ability to establish the interaction between various elements of an information system. The iterative and incremental framework therefore allows system developers to ensure that the tools and processes of an information system are coherently integrated in the execution of the functions of an information system. Through this framework a mere focus on the development of tools and processes is avoided. This is justified because even if these elements of an information system are properly developed, they would not be effective without interactivity among them (Ryder, Landi and Pande, 2007). Paul and Pietron (2006, p. 286) argue that Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) is one of the iterative and incremental methodologies used in the development of information systems. It is in light of this fact that iterative and incremental frameworks are reported as effective in evaluation of a development approach in relation to its applicability. Aydin, Harmsen, Kees and Stegwee (2005, p. 24) explain that agile information development approaches focus on development of a working information system as opposed to concentrating on comprehensive system documentation. In addition, the iterative and incremental frameworks are also used in the measurement of the level of customer collaboration in the process of developing information systems. For example Extreme Programming incorporates communication, feedback, simplicity and courage in the process of developing information systems. It is propensity of iterative and incremental frameworks for customer collaboration measurement which makes them one of the most effective approaches to the evaluation of information system development (Sol and Stojanovic, 2003, p. 22). Roberts, Gibson, Fields and Kelly (2008, p. 640) say that a linear framework is used in comparing the information system development methodologies. Waterfall information system is one of the linear system development methodologies. The linear framework is used to compare information system development methodologies in relation to their sequential nature (Paul and Pietron, 2006, p. 287). The phases of information system development are compared in relation to their linearity. This framework is effective in the analysis of the various methodologies of system development in regard to the phases of the development process. It is in this sense that the linear progression of development from the requirement analysis to the system design, its implementation and validation is effectively measured. The sequence of system development within the liner framework ends with the integration of the information system to the business processes and its maintenance after it has been implemented. It is therefore arguable that the framework of linearity demonstrates effectiveness in comparing various system development methodologies. This is demonstrated by the effectiveness of this framework in ensuring that all phases are involved so that the outcome of the development process is a complete system which is congruent to the specifications of the customers. Linearity as a framework of comparing system development methods determines the divisions of the phases of system development and reports if they are sequential or not. It is notable however that even if the stages in the development of information systems are sequential, some overlap (Lindstrom and Jeffries, 2004, p. 45). Therefore the linearity as a framework of comparing system development methodologies is not effective when a process has overlapping stages. Nonetheless Paul and Pietron (2006, p. 286) say that linearity is the most effective method of comparing the planning, timing, budgetary allocation, target dates and the actual implementation of an information system. Banfe and Woods (2001, p. 11) explain that the process of information system development must be managed well through sequential and orderly progression of activities. As a result of this, the possibility of missing vital elements during the process of developing an information system is eliminated. Additionally, the level of control of information system development is compared in relation to its linearity or sequential progression of activities. The importance of documentation in system development is a reflection of the effectiveness of linear frameworks because it compares development methodologies in relation to the ability to document every stage and activity within the development lifecycle. It is however important to note that the incremental framework is the combination of both the iterative and linear frameworks. The structured nature of an information system methodology is another framework which is used in the comparison of various development approaches. According to Banfe and Woods (2001, p. 12), the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) can also be compared in relation to its linearity based on its stage wise approach in the development of information systems. The stages of SSM are highly structured including the entry into the problem or situation, expression of the problem, defining various systems and building the systems for human activities. Moreover, the structured nature of the SSM is demonstrated by its final stages of creating a comparison of information system models with the actual world activities. The structured linear stages of the SSM methodology ends with the definition of the feasible and desirable changes and taking the necessary action on solving the actual or real problem within an organization (lifecycle (Banfe and Woods, 2001, p. 11). It is evident that the SSM methodology is very structured in addition to the fact that it shows a linear nature. The effectiveness of the level into which a methodology is structured is represented by a reflection of structured information system development approaches as free or errors in the final product (Griffin, 2008). The adaptive nature of an information system development methodology is an important framework of comparing various approaches (Hill, Moss, Sorenson and Weeks, 2009). For example the agile methodologies in information system development have been argued to be adaptive as opposed to predictive. It is evident therefore that the adaptive nature of development methodologies as a framework for comparison effective in measuring the ability of system in welcoming change. Through the adaptive nature of a system development, it is possible to compare system development methodologies in relation to the ability of the systems to accommodate the changing business environments (Banfe and Woods, 2001, p. 11). Changes such as expansion of a business, alteration of business activities and the policies of operation must be accommodated by a well designed and