Information Systems Development Methodolgies in Developing Higher Education

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.31019

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.1, 114-119

Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31019

114

Information Systems Development Methodologies in

Developing Higher Education

Adam Marks

Department of Business Adm inistration, Em bry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, USA

Email: [email protected] u

Received December 12th, 2011; revised January 8th, 2012; accepted Janu ary 22nd, 2012

Studies concerned with the status of Information Systems Development Methodologies usage in many de-

veloping countries including the factors that influence and motivate their use, current trends, difficulties,

and barriers to adoption are lacking, especially within the higher education sector. This paper examines

these identified gaps in a developing country, namely the Un ited Arab Emirates. The initial findings reveal

that there is limited knowledge and understanding of the concept of ISDM in federal higher education in-

stitutions in the UAE. This is reflected in the quality of the software products being developed and re-

leased. However, the analysed data also reveals a trend whereby federal higher education institutions in

the UAE are gradually moving towards increased ISDM adoption and deployment.

Keywords: IS; ISDM; Methodology; Higher Education; UAE

Introduction

Despite the arguments about the usefulness of ISDM, ISDM

are expected to be largely used in the current era more than ever

before (Avison, 2003). A review of literature shows that there is

insufficient empirical research on ISDM adoption. For instance,

(Beynon-Davies & Williams, 2003) state that there are “few

studies that were conducted in order to identify how ISDM are

selected or adapted, or how they are used.” A survey of prior

studies of ISDM adoption shows clear differences between the

number of studies of ISDM adoption that have been undertaken

in developed and third/developing countries (Wynekoop & Rus-

so, 1997). None has been conducted in the UAE or the greater

Middle East area.

The objective of this research is to investigate Information

Systems Development Methodologies (ISDM) adoption in the

federal higher education sector of a developing country, namely

the United Arab Emirates (UAE). An empirical study was con-

ducted by means of a survey, using a questionnaire and a num-

ber of face-to-face interviews with Information Systems (IS) ma-

nagers in federal higher education institutions in the UAE, to

empirically examine ISDM practices and ascertain the extent to

which there was a need for an ISDM adoption model for these

institutions. The survey was also intended to enable the testing

of hypotheses formulated at an early stage of the research pro-

gram. The Delphi method was undertaken to generate a confir-

med list of ISDM adoption variables for decision making.

Related Work

Defining ISDM is not a simple task as there is no standard

accepted definition (Husiman & Iivari, 2002; Husiman & Iivari,

2006). For instance, the British Computer Society (BCS) In-

formation System Analysis and Design Working Group defined

ISDM as “A recommended collection of philosophies, phases,

ru les, tec hnique s, tool s, docume ntation, ma nage ment, and t rainin g

for developers of information systems” (Avison & Fitzgerald,

2006). Reference (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006) extended this

definition as follows: “A recommended means to achieve the

development, or part of the development, of information system

based on a set of rationales and an underlying philosophy that

support, justifies and makes coherent such a recommendation

for a particular context”. The recommended means usually in-

cludes the identification of phases, procedures, tasks, rules, te-

chniques, guidelines, documentation and tools. They might also

inc lude recommendations concerning the management and orga-

nization of the approach a nd the identification and trainin g of the

participants.

In terms of ISDM classifications, various classifications of

ISDM were identified in the literature such as those reported by

(Iivari & Huisman, 2001), and (Charvat, 2003). Reference (Bey-

non-Davies & Williams, 2003) identified three major types of

ISDM, including structured methodologies (e.g. SSADM), ra-

pid application development (e.g. DSDM), and Object-oriented

methodologies (e.g. RUP). Reference (Avison & Fitzgerald,

2006) introduced a more comprehensive classification of ISDM

as shown in Table 1.

ISDM adoption remains a controversial issue among many

organizations (Fitzgerald, 1998), (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003).

