Classifying and comparing methodologies
(1) Avison & Fitzgerald’s categories (2003)
Process-oriented methodologies
Examples: STRADIS, YSM (Yourdon), JSD
Blended methodologies
Examples: SSADM, Merise, IE, Welti ERP
Object-oriented methodologies
Examples: OOA, RUP
Rapid development methodologies
Examples: JMRAD (James Martin), DSDM, XP, WiSDM
People-oriented methodologies
Examples: ETHICS, KADS, CommonKADS
Organisational-oriented methodologies
Example: SSM, ISAC, PI, PRINCE, Renaissance
Frameworks
Example: Multiview, SODA, CMM, Euromethod
(2) Bansler’s “Three theoretical schools” (1989)
Systems-theoretical
Knowledge interest: Profit maximisation
Organisation:
Cybernetic system
Labour force:
System components
Labour relations:
Common interest
(characterised by ISAC)
Socio-technical:
Knowledge interest: Job satisfaction (participation)
Organisation:
Socio-technical system
Labour force:
Individuals
Labour relations:
Common interest
(characterised by ETHICS)
Critical
Knowledge interest: Industrial democracy
Organisation:
Framework for conflicts
Labour force:
Groups
Labour relations:
Opposing interests
(characterised by “Scandinavian approaches” historical examples)
(3) The philosophy headings of Av & Fitz’s comparative framework (2003)




Paradigm
Objectives
Domain
Target
Paradigm = a pattern against which other things may be compared (can you think of
examples which have nothing to do with computers?)
Objective = a stated aim which you define before you start a task; when you complete
the task, you can measure your success against the objective
Domain = the area in which you operate
Target = what you are aiming to hit.
(4) Jayaratna’s comparative framework (NIMSAD) (1994)



the problem situation or methodology context
the intended problem-solver or methodology user
the problem-solving process (the methodology itself)
(1) the problem situation
because
- effectiveness of systems measured against contribution to information users in
org
- developers need to interact with members of org
- this is the area where methodology users are introduced to the problem as seen
by the client
- and where interpersonal relationships are formed.
(2) intended problem–solver
why does the ips select some elements of action world as relevant/significant/useful,
regard others as irrelevant/insignificant/useless?
how do they select or abstract elements of the action world?
what are the implications of this selection?
Mental construct:
Perceptual process - what is significant?
Values – beliefs we hold to be good, without question
Ethics – standards we place on others’ behaviours
Motives – private needs we try to satisfy in a situation
Prejudices – persistent opinions that we form from our values
Experiences
Reasoning ability (linked to Experiences)
Knowledge and skills – acquired from education, training and experience
Structuring processes – how an individual thinks and acts
Rôles – explicit behavioural tasks that can be attributed to someone responsible for
performing a set of tasks
Mental models and frameworks
(3) the problem-solving process
Phase 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Problem formulation
understanding the situation of concern
performing the diagnosis (where are we now?)
defining the prognosis outline (where do we want to be and why?)
Stage 4
Stage 5
Phase 2
Stage 6
Stage 7
Phase 3
Stage 8
defining problems
deriving notional systems
Solution design
performing conceptual/logical design
performing physical design
Design implementation
implementing the designs