Upload
asa
View
42
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
UFCE8V-20-3 Information Systems Development SHAPE Hong Kong 2010/11. Lecture 19 : Methodologies – Making the right choice. ISD Methodologies: Making the right choice. Evaluating Information Systems Development methodologies has been taking place for at least 25 years. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
UFCE8V-20-3Information Systems Development
SHAPE Hong Kong 2010/11
Lecture 19 : Methodologies – Making the right choice
ISD Methodologies: Making the right choiceEvaluating Information Systems Development methodologies has been taking place for at least 25 years
in August 1983 there was a meeting in Minnesota of the IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) WG 8.2:
to present a multi-perspective view on information systems function and its development
Bemelmans, TMA (1984) - Beyond Productivity: Information systems for organizational effectivenessNeed contingency frameworks
- NO “one best method”Broadly define where and for which purposes the methodology is relevant and then critique them after in-depth study
Systems Development, though, is usually a project, a change project, and thus methodologies need some project management perspective – but aren’t ONLY that
Project Management:
ContentControlProcess
the substance of the changes introduced, whether this is a computerise management IS or a new factory building or revised payment system
in public, the rationality of change has to be maintained through logically phased and visible participation (the rational-linear model) but behind the scenes other activities may also be necessary
defining outcomes and the necessary activities along the way, monitoring activity and progress, and taking remedial action to minimise deviations from the planned project life cycle
The Traditional View:
Project Management: revealing the omissions
skills in dealing with human factors or behavioural issues are acknowledged
this model assumes an unfolding in a logically sequenced manner:
but tend to be just another item on the list (often the last item)
subordinated to the more important and much broader range of issues concerned
with project planning and control tools and techniques
• solutions not identified until problems clearly defined• an effective solution not selected until various options
systematically compared• implementation does not begin until there is agreement
on the solutionthe rational-linear model
WATERFALL MODEL
The conceptualisation of the SDLC as an essentially linear process works reasonably well with hard and specific requirements of applications such as financial accounting and stock control
The Waterfall Model is very amenable to Project Management: scheduling: it is more straightforward as one phase leads to the next and there is no retreating, no looping, no “unknown” cycles. For SRP the length of “Prototype iteration” can be a problem – how many iterations? How long is each? Do they get shorter or longer as the iteration number increases?
Project Management: Structured Development
rational models:
WATERFALL MODEL
Structured Rapid Prototyping(The Spiral Model of Systems Development)
Systems Development is about change
Systems Development, though, is usually a project, a change project, and thus methodologies need some project management perspective ...
What is change management about, then?
Let’s look at the organisation of the change process in using the story telling metaphor. The theme that we will use is the proposal to embark on a long journey by ship, say from Bristol to Ecuador. Clearly, this is a project and involves change.
While preparing to embark on the challenging voyage, and when actually on the voyage, one needs to do certain things to improve the chances of success – to organise the change process, to manage and ensure success of the project.
A metaphor of a change project: a ship’s journey
• It has to be clear why we are taking this trip (the idea and its context).
Charles Darwin’s Voyage on HMS Beagle
Managing the success of a project: a ship’s journey
• Next, one needs to understand what one intends to accomplish (define the change initiative).
• Have an idea of what the weather will be like on the journey (evaluate the climate for change).
• Prior to departure, have a set of accurate charts and sailing plans to overcome obstacles (rocks, South America or pirates) (develop a change plan).
• Line up a powerful and benevolent sponsor to pay for it and do the background “stage setting - the publicity and politics (find and cultivate a sponsor).
• Work with the crew to clarify roles, goals and expectations (prepare the target audience, the recipients of the change).
• Create small wins for motivation - specific milestones to provide feedback on how well and how fast one is sailing toward the objective.
• Let the sponsor know how well your doing; share this with the crew and learn from the suggestions of the crew (constantly and strategically communicate the change).
• Time passes: monitor progress; still going in the right direction or blown off course? Crew morale? Route and plan accommodating change? (measure progress of the change effort).
• At the end, an after-action review: (integrate lessons learned). 1. What did we set out to do? 2. What actually happened? 3. Why did it happen? 4. What are we going to do next time?
Managing the success of a project: a ship’s journey
• Make sure the ship is capable of accomplishing the task and that the route chosen (given storms and bad weather) (create the cultural fit – making the change last).
• Make sure the crew are committed, competent and share the same goal (develop and choose a change leader team).
Change Culture: New Technologies
The higher the organisational level at which managers define a problem or a need, the greater the probability of successful sponsorship and thus initiation of the change
THE PARADOX:
The closer the definition and solution of problems or needs are to end-users, the greater the probability of success (effective use of the new system)
There is a simultaneous need to sell the case for new technology to top management and the users in the organisation – the need to develop “ownership”
Leonard-Barton, D. & Kraus, W.A. (1986) Implementing new technology. In: Planning and Managing Change, B. Mayon-White (ed.), Chapter 19, pp.227-238
SPONSORSHIP OF A CHANGE:
Participative Project Management:
But the understanding of what “ownership” really means is a problem
Ownership is the key word
Changes to jobs and work methods were usually resisted but “representation” or more full “participation” in redesign and calculation of new time standards increased efficiency and reduced conflicts.