On the one hand, many practitioners view ISDM as the means

for improving the quality of the information system development

process and there are significant pressures to use ISDM as a re-

quirement to obtain ISO certification or adhere to standards re-

quired by some governments. On the other hand, there are also

considerable arguments against the use of ISDM, including 1)

mismatches with organizational or Information Sy stems (IS) pro-

jects requirements; 2) ISDM vendor dependency; 3) system

development delay; 4) system development stagnation (Fitz-

gerald, 1998). A review of literature shows that while some or-

ganizations claim that they use ISDM successfully with posi-

tive results and viewthem as an essential approach to improve

the quality and to increase the productivity of the software de-

velopment process, others argue about the benefit of using these

A. MARKS

Table 1.

Types of information systems development methodologies.

Types of ISD M Examples

Process-oriented

methodologies

Structured analysis, design, and implementation

of information systems (STRADIS).

Yourdon system method (YSM).

Jackson system devel op ment (JSD).

Blended me thodologies Structured systems analysis and design method

(SSADM).

Informati on Engineering Method ol ogy (IEM).

Object-oriented

methodologies

Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOA &

D ) by Coad and Yourden.

Rational Unifie d Process (RUP).

Rapid deve lopment

methodologies

Dynamic System s De velopm ent Me th od (D SDM).

Extreme Programming (X P).

Web IS Development Methodology (WISDM).

People-oriented

methodologies

Effective technical and human implementation

of computer-based systems (ETHICS).

KADS.

Organizational-oriented

methodologies

Soft System Methodology (SSM)

Information system work and analysis of

changes (ISAC).

Process innovation (PI).

Frameworks Strategic options d evelopment and ana l ysis

(SODA).

Capability maturity model (CMM).

methodologies and affirm that they do not use any ISDM in

practice (Fitzgerald, 1998; Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003).

There are few studies in the literature about the use of ISDM.

In a survey conducted by (Wynekoop & Russo, 1997) regard-

ing ISDM usage studies, it was found that only 19 papers ad-

dressed the issue. The same view has been shared and reported

by (Iivari & Mansari, 1998) as well as by (Huisman, 2003). In

addition, (Huisman & Iivari, 2001) added that most of these

studies have been published during the 1980s and 1990s, and

that the vast majority of ISDM studies were undertaken to ad-

dress the experience of developed countries (Rahim & Seyal,

1998). A review of literature shows that there is insufficient em-

pirical research on ISDM adoption. A survey of prior studies of

ISDM adoption is depicted in Table 2. The table shows clear

differences between the number of studies of ISDM adoption

that have been undertaken in developed and third/developing

countries. As illustrated, none has been conducted in the UAE.

Methodology

This study was conducted using four research methodologies:

su rv ey, Interviews, Delphi method, and Ca se study. Survey mode

of enquiry and interviews were employed to obtain data beyond

the physical vision of the researcher in order to provide insights

into ISDM adoption practices (112 surveys and 16 semi-structured

interviews). Delphi method was used to identify and analyze

the variables that contribute to effective evaluation and selection

of ISDM (128 participation). The research model was developed

using a combination of Delphi, and Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP) techniques aiming to assist IS managers to determine

which ISDM is most suitable for their organization’s IS devel-

opment. The case study therefore, was a supplementary research

Table 2.

Prior studies of I SDM adoption.

Developed country Descriptio n

Fitzgerald et al. (1999)Investigated systems development and

maintenance in the UK. 57% respondents claim

to be using ISDM.

Holt (1997) Examined sof tw are engineerin g practice in 50

UK orga nizations. About 31% of the surveyed

orga ni zations did not use any structured ISDM.

Chatzoglou and

Macaulay (1996)

Surveyed the use of ISDM in 72 IS projects in

the UK. Reported that 47% do not use any ISDM

in IS development.

Beynon-Da vies and

Williams (2003)

Examined the adoption of ISDM in two

organizations in UK. The study utilized Dynamic

Systems Development M ethod (DSDM ) t o

explain some of the key f eatures of the ISDM

adoption processes.

