Technology Frameworks

2.7.1 Project Management Methodologies (PMM)

Early ISD frameworks were mostly based on engineering principles, such as project management (PM). PM evolved in China in 486 BC as an engineering framework and has since been adopted globally as a methodology to manage and construct ships, cities, canals, dams, railroads, atomic bombs, military weapons and their platforms, and more recently, internet technologies (Cleland 2004). According to Cleland (2004), the first articulate article outlining PM methods was written by Daniel Defoe and appeared in 1697. However, it wasn’t until the 1920s that organisation theorists adopted PM principles to improve management practices (Aubry, Hobbs & Thuillier 2008; Cleland 2004; Lee, J 1996). Early engineering projects and some management practices had adopted PM principles. However, their application in IT was not formalised until

the late 1950s when Paul Gaddis recognised their benefits as a tool for managing IT activities (Cleland 2004). It could be argued that von Neumann had taken a PM approach in planning, designing and developing the EDVAC machine. Despite its use in these areas, PM was not considered a discipline in its own right until the 1960s (Cleland 2004). From that point forward its application to ISD and organisation change became widespread (Cleland 2004).

2.7.2 Information Systems Development (ISD) Methodologies

Kolltveit, Hennestad and Gronhaug (2007) defined IS projects as having different characteristics to engineering projects. They believed this was attributed to the systemic complexities and implementation issues surrounding ISD. Complex organisation IS implementations required extensive organisation change because their objectives were generally linked to organisation optimisation (Kolltveit, Hennestad & Gronhaug 2007). A range of ISD related methodologies emerged to effect these changes including; Capability Maturity Model (CMM) (Banker & Kauffman 2004), SE (Boarder 1995), Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) (Yourdon 1989), SA&D, Joint Application Development (JAD), Rapid Application Development (RAD) (Burch 1992; Martin 1982), and the meta-methodologies provided by Goepp, Kiefer and De Guio (2008). The majority of these frameworks were described as GST grounded while some were seen as socio-technical focused (Lui & Piccoli 2007; Nilsson, A 2005). The latter ISD frameworks (SA&D for example) enveloped more than the technical aspects of IS, they embraced human factors, and the interface between humans, information, and processes (Alter & Browne 2005; Burch 1992). Figure 4 illustrates the complexity and interplay between the social and technical aspects of ISD in a change environment. Alter and Browne (2005) demonstrated the impact of change on organisation work practices, which they interpreted as falling largely within the social range of the SA&D focus. This aspect is discussed further in section 3.4.

(1) SA&D for SW/HW maintenance and bug fixes

(6) SA&D for organizational change or reengineering

(2) SA&D for SW/HW upgrades affecting work practices

SA&D for creation or major modification of IT-enabled work systems

(4) Involving creation of new application software

(5) Involving configuration and installation of commercial application software (3) SA&D for monitoring and

patching existing practises via process improvement and Six Sigma

Social | | | | | | | | SA&D FOCUS | | | | | | | | Technical

Low <<< --- EXTENT OF CHANGE IN WORK PRACTICES --- >>> High

Figure 4: The Range and Scope of SA&D Contexts (Alter & Browne 2005, p 5)

Burch (1992) believed ISD methodologies should embrace the following core phases:

• information planning; • business analysis;

• business and systems design; • construction; and

• implementation.

He considered these phases as all-encompassing in relation to ISD user involvement. However, over the past two decades a number of alternative methodologies have evolved (Markus, Majchrzak & Gasser 2002; Nilsson, A 2005). More recently, the Goepp, Kiefer and De Guio (2008) ‘contingency’ approach to ISD (shown at Figure 5) incorporated a mix of modules from PM and ISD methodologies. Their intent was to tailor an overarching framework to

better serve the needs of the organisation and the task at hand. ‘Simple’ projects were managed using compatible ISD and PM deliverables, while complex programs were processed using a mix of prescribed methodologies (Goepp, Kiefer & De Guio 2008). Put simply, the nature of the IS problem determined the ISD module(s), which in turn, decided the PM deliverables. The contingency approach was devised in lieu of the widespread dissatisfaction with ISD methodologies (Goepp, Kiefer & De Guio 2008). Traditional methods were deemed too rigid, while contemporary methods were seen as overly ad- hoc having minimal, or no, designated activities to manage the overall process.

