Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Traditional, iterative, and component-based development: A social analysis of software development paradigms

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information systems have always been developed through social processes, wherein actors playing a variety of specialized roles interact to produce new business applications of information technology. As systems development practices continue to evolve, an ongoing assessment of their social implications is required. This paper develops a framework for understanding the potential social implications of an emerging, component-based development paradigm. Like two alternative paradigms for systems development, the traditional life-cycle and the iterative-incremental paradigms, the new component-based paradigm requires that certain generic roles be performed to build a desired application. For each paradigm, we identify the actors who play different roles, specify the nature of their interdependence, and indicate the requirements for managing conflicts constructively. The framework may guide research into the social dynamics of system development and serve as a tentative guide to the management of information systems development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. Applebaum and M. Guttman, Transitioning to component technology, Component Strategies 1(6) (1998) 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W.G. Astley and P. Sachdeva, Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis, Academy of Management Review 9 (1984) 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Barki and J. Hartwick, User participation, conflict, and conflict resolution: The mediating roles of influence, Information Systems Research 5(4) (1994) 422–438.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S.R. Barley, Contextualizing conflict: Notes on the anthropology of disputes and negotiations, in: Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 3, eds. M.H. Bazerman, R.J. Lewicki and B.H. Sheppard (JAI Press, 1991) pp. 165–199.

  5. R.A. Baron, Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance, in: Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. M.A. Rahim (Praeger, 1989).

  6. C.M. Beath, Supporting the information technology champion, MIS Quarterly 15(3) (1991) 355–372.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C.M. Beath and W.J. Orlikowski, The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering, Information Systems Research 5(4) (1994) 350–377.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. Boar, Application Prototyping: A Requirements Definition Strategy for the 80s (Wiley, 1984).

  9. B. Boehm, A spiral model of software development and enhancement, IEEE Computer 21(5) (1988) 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.J. Boland, Jr., The process and product of system design, Management Science 24(9) (1978) 887–898.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Booch, Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications (Benjamin/Cummings, 1994).

  12. G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh and I. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide (Addison-Wesley, 1999).

  13. R.P. Bostrom, Successful application of communication techniques to improve the systems development process, Information & Management 16(5) (1989) 279–295.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C.W. Churchman, The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations (Basic Books, 1971).

  15. A.T. Cobb, An episodic model of power: Toward an integration of theory and research, Academy of Management Review 9 (1984) 482–493.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R.A. Cosier and D.R. Dalton, Positive effects of conflict: A field assessment, International Journal of Conflict Management 1 (1990) 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  17. R.A. Cosier and C.R. Schwenk, Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions, Academy of Management Executive 4(1) (1990) 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B. DeBrabander and G. Thiers, Successful information system development in relation to situational factors which affect effective communication between MIS-users and EDP-specialists, Management Science 30(2) (1984) 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T. DeMarco, Structured Systems Analysis and System Specification (Prentice-Hall, 1979).

  20. M.E. Fayad, W.-T. Tsai and M.L. Fulghum, Transition to object-oriented software development, Communications of the ACM 39(2) (1996) 108–121.

    Google Scholar 

  21. C.R. Franz and D. Robey, An investigation of user-led system design: Rational and political perspectives, Communications of the ACM 27(12) (1984) 1202–1209.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.C. Henderson, Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical IS connection, Sloan Management Review 31(3) (1991) 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Hirschheim and H. Klein, Four paradigms of information systems development, Communications of the ACM 32(10) (1989) 1199–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Hirschheim, H. Klein and M. Newman, Information systems development as social action, Omega 19(6) (1991) 587–608.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J.E. Hunton and J.D. Beeler, Effects of user participation in systems development: A longitudinal field experiment, MIS Quarterly 21(4) (1997) 359–388.

    Google Scholar 

  26. IEEE Software 15(5) (1998), Special focus on component-based software engineering.

  27. T. Jell, CUC96: Component Based Software Engineering (SIGS Books, 1998).

  28. R. Kraut, S. Dumais and S. Koch, Computerization, productivity, and quality of work-life, Communications of the ACM 32(2) (1989) 220–238.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Laitkorpi and A. Jaaksi, Extending the object-oriented software process with component oriented design, JOOP 12(1) (1999) 41–50, 67.