Venableand Lim (2002)

Surveyed c ons ulting organizations in Austr ia that

develop web in formation systems (WIS). 67%

use a type of m ethodology and a bout 10% use

WISDM to guide their WIS de velopment

activities.

Russo et al. (1996) Surveyed the use of ISDM in 92 US

organizations. 6% of the orga ni zations clai m that

they always use ISDM.

Rouse et al. (1995)

Presented a comparison of ISDM adoption

between Australian and US organizations. The

adoption rate among Australian organizations

found to be slower than that of US organizations

Iivari and Maansaari

(1998)

Investigated the use of ISDM in 44 CAS E user

organizations in Fin l and. Results indicate

considerable problems in adopting the

Object-Oriented methodologies.

Fitzgerald (1998) Examined ISDM usage across organizations in

Ireland. Only 6% of the responde nt reported

using ISDM rigorously.

Developing country Description.

Huisman and Iivari

(2001; 2002a; 2002b;

2003a; 2003b; 2003c ;

2006)

Conducted a comprehen si ve analysis of ISDM

adoption and deploym ent in South Africa

involving 83 organizations, 234 developers,

and 73 IS managers.

Rahim et al. (1998)

Investigated ISDM a do p tion in publ ic and

private sectors in Brunei Darussalam. Nine

different ISDM reported to be u sed by the

surveye d organizations.

Selamat et al. (1994)

(cited from Rahim et

al., 1998)

Studied CASE tools usage and associated ISDM

in 40 Malays ian orga nizations. SSAD M reported

to be used by 8% of the surveyed or g anizations.

methodology to customize, quantify, and examine the usefulness

of the model.

The main objective of the study was to describe the informa-

tion system environment, the activities performed, and the use

of system development methodologies in IS departments in the

survey ed organizations within the federal higher ed ucation sector,

as well as to develop a suitable model for ISDM adoption using

two decisio n-making tool s: Delphi technique, and AHP. The mo-

del was designed to detect the most appropriate choice among

var ious alternative ISDM. The research sought to resolve the fol-

A. MARKS

lowing three main research questions:

Q1. What is the current status of ISDM practices in the fed-

eral higher education sector in the UAE?

Q2. What are the critical variables and their level of impor-

tance in evaluating and selecting the most suitable ISD meth-

odology?

Q3. What is the requisite model for ISDM adoption to assist

organizations to evaluate and select the most appropriate ISD

methodology for their software development activities?

The results of the study provide three main contributions.

First, the survey stage of the study reported important informa-

tion for both the research community and to practitioners. For

the research community not much is known about the use of

ISDM in develo ping countries. Far less is known about their use

in the UAE and its federal higher education system. For practi-

tioners, this research could assist them in changing or improve-

ing their current systems development practice. One of the key

quality control requirements is to employ a formalized informa-

tion system development process (Fitzgerald, 1998; Huisman,

2003).

Secondly, on the conceptual side, the study shows how two

well-known decision-making approaches, Delphi technique, and

AHP, could be combined effectively to develop an ISDM de-

cision model. Initially, Delphi technique was suitably employed

to analyze and produce reliable variables for decision making.

AHP was subsequently employed for model development and

for detailed analyses of these variables. On the application side,

the study shows how Delphi technique and AHP could be used

to develop a requisite group mode l of ISDM adoption for a large

organization in selecting the most suitable ISDM.

Third, the models were developed as a decision support tool.

With user friendly software, decision-makers may improve their

de cision -making processes by running sensitivity analyses, apply-

in g the models base d on their ava ilable information, intuition, and

experience, visualizing their decision outcomes, and modifying

the models to other relevant issues or scenarios.

Generally, the ISDM adoption model was developed starting

from a conceptual model using data from Delphi technique and

re spondents’ perceptions, and then evolved to a user friendly mo-

del that can be put to practical use for decision-making in an or-

ganization. The case study was employed in order to customize

the generic model to fit specific case study using real information

and perceptions.