Method

Project

IS

Figure 5: Contingency Graph of an Unexploited Mode (Goepp, Kiefer & De Guio 2008, p 227)

Included in the mix of alternative ISD methodologies were the methods designed to deliver agile technology solutions (Alter & Browne 2005; Lui & Piccoli 2007; Rouse 2007). The latest surge in technology-driven business solutions delivered a proliferation of ‘modern’ ISD frameworks designed to facilitate rapid organisation change (Conboy & Fitzgerald 2007), and IS flexibility (Nilsson, A 2005). Conboy and Fitzgerald (2007), and Abbas, Gravell and Wills (2008) noted that, agile methods (RAD for example) originated in the late 1980s as a technology innovation tool. While the concept of agile solutions was second-hand, a recent observation was their requirement to be grounded in theoretical perspectives (organisation theory and technology theory for example) to ensure robustness and uniformity of the ISD process (Conboy & Fitzgerald 2007).

2.7.3 Enterprise Architecture (EA)

The EA framework originated in the 1970’s from the engineering discipline and was used to simulate and optimise manufacturing and distribution systems

(Bernus 2003a; Weston 1998). More recently, EA has been used to simulate and optimise organisational structures, business and decision processes, information flows, and information and communication technology (ICT) environments (Bernus & Uppington 1996; Koumpis & Roberts 2003; Vasiliu & Browne 2003). EA was considered the conduit for organisation interoperability, and a key enabler for meeting performance objectives (Harrison & Varveris 2007). However, many organisations found implementing and sustaining comprehensive EA solutions cumbersome, time consuming, overly complex, and expensive (Bernus 2003a). EA evolved to embrace a plethora of modelling frameworks that were used to conceptualise the enterprise (Bernus 2003b; Noran 2004). These frameworks were defined in terms of their application, or representation of the organisation components (Bernus 2003b; IFIP-IFAC Taskforce 1999; PLAIC 2001). The frameworks included:

• GRAI (Graphs with Results and Activities Interrelated);

• FORMIS (Framework and Open Reference Model for Information Security);

• CIMOSA (Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open Systems); • Zachman (Information Systems Design Architecture);

• TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework); • PERA (Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture); and

• GERAM (Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture Methodology) (Dewhurst, Barber & Pritchard 2002; Doumeingts 1995; IFIP-IFAC Taskforce 1999; Noran 2004; PLAIC 2001).

Business process modelling (BPM) (or BPR) are popular EA frameworks (Attaran 2003), while service oriented architecture (SOA) (Minoli 2008) and Method Engineering (ME) (Winter 2007) are topical frameworks gaining momentum among academics and practitioners alike. The latter frameworks provided scalable architecture solutions examining only those components deemed relevant to the problem at hand (Minoli 2008; Winter 2007). As discussed, agile and contingency ISD methodologies adopted a similar approach. Enterprise Integration (EI) is another architecture framework gaining popularity (Chen, D & Doumeingts 2003; Molina et al. 2005; Naudet et al. 2010). EI focused on integrating all layers within the organisation (or

enterprise) with the core layers defined as business, knowledge, and ICT (Chen, D & Doumeingts 2003).

EA was underpinned by a range of modelling methods and related standards that were governed by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), to name but some (Chen, D & Doumeingts 2003; Molina et al. 2005; Naudet et al. 2010). A combination of modelling methods was needed to comprehensively map the organisation environment (Kosanke 2004; Noran 2004; Schmitt et al. 2004). Moreover, the preferred framework (or modelling method) was essentially user choice, taken in consideration of the task at hand, the frameworks in place within the organisation, and the available resources (Noran 2004). In contrast, Dewhurst, Barber and Pritchard (2002) questioned the ability of EA frameworks to truly replicate the organisation dynamics. They believed EA had limited ability to provide real-time information because of an over reliance on inert simulations. This issue is discussed further in section 3.5.