    Google Scholar 

  30. R.J. Lewicki, S.E. Weiss and D. Lewin, Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis, Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(3) (1992) 209–252.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Martin, Information Engineering, Book I: Introduction (Prentice-Hall, 1989).

  32. J. Martin, Information Engineering, Book II: Planning and Analysis (Prentice-Hall, 1990).

  33. J. Martin, Information Engineering, Book III: Design and Construction, (Prentice-Hall, 1990).

  34. R.O. Mason and I.I. Mitroff, A program for research on management information systems, Management Science 19(5) (1973) 475–487.

    Google Scholar 

  35. J.D. McGregor and T.D. Korson, Integrated object-oriented testing and development processes, Communications of the ACM 37(9) (1994) 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. Newman and F. Noble, User involvement as an interaction process: A case study, Information Systems Research 1(1) (1990) 89–113.

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Newman and D. Robey, A social process model of user-analyst relationships, MIS Quarterly 16(2) (1992) 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  38. O. Nierstrasz, S. Gibbs and D. Tsichritzis, Component-oriented software development, Communications of the ACM 35(9) (1992) 160–165.

    Google Scholar 

  39. L.R. Pondy, Organizational conflict: Concepts and models, Administrative Science Quarterly 12(2) (1967) 296–320.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach (McGraw-Hill, 1997).

  41. D. Robey and D.L. Farrow, User involvement in information systems development: A conflict model and empirical test, Management Science 28(1) (1982) 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  42. D. Robey, D.L. Farrow and C.R. Franz, Group process and conflict during system development, Management Science 35(10) (1989) 1172–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  43. D. Robey, L.A. Smith and L.R. Vijayasarathy, Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems development projects, Journal of Management Information Systems 10(1) (1993) 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  44. D. Robey and M. Newman, Sequential patterns in information systems development: An application of a social process model, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 14(1) (1996) 30–63.

    Google Scholar 

  45. D. Robey and M.-C. Boudreau, Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications, Information Systems Research 10(2) (1999) 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  46. J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy and W. Lorensen, Object-Oriented Modeling and Design (Prentice-Hall, 1991).

  47. R. Sabherwal and D. Robey, An empirical taxonomy of implementation processes based on sequences of events in information system development, Organizational Science 4(4) (1993) 548–576.

    Google Scholar 

  48. R. Sabherwal and J.J. Elam, Overcoming the problems in information systems development by building and sustaining commitment, Accounting, Management & Information Technologies 5(3/4) (1996) 283–309.

    Google Scholar 

  49. G. Salaway, An organizational learning approach to information systems development, MIS Quarterly 11(2) (1987) 244–264.

    Google Scholar 

  50. N.F. Simenson, The architect: Roles and responsibilities, American Programmer 10(7) (1997) 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  51. D.F. Sittig, S. Sengupta, H. Al-Daig, T.H. Payne and P. Pincetl, The role of the information architect at king faisal specialist hospital and research center, in: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Health Care (1995) pp. 756–760.

  52. J. Voas, Maintaining component-based systems, IEEE Software 15(4) (1998) 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  53. D.B. Walz, J.J. Elam and B. Curtis, Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration, Communications of the ACM 36(10) (1993) 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R. Welke, The shifting software development paradigm, Data Base 25(4) (1994) 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  55. E. Yourdon, Modern Structured Analysis (Prentice-Hall, 1989).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4015, Atlanta, GA, 30302-4015, USA

    Daniel Robey & Richard Welke

  2. Colorado State University, USA

    Daniel Turk

Authors
  1. Daniel Robey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Welke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Turk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robey, D., Welke, R. & Turk, D. Traditional, iterative, and component-based development: A social analysis of software development paradigms. Information Technology and Management 2, 53–70 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009982704160

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009982704160

Search

Navigation