Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method - Research Paper Example

Dear The report which you have sent to me highlights all the table of contents, headings and references except revised part. It is not my mistake. You have already added it into their database. So this paper is matched with itself. SSADM (Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method), ETHICS (Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Work Systems). Information Systems Assessment 6 Name Date Table of Content Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 1. Introduction 4 1.1. Overview 4 2. Methodologies 5 2.1- Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Systems (ETHICS): 5 2.2- Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) 6 3. NIMSAD framework 7 4. NIMSAD EVALUATION 8 4.1- NIMSAD Problem Situation 8 4.2- NIMSAD Problem Solver 9 4.3- NIMSAD Problem Solving 10 4.3.1- Stages 10 4.3.2- Model 12 4.3.3-Techniques and tools 12 4.3.4- Scope 13 4.3.5- Product 14 4.3.6- Outputs 14 4.4-NIMSAD Evaluation 15 5- Conclusion 17 Information system development is way and means for the enhanced system development that involves different stages for effective handling and management of the system development. In this research report I have presented a detailed analysis of some of the main aspects and traits of the two major information system development tactics. In this report I have capably compared information systems development methodologies SSADM and ETHICS using the NIMSAD framework. I hope this report will offer a better overview of those methodologies and main differences between them. 17 6- Bibliography 17 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview A methodology can be described as a set of actions, techniques, tools as well as documentation support which will facilitate systems developers in their efficient employment along with practice of the new information system. Additionally, a methodology is composed of stages themselves which are then divided into sub-stages that will proficiently give direction to all the developers of information system in their inclination of the practices that might be handy as well as suitable at each phase of the development. In addition, this methodology moreover facilitates them to effectively handle, formulate, control and appraise various projects of information systems. Moreover, the methodologies enclose models and reveals particular viewpoints of ‘reality’ foundational on a set of theoretical paradigms. However, a methodology must inform the developers ‘what’ phases to obtain as well as ‘how’ to achieve those steps though the majority significantly the causes ‘why’ those phases should be taken, in that particular order (Gasson, 1995; Yaghini, 2009) and (Avison & Taylor, 1997). In this research I will present a detailed analysis and comparison of two most well known information systems development methodologies SSADM (Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method) and ETHICS (Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Work Systems). This research and evaluation will be formulated on the origin of the NIMSAD framework that will facilitate us in clearly analyzing and understanding the area of problem solving (in general). Here NIMSAD framework will also help us in case of overall functioning as well as proficient evaluation of the information system methodologies, their arrangements, steps, appearances, nature, etc. Here we are able to more effectively draw conclusions between the two well known information systems development methodologies SSADM and ETHICS. 2. Methodologies In this section I will present a brief overview of two methodologies: 2.1- Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Systems (ETHICS): Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based Work Systems or simply ETHICS commenced or established at Manchester Business School in 1969 by Enid Mumford. From the time when it has gained a great deal of recognition and development in the course of its utilization both in businesses as well as in the health industry. ETHICS tactic is a short form, however the name of this technique is proposed to entail that is such sort of methodology that exemplifies the arrangement of moralities. It is a methodology designed upon the participative technique for information systems development (MUMFORD, 1997) & (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995), (Jayaratna, 1994) and (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995). ETHICS is a technique to facilitate a design group (established by the organization, users and technical experts) in order to identify and plan the problem, set up aim and build up substitutes, take additional suitable actions right in the course of putting into practice and efficiently evaluating the new system. It proposed to make computer-based information systems that offer better execution of the tasks as well as convene the competency requirements of the association. All through system development, great importance is established on together the human or else social and the technological features of the system. Clients have to generally develop social substitutes to build up job contentment, whereas experts build up technological substitutes to augment business capability (Jayaratna, 1994; Laudon & Laudon, 1999). 2.2- Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method is a methodology that has been developed by UK Burchett Management Systems (LBMS) and consultants Learmonth plus CCTA (Central Computing plus Telecommunications Agency), which is accountable for disposing and managing computer training and a number of procurement plans for the UK Civil Service (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995). SSADM methodology is the United Kingdom based technique thus designed according to the principles of government and proposed for performing the systems investigation as well as design phases of a system of information technology project. It splits the overall job into separate sections (Downs et al., 1991; Walters et al., 1994; Stair & Reynolds, 2003). Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method is composed of many tasks and different products. The tasks are elucidated by SSADM by two means. Initially, ‘when’ something should be performed, secondly ‘how’ anything has to be carried out. The 3rd group of components that describes SSADM is the products, consequently ‘what’ is carried through SSADM. The outline of SSADM edition 4 is arranged about 5 foundational modules that illustrate the substantive working of systems analysis as well as design, FS (Feasibility Study), Requirements Specification (RS), Requirements Analysis (RA), LS (Logical System Specification) as well as PD (Physical Design). The methodology has 7 phases within the structure of five independent units observed exceeding, by means of its own group of timescales, tactics, monitoring and controls measures. The actions of every phase are accurately described with their connected deliverables, and this helps competently to utilize the methods of project management (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995; Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995; Downs et al., 1991). 3. NIMSAD framework NIMSAD (Normative Information Model- based Systems Analysis and Design) is based on the paradigms in addition with peculiar knowledge framework of systems analysis as well as to a huge extent evaluation and most likely measures a methodology adjacent to these principles. Three fundamentals of this assessment are (Yaghini, 2009): The problem circumstances (background of methodology) The premeditated problem solver (the methodology user) The problem-solving procedure or technique (the methodology) The assessment of elements has a broad range as well as expressed in scenario of the types of problems that need answers and appropriate solutions. An instance of problem that is associated to the initial elements is: the clients as well as their consideration acquaintance as well as the problems acknowledged. A model of questions regarding the next element is: the theoretical visions of the methodology clients projected for instance, designed on the principles of systems otherwise science, accepting the status of related concern as well as setting of limitations. One prime characteristic of this structure is that it advocates that the assessment should be performed at three phases (Yaghini, 2009). 4. NIMSAD EVALUATION In this section I will outline overall analysis of the SSADM and ETHICS methodologies using the NIMSAD framework. Here I will evaluate two quality methodologies through the NIMSAD framework that will comprise the following main steps as well as evaluation aspects: 4.1- NIMSAD Problem Situation For an efficient analysis of the both SSADM and ETHICS methodologies we need to competently assess some of the main aspects and areas for the enhanced analysis of the main features. In this regard the situation concerning main problem is that how well these methodologies work. Below I have outlined some of the main problem situation aspects: How both methodologies working up to the standard? How each methodology work throughout its lifecycle? How each methodology controls a project? How each methodology can be able to operate? What type of tools and techniques are presented through each methodology? What are the outputs of each methodology? How each methodology defines the project scope? Now considering some of the main questions and queries mentioned above which are required for the analysis of SSADM and ETHICS methodologies through the use of the NIMSAD framework: 4.2- NIMSAD Problem Solver Now to effectively study the SSADM and ETHICS methodologies I have used strategies analysis methodology that will competently evaluate and efficiently analyze some main aspects of both the methodologies through the use of basic aspects and diverse scenarios. In case of comparison of the both methodologies we will assess some of the main aspects as listed below in addition to some comparison of both the methodologies: Stages In case of analysis of this aspect of both methodologies I will analyze that how each stage of the project works as well as operate for the project handling plus management. Model In this feature for the analysis of both the methodologies we will assess that how model based working of each methodology can operate throughout the handling and management of the project. Techniques and tools In case of analysis of both the methodologies we will also assess how each methodology offer tools and techniques for handling and management of some major problems plus projects. Scope The definition of scope of any project is a fundamental aspect of that project. In the under consideration scenario I will assess that how each methodology offers facility to define and manage the scope of the any problem or project. In this regard I will assess that how each methodology offer support in the working lifecycle of the project. Product Here is the application cost of each methodology. In case of higher cost the methodology offer less effective support for the project. The project products need to be more effective and enhanced for the better project performance as well as methodology handling. Outputs Considering the outputs of any project we need to efficiently assess that how a methodology work and offer possible outputs to the project. In this scenario I will assess these aspects by taking into account both the methodologies. 4.3- NIMSAD Problem Solving In this section I will assess the NIMSAD based problem solver aspects that have been outlined in the above stage. In this scenario I will provide a detailed analysis of some of the main aspects and areas that are necessary for the analysis of both methodologies. 