Findings, Data Analaysis, and Discussion

Current Status of ISDM Prac tices (Research Ques tion 1)

The results of the study indicate that the information systems

adopted by federal higher education institutions in the UAE are

operated in a multi-platform environment, supported by multiple

operating systems, using bot h local and wide area networks, and

supporting a variety of development and programming langua-

ges. It is worth noting that certain hardware and software plat-

forms, including PCs (computing terminals), Oracle (software),

UN IX and Wind ows (operatin g systems), and loca l area networks

based environments are the most dominant among federal higher

education UAE institutions.

In relation to the activities of IS departments in the respond-

i ng o rganizations, the findings re veal that the IS departments spend

62% of their time on system support and maintenance, 11% of

their time on I S project outsourcing, 17% on the development of

new in-house IS, and 10% on the customization and integration

of commercial packages.

In relation to ISDM usage, the data analysis reveals that 8%

of responding organizations adopted ISDM to develop their in-

formation systems. Larger IS departments are more likely to adopt

ISDM. In addition, the results of the study show that the older the

IS department, the more likely it is to adopt ISDM for IS deve-

lo pment. Furthermore, in-house methodologies are the most com-

mon ISDM in UAE higher education institutions, followed by

Oracle Development Methodology; followed by Rapid Devel-

opment Method and Information Engineering Methodology (IEM).

In relation to the decision-makers of ISDM adoption, the find-

ings of the e mpirical survey reveal that a large percentage of the

respondents indicate that the decision to adopt ISDM is un-

dertaken by IS managers.

This suggests that IS managers are the key decision makers

for ISDM adoption. In addition, the ISDM training provided by

organizations to their developers largely relies on in-house trainers

followed by external trainers, external institutes, or self-training.

Furthermore, an important finding of the empirical survey indi-

cates that the trend of ISDM adoption among the examined or-

ganizations will increase over time.

The empirical survey tested a number of variables to examine

the extent to which these variables affect ISDM adoption. Nine

variables were empirically tested including type of organization,

business activity , organization size, IS department size, age of IS

department, knowledge barrier, relative advantage, complexity,

and compatibilit y. The findings of the survey reveal that a signi-

ficant relationship is lacking between type of organization and

ISDM adoption, and between complexity and ISDM adoption.

However, the remaining seven variables were found to have

some relationshi p with ISDM adoption and the degree of the im-

pact of these variables varies from one variable to other.

Variables and Their Level of Importance (Research

Question 2 )

The overall aim of the second empirical stage was to determine

and analy ze the variables that contribute to effective ISDM adop-

tion. Judgments were solicited from a group of experts in a se-

quence of successive rounds (Dalkey, 1969). A question naire con-

taining 30 variables obtained from the literature regarding the

ISDM adoption (evaluation and selection) was sent to 370 pro-

spective pa nel members.

The potential members we re IT/IS managers. In the fir st round

of Delphi method, potential members we re asked to rate the level

of importance of each of the ISDM adoption variables, and iden-

tify more variables that they think are important for the study.

The received responses were compiled and consolidated, and a

final list of 40 variables was produced. The same procedure wa s

followed for each successive rou nd. Three rounds of Delphi sur-

veys were performed to achieve consensus. Data from the three

it era tions of the questionnaire were collected during July through

September 2009. The analyses of each of the 40 variables were

accomplished employing SPSS software. The statistical Median

(MD), Quartile One (Q1), Quartile Three (Q3), and Interquartile

Range (IQR) were employed to identify the critical ISDM adop-

ti on variable, measure level of importance of these variables, and

to assess gro up consensus about these variable s. The Delphi pro-

cess provided three important categories of information about

ISDM adoption variables including assent, consensus, and level

of importance.

