nach oben

Information Systems Frontiers

Erschienen in:

01.04.2010

A socio-technical approach to improving the systems development process

verfasst von: Ravi Patnayakuni, Cynthia P. Ruppel

Erschienen in: Information Systems Frontiers | Ausgabe 2/2010

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Research on improving the systems development processes has primarily focused on mechanisms such as tools, software development methodologies, knowledge sharing and process capabilities. This research has yielded considerable insights into improving the systems development process, but the large majority of information systems development projects still continue to be over budget, late, and ineffective in meeting user needs. Together with the advent of software development moving offshore, or consisting of offshore team members, a more holistic approach is appropriate. Approached from a socio-technical perspective the software development process is viewed as a process embedded in a social and a technical subsystem. Drawing upon socio-technical work design principles, this paper suggests how capabilities of the development process can be improved. Data collected from a survey of software development practices in organizations indicates that organizations at different levels of process capabilities differ in work system characteristics as well as process performance. For example, the use of multi-skilled teams was found to be significantly related to the systems development process maturity level as well as significantly related to all the performance measures studied. This paper provides empirical support for the socio-technical approach and provides a theoretical foundation for designing software process initiatives in organizations.

Vorheriger Artikel Examining the influence of service quality and secondary influence on the behavioural intention to change internet service provider

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

CMM, or Capability Maturity Model has been replaced by the Software Engineering Institute by Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). However, on their website they state: “Many of the skills used in applying the Software CMM are useful in implementing a CMMI-based process improvement program, since many of the best practices, issues, and improvement approaches are essentially the same.” Since our study primarily uses CMM as an indicator of process capabilities, the results are applicable across both models proposed by SEI.

Aladwani, A. M. (2002). An empirical examination of the role of social integration in systems development projects. Information Systems Journal, 12, 339–353.CrossRef

Alter, S. (1999). A general, yet useful theory of information systems. Communications of the AIS, 1, 1–70.CrossRef

Alter, S. (2001). Which life cycle—Work, information, or software? Communications of the AIS, 7, 1–54.

Agrawal, M., & Chari, K. (2007). Software effort, quality and cycle time: A study of CMM Level 5 Projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33, 145–156.CrossRef

Anonymous (2002). Q&A: James Rumbaugh, a modeling champion. Application Development Trends, 6, 2.

Avgerou, C. (2001). The significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Information Systems Journal, 11, 43–63.CrossRef

Bahrami, H. (1992). The emerging flexible organization: Perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 34, 33–52.

Banker, R. D., & Kauffman, R. J. (1991). Reuse and productivity in integrated computer-aided software engineering: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 15, 375–401.CrossRef

Bansler, J. P., & Bodker, K. (1993). A reappraisal of structured analysis: Design in organizational context. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 11, 165–193.CrossRef

Benko, C., & McFarlan, W. (2003). Connecting the dots: Aligning projects with objectives in unpredictable times. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Booch, G. (1999). UML in action. Communications of the ACM, 42, 26–28.CrossRef

Brooks, F. P. (1987). No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Computer, 20, 10–19.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organizations: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198–213.CrossRef

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, UK: Tavistock Publications.

Card, D. N., Mcgarry, F. E., & Page, G. T. (1987). Evaluating software engineering technologies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 13, 845–851.CrossRef

Cherns, A. (1987). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 40, 45–51.CrossRef

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.CrossRef

Dayan, R., & Evans, S. (2006). KM your way to CMMI. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 69–80.CrossRef

Diaz, M., & Sligo, J. (1997). How software process improvement helped Motorola. IEEE Software, 14, 75–81.CrossRef

Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1997). The assimilation of software process innovations: An organizational learning perspective. Management Science, 43, 1345–1363.CrossRef

Fichman, R. G., & Moses, S. A. (1999). An incremental process for software implementation,. Sloan Management Review, 40, 39–52.

Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 9, 704–711.CrossRef

Finlay, P. N., & Mitchell, A. C. (1994). Perceptions of benefits from the introduction of case: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 18, 353–370.CrossRef

Greenwood, R. H., & Hinnings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1052.CrossRef

Grover, V., Jeong, S. R., & Segars, A. H. (1996). Information system effectiveness: The construct space and patterns of application. Information and Management, 31, 177–191.CrossRef

Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68, 104–102.

Harter, D. E., Krishnan, M. S., & Slaughter, S. A. (2000). Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time and effort in software product development. Management Science, 46, 451–466.CrossRef

Herbsleb, J., & Zubrow, D. (1997). Software quality and the capability maturity model. Communications of the ACM, 40, 30–40.CrossRef

Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W. & Paulk, M. C. (1997). Software quality and the capability maturity model. CACM, 4, 31–40.

Hollenbach, C., Young, R., Pflugrad, A., & Smith, D. (1997). Combining quality and software process improvement. Communications of the ACM, 30, 41–45.CrossRef

Humphrey, W. S., & Curtis, B. (1991). Comments on ‘a critical look’. IEEE Software, 8, 42–46.CrossRef

Ivari, J., Hirscheim, R., & Klien, H. K. (2001). A dynamic framework for classifying information systems development methodologies and approaches. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 179–218.

