MIS41020 - The fiction of methodological development: a field study of information systems development
Module - Design, Development and Creativity
Class or Article - Article
Lesson or Name - Nandhakumar, J. & Avison,
D. E. (1999) The fiction of
methodological
development: a field study
of information systems
development
Additional Info - N/A
I feel I have to agree with Nandhakumar and Avison in in their argument that there needs to be more detailed research in the methodologies and their application within organisations. Today we see a lot of methodologies from different fields and they are advocated by different parties, however they are not necessarily backed up with any evidence they work or provide better results than others. I feel as part of these methodologies and frameworks there needs to be an element of quality control similar to that of ISO standards and standards in general where they are governed. Firstly however I feel research is required to be carried out in to the deployment, contribution and outcomes aswel we the benefits of methodologies, until we do that the advocacy of one over the other is only hear say. While I have seen different methodologies in use across several projects now I could not say if one was better than the other or yield better results or worse yet why one methodology was selected over the other, other than the programme or project manager advocated it.
Advocacy and understanding as the primary drivers for the application of control and structure of projects from small to large in the shape of methodologies I would be concerned is dangerous. Frameworks and Methodologies should be substantiated and compared in order to better understand the merits of each through different categorisations.
methodologies and frameworks are proven to work but their effectiveness in a project or programme is still to be determined and in order to advocate and understand these methodologies better, their effectiveness needs to be established. This can and should be done through research and a feedback loop similar to that is standards which we see as a primary activity part of their lifecycle.
Precis
In this article ' The fiction of methodological development: a field study of information systems development' by Nandhakumar and Avison they investigate the process of Information Systems development in large organisations. They argue that traditional development methodologies act as a controlled friction to provide a status or point in time for activities. They are concerned with the lack of understanding and studies of methodologies in their application within organisations. The emergence of new methodologies is based on the development within the IT sector and based upon the improvement in software tools. While arguing this that also do accept that IS methodologies have helped in providing organisation to a disorganised activity based process to help control and add consistency of approach. They have similarly helped the explosive scale within IT and the demand for new applications and systems. However the application of methodologies have not influenced or addressed the key issue within development and that is the knowledge gap in domain expertise. Nandhakumar and Avison argue there is a need to investigate the phenomena of IS methodologies to better understand them and enrich the knowledge around them. The concern that methodologies did not provide and sufficient help for non-development activities was a worry, it also could be contributed to stifling creativity within the development team.
Reflection
I feel I have to agree with Nandhakumar and Avison in in their argument that there needs to be more detailed research in the methodologies and their application within organisations. Today we see a lot of methodologies from different fields and they are advocated by different parties, however they are not necessarily backed up with any evidence they work or provide better results than others. I feel as part of these methodologies and frameworks there needs to be an element of quality control similar to that of ISO standards and standards in general where they are governed. Firstly however I feel research is required to be carried out in to the deployment, contribution and outcomes aswel we the benefits of methodologies, until we do that the advocacy of one over the other is only hear say. While I have seen different methodologies in use across several projects now I could not say if one was better than the other or yield better results or worse yet why one methodology was selected over the other, other than the programme or project manager advocated it.
Advocacy and understanding as the primary drivers for the application of control and structure of projects from small to large in the shape of methodologies I would be concerned is dangerous. Frameworks and Methodologies should be substantiated and compared in order to better understand the merits of each through different categorisations.
methodologies and frameworks are proven to work but their effectiveness in a project or programme is still to be determined and in order to advocate and understand these methodologies better, their effectiveness needs to be established. This can and should be done through research and a feedback loop similar to that is standards which we see as a primary activity part of their lifecycle.
Quotes
Comments
Post a Comment