116

A. MARKS

A group rating of assent for each of the 40 ISDM adoption

variables was driven using a Likert five-value scale (0, 1, 2, 3,

4). That is, to eliminate varia bles considered not applicable or not

im portant, a median criterion of le ss than 2.0 wa s selected. All re -

maining variables with a 2.0 med ian or higher were therefore in-

cluded in the list of accepted variables (i.e., 4 = Very Important,

3 = Moderately Important, 2 = Somewhat Important). The results

obtained indicate that the median of the 40 variables included in

the Delphi research questionnaire revealed that none of the va-

ri ables fell below the criterion of 2.0. T herefore, the De lphi study

provided a confirmed group of 40 ISDM adoption variables that

can be used for ISDM evaluation and selection as shown in Ta-

ble 3.

Perceived Relative Advantage: This is the key variable that

drives an organization to adopt ISDM or any technology. Rela-

tive advantages are perceived benefits gained from ISDM usage.

In general, expected advantages from ISDM use may include bet-

ter end product, better development process, standardizing sys-

tem development process, increasing productivity and quality,

better system documentation, etc. (Rogers, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1998;

Huisman & Iivari, 2002; Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006).

ISDM Propertie s and Feat ures: This directly influences new

ISDM adoption. ISDM feature variables include: ISDM costs,

ability to customize ISDM on a project-by-project basis, simple

to understand and teach, compatibility with existing systems, te-

chniques utilized within ISDM, observability, trialability, and fle-

xibility (Rogers, 1995; Fitzgeral d, 1998; Huisman & Ii vari, 2002;

Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006).

Organizational Environment: These should be suitable for

accommodating new ISDM in order to obtain advantages from

IS DM use. Organizational issues include: sufficien t resources and

facilities, management support, developer acceptance, developer

experience, and developer skill and knowledge (Fitzgerald and

Russo, 2002; Huisman & Iivari, 2003; Avison & Fitzgerald,

2006).

Table 3.

ISDM adoption variables.

Relative Advantage

Variables ISDM Properties and

Features Variables Organizational

Environment Variables

Better en d p roduct Cost of ISDM Resources

Better devel. process Customizable Management support

Standardizing Compatibility Developer acceptance

Productivity Techniques Developer experience

Quality Rules Developer skills

Documentation Scope Customer acceptance

Speed of development Problem a nalysis Customer satis faction

Schedule a nd budget IS project management

Speed of development Communication

Maintainable Simplicity

Learning Development Model

Acceptance Observability

Requirements Trialability

Configuration control Reductionist

ISO compliance Flexibility

Reduce ris k Sup plier Suppor t

Tools support

Requisite Model of ISDM Adoption (Research

Question 3 )

The third empirical stage of this study focused on developing

a general ISDM adoption decision model based on the variables

obtained from the Delphi technique. In addition, this stage con-

centrated on adjusting and quantifying the general ISDM model

based on the sel ected organization employees’ perspective in or-

der to examine the practicality of the model. The design of the

ISDM adoption model allows decision-makers to decide which

ISDM is more appropriate for their IS department. The model

developed in this study consists of four levels. The top level

represents the goal/objective of selecting suitable ISDM in order

to adequately meet the organization requirements, needs, and

preferences. The last level is represented by the ISDM alterna-

ti ve. The second and third level s constitute the main va riables and

sub variables respectively, which affect the decision to select

the appropriate ISDM. These variables, affecting the choice of

ISDM, were determined from the literature review and subse-

qu ently evaluated and analyzed using Delphi technique. The mo-

del is simple to use and the computations can be run using avai-

lable specialized software such as “Expert Choice”.

AHP technique was employed for ISDM evaluation and se-

lection for the case study. The model development comprised

three stages: structuring the problem/objective, driving informa-

tion and values , and evaluation.

The first stage was to identify the objectives that the case

study is aiming to achieve. Then, all potential ISDM alternatives

were identified for evaluation under a set of specific variables.

The five ISDM alternatives perceived to fulfill the needs of the

IS department of the case study objective are: Dynamic Systems

Development Method (DSDM), Extreme Programming (XP),

in-house methodology, Structured System Analysis and Design

Methodology (SSADM) and Rational Unified Process (RUP).