Iversen, J., & Mathiassen, L. (2003). Cultivation and engineering of a software metrics program. Information Systems Journal, 13, 3–19.CrossRef

Keil, M., Mann, J., & Rai, A. (2000). Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. MIS Quarterly, 24, 631–664.CrossRef

King, W. R. (2005). Outsourcing becomes more complex. Information Systems Management, 22, 89–90.CrossRef

Leonard-Barton, D. (1991). The role of process innovation and adaptation in attaining strategic technology capability. International Journal of Technology Management, 6, 303–320.

Levinson, M. (2001). Let’s stop wasting $78 billion a year. CIO, 78–83.

Lyytinen, K., & Robey, D. (1999). Learning failure in information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 9, 85–101.CrossRef

Markus, M. L., & Benjamin, R. I. (1997). Magic bullet theory in IT-enabled transformation. Sloan Management Review, 38, 55–68.

Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 15, 583–598.CrossRef

Martin, J. (1986). Information engineering. Camforth: Savant.

Mathiessen, L. (1998). Reflective systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Science, 10, 67–117.

Melcher, A., Acar, W., Dumont, P., & Khouja, M. (1990). Standard-maintaining and continuous-improvement systems: Experiences and comparisons. Interfaces, 20, 24–41.CrossRef

Mi, P., & Scacchi, W. (1992). Process integration in case environments. IEEE Software, 9, 45.CrossRef

Mumford, E. (1995). Creative chaos or constructive change: Business process re-engineering versus socio-technical design. In G. Burke & J. Peppard (Eds.), Examining business process re-engineering (pp. 192–216). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Mumford, E. (2003). Redesigning human systems. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., & Zowghi, D. (2005). A Maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study. The Journal of Systems and Software, 74, 155.CrossRef

Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13, 370–386.CrossRef

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249.CrossRef

Parthasarthy, R. S., & Prakash, S. (1993). Relating strategy and structure to flexible automation: A test of fit and performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 529.CrossRef

Pasmore, W. A. (1998). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical system perspective. New York, NY: Wiley.

Patnayakuni, R., & Rai, A. (2002). Development infrastructure capabilities and process maturity. Communications of the ACM, 45, 201–210.CrossRef

Patnayakuni, R., Rai, A., & Tiwana, A. (2007). Systems development process improvement: A knowledge integration perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(2), 286–300.CrossRef

Patnayakuni, R., Ruppel, C., & Rai, A. (2006). Managing the complementarity of knowledge integration and process formalization for systems development performance. Journal of Association of Information Systems, 7(8), 545–567.

Pfleeger, S. L. (1996). Realities and rewards of software process improvement. IEEE Software, 13, 99–101.CrossRef

Pfleeger, S. L. (2001). Software engineering: Theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). Survey research methodology in management information systems: An assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 75–105.

Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 12, 117–135.CrossRef

Rai, A., & Howard, G. (1994). Propagating CASE usage for software development: An empirical investigation of key organizational correlates. Omega, 22, 133–147.CrossRef

Ravichandran, T., & Rai, A. (2002). Quality management in systems development: An organizational systems perspective. MIS Quarterly, 24, 381–415.CrossRef

Rose, J. (2002). Interaction, transformation and informations systems development—An extended application of soft systems methodology. Information Technology & People, 15, 242–258.CrossRef

Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., & Feldman, M. S. (1998). Electronic mail and organizational science: Does saying “hi” really matter? Organization Science, 9, 685–698.CrossRef

Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An intenational Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 5–36.

Shani, A. B., Grant, R. M., Krishnan, R., & Thompson, E. (1992). Advanced manufacturing systems and organizational choice: Sociotechnical systems approach. California Management Review, 34, 91–111.

Souder, W. (1987). Managing new product innovations. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Staples, M., Niazi, M., Ross, J., & Abrahams, A. (2007). An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. The Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 883.CrossRef

Tate, G., Verner, J., & Jeffery, R. (1992). Case: A testbed for modeling, measurement, and management. Communications of the ACM, 35, 65–72.CrossRef

Trienekens, J., Kusters, R., vanGenuchten, M., & Aerts, H. (2007). Targets, drivers and metrics in software process improvement: Results of a survey in a multinational organization. Software Quality Journal, 15, 135–153.CrossRef

Unhelkar, B., & Mamdapur, G. (1995). Practical aspects of using a methodology: A road map approach. Report on Object Analysis and Design, 2, 34–36.

Wynekoop, J. L. (1993). Strategies for implementation research: Combining research methods. International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, TX, pp 185–193.

Yu, J., & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36–44.CrossRef

Zanzi, A. (1987). How organic is your organization? Journal of Management Studies, 24, 125.CrossRef

Titel: A socio-technical approach to improving the systems development process
verfasst von: Ravi Patnayakuni
Cynthia P. Ruppel
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2010
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Information Systems Frontiers / Ausgabe 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1387-3326
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9419
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9093-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2010

Object-oriented re-engineering of manufacturing models: A case study

Structure of service level agreements (SLA) in IT outsourcing: The construct and its measurement

Do as your parents say?—Analyzing IT adoption influencing factors for full and under age applicants

An SVM-based machine learning method for accurate internet traffic classification

An approach for moving object recognition based on BPR and CI

A flow-based model of web site intentions when users customize products in business-to-consumer electronic commerce