Much of the ground-breaking research on participation was done by Coch and French in the 1940s at the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation in Marion, Virginia
making pyjamas
participative change management is thought to be the way forward- to increase user involvement, from being subordinate effective
• find and cultivate a sponsor• prepare the target audience, the recipients of the change
• create small wins for motivation• constantly and strategically communicate the change
Managing the success of a project: a ship’s journey
•create the cultural fit – making the change last•develop and choose a change leader team
• measure progress of the change effort• integrate lessons learned
creating a sense of ownership in
the journey
Participative IS Development:
1. people-focussed – individuals and their personalities, preferences or age2. system-focussed – user-friendliness, complexity, ergonomics or access3. organisation-focussed – lack of fit between system and organisational
context giving rise to conflicts of responsibilities when traditional working cultures need to be changed
4. politics-focussed – friction between the system and the context which changes the distribution of power, often brought about because of the changing ownership and access patterns to information which affects decision-making
Broad types of Resistance to change
this will only frame the explanations for resistance, not answer the resistance
however, practical implications flow from this analysis: person- or system-based resistance would lead to better
training, better staff, better design and better designers
organisational or political domains usually have complex solutions and obscure start points
Change Culture: in general
change is as much about changing the world view (Weltanschauung) or organisational view as it is with changing: decision-making
processespayment systemstechnologiesorganisation
structuresThis means establishing a third unfolding of logic: • problem solving• establishing ownership• establishing legitimacy change means challenging,
questioning and breaking down the existing shared assumptions, or “interpretive schemes”, or “cognitive coping mechanisms”, held by the organisation’s members, in order to change attitudes and behaviouralso signalling a
“counter-culture” with a new “dominant logic”
This is, of course, still:
the change agent will need:• negotiating skills• selling skills• ability to manipulate the perception of the context• legitimise change proposals
whilst maintaining the rationality of change through logically phased and visible participation (the rational-linear model)
signalling a “counter-culture” with a new “dominant logic” can be through the use of established organisational
rituals and appropriation of organisational symbols
manipulation of the views of organisational members and establishment of the “unfolding logic” of change through management of meaning
building effective relationships and
teamsbut with a eye towards building credibility and support rather than understanding and ownership of those affected by the changes
Change Culture: in general
the rational-linear model has to be seen to be the one being pursued in its purity whilst at the same time probably significant, and unrevealed, backstaging is taking place:
• wheeler-dealing• fixing• negotiating• coalition building• trading-off
this cannot be acknowledged otherwise it would damage the legitimacy of the change attempt and the individuals involved in it
Needs to encompass the establishment of three unfolding logics: • problem solving• establishing ownership• establishing legitimacy
BUT
Managing the success of a project: a ship’s journey
Adopting a methodology in practice: who makes the choice
But, shouldn’t the adoption of an organisation’s IS development methodology be in the users’ and business managers’ hands, not in the IS/IT departments’ control?
such decisions give IT professionals power in organisations whereas the users and business managers are the ones to make the investment in time, money, effort and business success as a result of IS developments.
IS development may be seen as a technical issue so “technicians” make the decision
In most large organisations, though, the decision will be made by the corporate IS team, thus disenfranchising the business managers, the users and most of the IS workers!
the methodology should embody a best way of developing systems
whether this is true is rarely asked
the more usual questions are:
• whether it fits in with the organisation’s way of working• whether it specifies what deliverables are required at the end of each
stage• whether it enables better control and improved productivity• whether it supports a particular set of CASE tools
the best methodology?
“a” best way - not “the” best way
because there are always trade-offs between quality, quantity, skill levels, reliability, generality
Avison & Fitzgerald address many of these issues in their book: Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. 4th Edition (2006).
then the follow up check list correctly scores your methodology the highest!
DANGER
setting up a framework may identify a set of idealised “features”
Like selling cars...
BUT Any comparison will be subjective
Why compare methodologies?
Academic: better understanding of their nature; to be able to classify them
Practical: to choose one (or part of one) for a particular application or an organisation as a whole
Methodologies vary greatly in what you get:
¨ details of every stage in the life cycle or vague outline principles¨ coverage may vary from more strategic to the details of
implementation¨ problem-specific or all-encompassing, general-purpose
methodology¨ may be useable by anyone (including users) or only by highly
trained specialists¨ require a big team to operate it sensibly or may not specify tasks at
all¨ may or may not include CASE tools
Davis’ contingency approach to selecting an appropriate methodology (principally directed towards requirements phase): Measure the level of
uncertainty in a system:
1. System complexity or ill-structuredness
2. The state of flux of the system
3. The user component of the system, for example, the number of people affected and their skill level
4. The level of skill and experience of the analysts
once the level of uncertainty has been determined, the appropriate approach to determining the requirements can be made
interviewing users (ask for requirements)
prototype or evolutionary approach
LOW
HIGH
UN
CERT
AIN
TY
synthesis from characteristics of existing system