Each of these ISDM alternatives was evaluated using the same

variables. High level variables consisted of relative advantages,

features of ISDM, and case study environments. Each high level

variable was sub-divided into low level variables, including spe-

cific issues detailed from the main variables.

During the second stage, respondents were asked to weigh the

level of importance (i.e. a pair-wise comparis on judgm ent) of each

criterion and then score all the alternatives against the specified

criteria.

The last stage evaluated the alternatives and conducted sensi-

tivity analysis using the ExpertChoice software. Results from the

AHP analysis revealed that the preferred ISDM was in-house

methodology and the second alternative was RUP.

In effect, the proposed model of ISDM adoption helps deci-

sion-makers to increase their level of understanding and solving

of problems, compares the rational results with their intuition,

detects possible relevant reasons behind objective results, and

allows them to improve their decision-making by adjusting wei-

ghting and scoring, and conducting sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

This research “ISDM Adoption within the Context of a De-

veloping Country” combines three study areas of information

systems: information system development methodologies adop-

tion, Delphi technique, and Analytical Hierarchy Process. The

study was conducted using four research methodologies: survey

research, Interviews, Delphi method and a case study in large

federal higher education institutions in the UAE. The data were

A. MARKS

collected from three empirical stages using three data collection

methods (i.e. questionnaires, interviews, and documents).

ISDM are perceived to play a critical role in information sys-

tem development processes. However, the findings of this study

indicate that a very small percentage of the examined IS units

utilize ISDM for their IS development activities, which means

that federal higher education institutions in the UAE have a

long way to go before achieving standardization of information

system development proce sses. The study has raised the impor-

tance of studying the practice of ISDM in a developing country

and within the federal higher education sector in specific. It is

clear that even though a wide range of published ISDM are cited

in the IS literature, their adoption is quite low within the federal

hi gher education sector in t he UAE. This study further f ound that

the adoption of ISDM is related with the nature of business ac-

tivities. For example, IS units supporting students’ registration-

sused a somewhat more structured ISDM approach than IS units

supporting Purchasing and Procurement.

Furthermore, a clear difference in ISDM adoption was noti-

ce d between different size IS departments. Such a difference was

also noted between mature and novice organizations. Older uni-

versities seemed to adopt a more structured ISDM than newer

ones. Interestingly, most of the factors believed to be a reason

for not using ISDM coul d not be supported by the survey resu lts.

However, lack of understanding and lack of appropriate know-

ledge of ISDM concepts and principles and their implications is

a significant barrier to adoption; successful adoption exists only

if those concerned have a full understanding of the ISDM. Sur-

prisingly, the majority of respondents disagreed with the state-

ment that ISDM are too complex or hard to use. This could be

explained due to the fact that most of the surveyed IS units are

not using ISDM. Thus, they might not have a clear picture of its

complexity. It is, however, expected that the growth of popular

ISDM is likely to increase with time.

The proposed model of ISDM adoption based on Delphi te-

chnique and AHP analysis demonstrated an easy procedure to

select the best alternatives from various conflicting variables.

Using the AHP tool supported by “ExpertChoice” software may

help IS practitioners evaluate ISDM alternatives more efficient-

ly and effectively, compared to the traditional method.

First, AHP is a suitable tool for ISDM evaluation. Second,

AHP software applications are inexpensive and available in the

market. Third, the software applications are easy to learn and use

within a short time. Fourth, outcomes from an AHP analysis can

be compared with the intuition or experience of decision-makers

and provide insi ght into differences. Fifth, AHP allows decis ion -

makers to conduct sensitivity analysis to test for different sce-

na rios and conditions of problems. Sixth, the pr oposed model mi-

tigates conflicts and promotes consensus of group decision-ma-

king by identifying reasons of outcomes. Finally, an AHP ana-

lysis is applicable to other issues in regard to choice selection

or alternative evaluations.

This study has examined a systematic way of assessing al-

ternatives of ISDM, which is a complex and controversial issue.