4.3.1- Stages In this section I will assess some of the main stages and aspects of the two methodologies and their development stages. Here we have the problem statement that is about how methodology stages of system development lifecycle are different: 4.3.1.1 ETHICS Lifecycle Stages ETHICS methodology is based on the following main lifecycle stages (Yaghini, 2009): 1) Analysis of modifications 2) Analysis of system limitations 3) Explanation of obtainable system 4, 5, and 6) Description of prime and main aims as well as objectives 7) Analysis of competence necessities 8) Judgment of job accomplishment requirements 9) Future investigation 10) Identifying as well as weighing effectiveness and job satisfaction requirements, 11) The organizational design of the new and fresh system 12) Technological alternatives 13) The training of a comprehensive work design 14) Accomplishment 15) Assessment 4.3.1.2- SSADM Lifecycle Stages SSADM methodology is based on the following lifecycle stages (Yaghini, 2009): 1: feasibility analysis Stage 0: feasibility 2: needs analysis Stage 1: investigation of current environment Stage 2: business system options (BSO) 3: requirement specification Stage 3: definition of requirement 4: coherent system specification Stage 4: choices of technical system Stage 5: coherent design 5: physical design 6: physical design 4.3.2- Model The next main aspect that I will discuss is about the model of function that each methodology pursues. In this scenario methodology’s model is the foundation on which we can observe the world in different prospects; this methodology model can be considered as a concept as well as an illustration of the significant issues of the information system or the business. Here in case of SSADM methodology we are taking a data flow diagram, however as well further significant methods similar to decision tables and decision trees that are used for efficient modeling of the system. At the same time as ETHICS methodology employs socio-technical prototype that takes on the communication of technology, people and procedures carried out and it is made in the course of a ‘spoken’ or description structure. However frequently utilized other procedures, for instance data flow diagrams, are proficiently employed in ETHICS to help its accomplishment. This feature of a methodology is perceived to be fairly significant, for the reason that it assists to better develop the identification of the necessities through offering improved communications by means of clients as well as to authenticate the analysts’ deliberation of the requirements of clients (WONG, 2001) & (Serra, 2001). 4.3.3-Techniques and tools Another main aspect that I will discuss in case of both information system development methodologies is the techniques and tools. In case of ETHICS methodology we are not having some sort of official technique or graphical illustrations to express a system or association. The entire design of ETHICS is to obtain information from the staff. As a result it is not open on techniques of exploration intended for attaining information of the processes it is open as to the exploitation of questionnaires as the major emergence of examination planned for gathering data regarding job contentment. In scenario of the SSADM information system development methodology we are having technical tools as a fraction of the methods, as well as have precise techniques, which are observed like prime to the tactic. These tools and techniques provide wide aspects of how to carry out the responsibilities explicitly stated in the structural support for SSADM methodology (Downs et al., 1991; Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995; Avison & Taylor, 1997; Yaghini, 2009) & (Serra, 2001). 4.3.4- Scope In case of information systems development the scope is one of main factors that define the project phases or life cycle of overall system that we are going to develop. In the analysis of both methodologies we are observing an enormous dissimilarity among the definition of scope of planned information system. Here SSADM and ETHICS both are offering a comprehensive support and extension in the system development lifecycle that engages the analysis and logical design phases. SSADM methodology covers more in detail the feasibility as well as physical design aspects of the system as compared to the ETHICS methodology. In addition, in the scope point of view of the system the SSADM methodology is also more comprehensive in case of handling and managing the tactical nature of the system. The ETHICS and SSADM both incorporates the accomplishment stage, assessment stage however the ETHICS methodology is more comprehensive as compared to the SSADM methodology. These distinctions are present for the reason that ETHICS concentrates on user state of affairs; consequently it is wise to say that verily ETHICS is more focused on assessment as well as logical design (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995; Yaghini, 2009; Downs et al., 1991) & (Avison & Taylor, 1997) & (Serra, 2001). 4.3.5- Product This feature of the system development methodologies is about the cost related aspects of the system. It outlines the purchasing and cost based aspects of the system that we are going to establish for our corporate or business. For the comparison of both methodologies (SSADM and ETHICS) we are competent enough to know that together both information system development methodologies have a diversity of products as well as services. SSADM, like ‘UK standard’, has a lot of techniques and paradigms that are planned particularly for its clients, for instance a number of CASE techniques and tools available through systems warehouses and data definitions that facilitate the process of analysis as well as design, a number of methods are used to produce code using the SSADM design, and drawing tools, to facilitate in drawing the ERDs, entity life records and data flow diagrams; a huge sets of handbooks, comprising books, scholastic documents plus instructional programs. Official document is also infused into the whole features of the information systems developments. SSADM as well comprises a certificate of skill system. An accomplishment of ETHICS would necessitate guiding the facilitator as well as the surveys plus questions that ‘have to be replied’ at every stage that we have mentioned before (Downs et al., 1991; Avison & Taylor, 1997; Yaghini, 2009) & (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995). 