implemented information system. The comparison in the adaptive nature of information systems and the congruent methodologies in their development are important in the decision making by the management of organizations and companies. The ability of an information system development approach to create an adaptive system is said to be a way of measuring the effectiveness of the framework. Sol and Stojanovic (2003, p. 21) illustrate that system development methodologies are also compared in relation to whether they are goal or people oriented. This framework of comparing information system approaches is used to differentiate methods that are people oriented to those that are goal oriented and the related implications. For example Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), Extreme Programming (XP) and Adaptive Software Development (ASD) are people oriented agile methodologies in information system development. It is therefore through comparison of various information system methodologies that their focus on either goals or people is evaluated. Nonetheless, this framework is not very effective in the comparison of system development strategies. This is due to the fact that even the people oriented approaches to system development have set goals which the systems is designed to meet during business activities. However it is necessary to determine the focus of an information system development strategy by comparing the value that it has to the business goals as opposed to the needs of the users of the system. Rose (2002, p. 242) explains that in the comparison of information system development methodologies, an iterative framework can be applied solely without the incremental framework as characteristic of the agile framework. Rapid application development (RAD) is an example of an information system development methodology that is analyzed in relation to its iterative nature. RAD is a methodology in information system development which illustrates the effectiveness of both the linear and iterative frameworks of comparing development approaches. RAD is an approach which delivers information system through a lifecycle (Banfe and Woods, 2001, p. 11). The stages through which RAD is achieved include requirement planning, user design, construction and cutover. These stages would be used to justify the linearity framework of comparing information system development approaches. This is due to the importance of each stage of RAD in the delivery of a complete information system to the users or customers. The lifecycle in RAD system development reflects its iterative nature (Hughes, 2006, p. 36). This is because failure of a stage to achieve its outcomes means that it is repeated for overall effectiveness in achievement of a complete and feasible information system which is also in line with the needs of an organization. The stages in RAD are presented in Appendix II. In the light of the above analysis, arguments, illustrations and reflections, it is correct to point out that frameworks for comparing system development methodologies have divergent effectiveness. The frameworks used in comparing system development approaches include the iterative and incremental frameworks, the level into which a methodology is structures and its linearity. Moreover the comparison of information system development methodologies is established under either people or goal oriented evaluation frameworks. Furthermore the ability of the developed system for adaptability to change is one of the frameworks used in comparing information development methodologies. The adaptive nature of an information system defines the effectiveness of comparison frameworks as opposed to systems that are developed with a predictive methodology. It is through comparative frameworks that the stakeholders of organizations are enabled to make informed decisions on adoption and implementation of systems. This comparison also aids in ensuring that developed systems are in line with the customer requirements in addition to the needs of the users. References Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Kees, V.S. and Stegwee, R.A. 2005, "On the Adaptation of an Agile Information Systems Development Method", Journal of Database Management, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 24-40 Banfe, P.L. and Woods, D. 2001, "Constrained Incremental Adoption: the Chinese Approach to Internet Development", Allied Academies International Conference.Academy of Information and Management Sciences.Proceedings, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 10-14. Fernandez, D.J. and Fernandez, J.D. 2008, "Agile Project Management - Agilism versus Traditional Approaches", The Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 10-17. Griffin, A.S. 2008, Examining the decision process and outcomes of system development methodology adoption, Kent State University Hill, J., Moss, L.T., Sorenson, C. and Weeks, W. 2009, Agile Development, Seattle, United States, Seattle Hughes, C.T. 2006, "Obstacles to implementing a system development methodology", Journal of Systems Management, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 36 Lindstrom, L. and Jeffries, R. 2004, "Extreme Programming and Agile Software Development Methodologies", Information Systems Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 41-52. Paul J A van, V. and Pietron, L.R. 2006, "Information Systems Development Education in the Real World - A Project Methodology and Assessment", Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 285-293 Rob, M.A. 2006, "Dilemma between the Structured and Object-Oriented Approaches to Systems Analysis and Design", The Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 32-42 Roberts, T.,L., Gibson, M.L., Fields, K.T. and Kelly, R., 2008, "Factors that impact implementing a system development methodology", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 640-649. Rose, J. 2002, "Interaction, transformation and information systems development - an extended application of Soft Systems Methodology", Information Technology and People, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 242-268. Ryder, B.G., Landi, W. and Pande, H.P. 2007, "Profiling an Incremental Data Flow Analysis Algorithm", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 129-140. Sol, H. and Stojanovic, Z. 2003, "Methodology evaluation framework for component-based system development", Journal of Database Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-26 Appendix I: Organization of DSDM (Hughes, 2006, p. 36) Appendix II: RAD (Lindstrom and Jeffries, 2004, p. 45) A. Phases 1. Requirements Planning 2. User Design 3. Construction 4. Cutover B. Components 1. JAD, 2. Evolutionary Prototyping, 3. Tool Support Read More