It has endorsed the idea that good decision-making should focus

on objectives and not on alternatives. It has drawn attention to

the use of the Delphi technique and Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP) in evaluating ISDM alternatives in a complex decision-

ma king process. The purpose of the ISDM adoption decision mo-

del was to find a better way to assess ISDM alternatives. Both

Delphi technique and AHP have never been used before to eva-

luate ISDM in order to select the appropriate ISD methodology

for organizations. The contribution of this study is not to do just

anything that has never been done before, but something that is

important and better. In this case, it is to apply suitable techni-

ques that are more effective and can produce better results.

Future Research

The knowledge gained from conducting the research relating

to ISDM adoption, Delphi technique, and AHP technique areas

can be further developed and expanded to deal with many

prospects. This research intended to investigate ISDM adoption

based on the views of senior IS managers who were in charge

of IT/IS departments within the surveyed organizations. There-

fore, the investigation was limited to the UAE and the exam-

ined federal higher education sectorin terms of ISDM use, te-

chniques, IS environment, trend of ISDM adoption, barrier, etc.

The study did not make an effort to investigate the ISDM prac-

tices from the IS developer point of view. Accordingly, future

studies should focus on the views of those individual IS devel-

opers who work in information system development projects.

Their opinions could differ considerably from that of their sen-

ior IS managers. Future studies on ISDM practices within the

context of developing countries are highly recommended to

manifest the status of ISDM practices in these countries.

In terms of Decision Making, the proposed model using Del-

phi technique and AHP technique is suitable for evaluation and

selection. However, the best selection does not always guaran-

tee successful deployment or implementation, nor ensure a good

return on investment. Therefore, this research can be expanded

by using other decision-making techniques such as System dy-

namics (SD). Research combining the three areas of Delphi te-

chnique, AHP and SD is a fruitful area t o be developed.

REFERENCES

Avison, D. E. & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information systems develop-

ment: Methodologies, techniques & tools. Boston, MA: McGraw-

Hill.

Beynon-Davies, P. (1998). Information systems development. London:

Macmillan.

Beynon-Davies, P. & Williams, D. M. (2003). The diffusion of infor-

mation system development methods. Journal of Strategic Informa-

tion System, 12, 29-46. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00033-1

Charvat, J. (2003). The project management methodologies: Selecting,

implementing and supporting methodologies and processes for pro-

jects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Fitzgerald, B., & Russo, L. (2002). Information system development:

Method in action. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Education.

Fitzgerald, B. (1998). An empirical investigation into the adoption of

system development methodologies. Information and Management,

34, 317-328. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00072-X

Huisman, H. M., & Iivari, J. (2003). Adaptation and the deployment of

systems development methodologies. Proceedings of the Interna-

tional Conference on Computer, Communication and Control Tech-

nologies and the 9th International Conference on Information Sys-

tems Analysis and Synthesis, Tampa, 1 July-2 August 2003.

Huisman, M., & Iivari, J. (2001). The relationship between organisa-

tional culture and the deployment of systems development method-

ologies. Lecture N otes in Computer Science, 2068, 234-250.

Huisman, M., & Iivari, J. (2002). The individual deployment of systems

development methodologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,

2348, 134-150.

Huisman, M., & Iivari, J. (2006). Deployment of systems development

methodologies: Perceptual congruence between IS managers and

systems developer. Information & Management, 43, 29-49.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.005

118

A. MARKS

Iivari, J., & Huisman, M. (2001). The relationship between organisation

culture and the deployment of systems development methodologies.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2068, 234-250.

doi:10.1007/3-540-45341-5_16

Rahim, M., & Seyal, A. H. (1998). Use of software system develop-

ment methods. An empirical study in Brunei Darussalam. Informa-

tion and Software technology, 39, 949-963.

doi:10.1016/S0950-5849(97)00052-9

Wynekoop, J. L., & Russo, N. L. (1997). Studying system development

methodologies: An examination of research methods. Information

Systems Journal, 7, 47-65. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.1997.00004.x