4.3.6- Outputs For proficient analysis of the SSADM and ETHICS we have observed that both the methodologies are designed to analyze and evaluate some of the prime aspects and traits of the system. In scenario of output of the system we are aimed to analyze the results we can achieve from the system after the implementation of the methodology. In case of SSADM methodology we have employed 7 stages as I have listed before in the point. These stages are composed of dissimilar outputs at each stage of the project. Here each stage is producing different output and also taking into consideration different objectives. In case of the ETHICS methodology there exist a little dissimilarity from the SSADM methodology because it encompasses a process that gets information regarding the system that we are going to develop, then it presents the output reports which are based on the information that we have obtained in addition to prospective reply of the system development lifecycle. Consequently we are proficient to observe that in this feature SSADM is additionally classified as well as planned to facilitate the clients of methodology. However it does not indicate that SSADM results are improved or clearer than ETHICS’ results it is reliant on diverse factors (Serra, 2001; Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995; Avison & Taylor, 1997; Walters et al., 1994). 4.4-NIMSAD Evaluation In this report I have presented a comprehensive analysis of a number of aspects of the system development methodologies i.e. ETHICS and SSADM. For the useful analysis of the overall explorations and online/web-based information a common person can guess that ETHICS methodology is not completely practical for the reason that inexperienced clients are not competent enough to design correctly as well as that supervision would by no means recognize it or that it eliminates the right to handle from the executive. In case of information systems designing development the main questions that arise are how we can design correctly and up to the standards. To reply the query, system development administrators have frequently greeted contribution. However, it is not all the time for the administration that is required to be encouraged in any way; occasionally there exist clients who are doubtful regarding donation, bearing in mind it as a number of sorts of deception related to the administration. However as well, contribution technique cannot be efficiently applied in circumstances where people do not aspire to contribute or else in displaying some sort of tendency conditions where the aims of the system incorporate the diminution of expenses as well as superfluous. Though ETHICS methodology is not employed like SSADM, almost certainly, its dissimilar point of vision as well as a number of effectively established accomplishments of it, have reasoned that ‘viewpoint’ at the present is being put to practice in other customary methods in use. For instance, SSADM’s 4th version spotlights on the user situation as compared to its preceding releases. Consequently in this scenario, we could articulate that divisions of socio-technical technique are not directly applied in the course of further methodologies. In spite of the lot of methodologies present, the SSADM is the ‘UK standard’, and a lot of information systems are built without exploiting methodologies for the standard information systems development methodology. Frequently businesses utilize its into-the-house process, as well as it comprises utilizing a number of methodologies or a portion of this methodology (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1995; Avison & Taylor, 1997; Jayaratna, 1994), (Yaghini, 2009) & (Serra, 2001). 5- Conclusion Information system development is way and means for the enhanced system development that involves different stages for effective handling and management of the system development. In this research report I have presented a detailed analysis of some of the main aspects and traits of the two major information system development tactics. In this report I have capably compared information systems development methodologies SSADM and ETHICS using the NIMSAD framework. I hope this report will offer a better overview of those methodologies and main differences between them. 6- Bibliography Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G., 1995. Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. Avison, D. & Taylor, V., 1997. Information systems development methodologies: a classification according to problem situation. Journal of Information Technology, 12(1), pp.73-81. Downs, E., Clare, P. & Coe, I., 1991. 1991. Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method: Application and Context. 2nd ed., Hemel Hempstead:. Prantice Hall. Gasson, S., 1995. THE ROLE OF METHODOLOGIES IN IT-RELATED ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE. In Proceedings of BCS Specialist Group on IS Methodologies, 3rd Annual Conference, The Application of Methodologies in Industrial and Business Change. Wrexham, UK, 1995. North East Wales Institute. Jayaratna, N., 1994. Understanding and evaluating methodologies-NIMSAD, a system framework. London: McGraw Hill. Laudon, K.C. & Laudon, J.P., 1999. Management Information Systems, Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. MUMFORD, E., 1997. The reality of participative systems design: contributing to stability in a rocking boat. Information Systems Journal, 7(4), pp.289-308. NOS, 2010. System Development Methodologies. [Online] Available at: http://www.nos.org/htm/sad4.htm [Accessed 02 November 2010]. Serra, J.S., 2001. A COMPARISON BETWEEN ETHICS AND SSADM. [Online] Available at: http://musa.poperbu.net/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,4/Itemid,26/ [Accessed 31 October 2010]. Stair, R.M. & Reynolds, G.W., 2003. Principles of Information Systems, Sixth Edition. Toronto : Thomson Learning, Inc. Walters, S., Broady, J. & Hartley, R., 1994. A Review of Information Systems Development Methodologies". , Library Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 6, , pp.5 - 19. WONG, E., 2001. A Study of User Participation in Information Systems Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.is.cityu.edu.hk/Research/Publication/paper/9405.pdf [Accessed 01 November 2010]. Yaghini, M., 2009. A Framework for Selection of Information Systems Development Methodologies. Computer and Information Science, 2(1), pp.3-11. Read More