Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> Innovation diffusion theory provides a useful perspective on one of the most persistently challenging topics in the IT field, namely, how to improve technology assessment, adoption and implementation. For this reason, diffusion is growing in popularity as a reference theory for empirical studies of information technology adoption and diffusion, although no comprehensive review of this body of work has been published to date. This paper presents the results of a critical review of eighteen empirical studies published during the period 1981-1991. Conclusive results were most likely when the adoption context closely matched the contexts in which classical diffusion theory was developed (for example, individual adoption of personal-use technologies), or when researchers extended diffusion theory to account for new factors specific to the IT adoption context under study. Based on classical diffusion theory and other recent conceptual work, a framework is developed to guide future research in IT diffusion. The framework maps two classes of technology (ones that conform closely to classical diffusion assumptions versus ones that do not) against locus of adoption (individual versus organizational), resulting in four IT adoption contexts. For each adoption context, variables impacting adoption and diffusion are identified. Additionally, directions for future research are discussed. <s> BIB001 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> This paper presents the findings of an empirical study into two organizations' experiences with the adoption and use of CASE tools over time. Using a grounded theory research approach, the study characterizes the organizations' experiences in terms of processes of incremental or radical organizational change. These findings are used to develop a theoretical framework for conceptualizing the organizational issues around the adoption and use of these tools-issues that have been largely missing from contemporary discussions of CASE tools. The paper thus has important implications for research and practice. Specifically, the framework and findings suggest that in order to account for the experiences and outcomes associated with CASE tools, researchers should consider the social context of systems development, the intentions and actions of key players, and the implementation process followed by the organization. Similarly, the paper suggests that practitioners will be better able to manage their organizations' experiences with CASE tools if they understand that such implementations involve a process of organizational change over time and not merely the installation of a new technology. <s> BIB002 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> Despite over a decade of study, little is really known about information systems development and the use of systems development methodologies. There has been little evaluation of methodologies in use or examination of the selection, development, adaptation or use of methodologies in practice. This paper discusses this lack of knowledge and its ramifications for research and practice. <s> BIB003 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> Information technology (IT) development methodologies may be described as another bastion of rationalist, positivist, functionalist hegemony. The paper historically reviews IT development methodologies of the past 30 years. The major methodologies of the Classical Systems Life Cycle, Structures Systems Development, Data Modeling and Object Oriented Analysis are briefly reviewed in terms of their ubiquitously quoted evolution and maturation and the benefits they purport to offer IT specialists and managers, general management and user groups. This paper argues that, while it has traditionally been the case that such methodologies be compared on a case‐by‐case basis, it is time to step back from the traditionally reductionist, positivist approaches of IT. IT methodological development is considered here from a critical, anti‐positivist perspective. It is suggested that qualitiative research methodologies be employed to assist in creating a new IT development epistemology to spare us from further IT implementation disasters. <s> BIB004 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> In this research, the authors examine factors affecting the use of product development methods. Based on established behavioral theories, they develop and test a model that can explain, and hence predict, the extent of use of development methods. Although their model can be adapted to any development process, they apply it to software development. To test their model, they examine the combined effects of a number of important usage factors that contribute to the depth and breadth of use of two software development approaches: the waterfall model and prototyping. Two main constructs, process quality and facilitating conditions, are found to be the drivers of method usage. The dominating "facilitating conditions" and "process quality" indicators vary from one method to another product quality was not found to be a statistically significant factor in explaining usage. The authors' results are consistent with the view taken by the software process improvement movement, i.e., that a quality process will result in a quality product. <s> BIB005 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> This paper proposes a four-tiered framework for classifying and understanding the myriad of information systems development methodologies that have been proposed in the literature. The framework is divided into four levels: paradigms, approaches, methodologies, and techniques. This paper primarily focuses on the two intermediate levels: approaches and methodologies. The principal contribution of the framework is in providing a new kind of "deep structure" for better understanding the intellectual core of methodologies and approaches and their interrelationships. It achieves this goal by articulating a parsimonious set of foundational features that are shared by subsets of methodologies and approaches. To illustrate how the framework's deep structure provides a better understanding of methodologies' intellectual core, it is applied to eleven examples. The paper also introduces and illustrates a procedure for "accommodating" and "assimilating" new information systems development methodologies in addition to the eleven already discussed. This procedure provides the framework with the necessary flexibility for handling the continuing proliferation of new methodologies. <s> BIB006 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> This paper reports results of a survey that investigated factors affecting the deployment of systems development methodologies by individual systems developers. The results show that relative advantage, compatibility and trialability of a systems development methodology, an individual's experience in systems development and his/her experience in systems development methodologies, management support and peer developer support, and uncertainty about the continued existence of the IS department significantly influence the deployment of systems development methodologies. <s> BIB007 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> Many organizations attempt to deploy methodologies intended to improve software development processes. However, resistance by individual software developers against using such methodologies often obstructs their successful deployment. To better explain why individual developers accept or resist methodologies, five theoretical models of individual intentions to accept information technology tools were examined. In a field study of 128 developers in a large organization that implemented a methodology, each model explained significant variance in developers' intentions to use the methodology. Similar to findings from the tool adoption context, we found that, if a methodology is not regarded as useful by developers, its prospects for successful deployment may be severely undermined. In contrast to the typical pattern of findings in a tool context, however, we found that methodology adoption intentions are driven by: 1) the presence of an organizational mandate to use the methodology, 2) the compatibility of the methodology with how developers perform their work, and 3) the opinions of developers' coworkers and supervisors toward using the methodology. Collectively, these results provide surprising new insights into why software developers accept or resist methodologies and suggest what software engineering managers might do to overcome developer resistance. <s> BIB008 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> Seeking to improve software development, many organizations attempt to deploy formalized methodologies. This typically entails substantial behavioral change by software developers away from previous informal practices toward conformance with the methodology. Developers' resistance to such change often results in failure to fully deploy and realize the benefits of the methodology. The present research draws upon theories of intention formation and innovation diffusion to advance knowledge about why developers accept or resist following methodologies. Results from a field study within a large organization indicate that developers' intentions are directly influenced by their perceptions of usefulness, social pressure, compatibility, and organizational mandate. This pattern of intention determinants is quite different from that typically observed in studies of information technology tool adoption, revealing several key differences between the domains of tool versus methodology adoption. Specifically, although organizational mandate had a significant effect on intentions, the strength of its direct influence was the lowest among the four significant constructs, and usefulness, compatibility, and social pressure all influenced intentions directly, above and beyond the effects of organizational mandate. The findings suggest, contrary to popular belief, that an organizational mandate is not sufficient to guarantee use of the methodology in a sustained manner. <s> BIB009 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> INTRODUCTION <s> It is widely believed that systems development methodologies (SDMs) can help improve the software development process. Nevertheless, their deployment often encounters resistance from systems developers. Agile methodologies, the latest batch of SDMs that are most suitable in dealing with volatile business requirements, are likely to face the same challenge as they require developers to drastically change their work habits and acquire new skills. This paper addresses what can be done to overcome the challenge to agile methodologies acceptance. We provide a critical review of the extant literature on the acceptance of traditional SDMs and agile methodologies, and develop a conceptual framework for agile methodologies acceptance based on a knowledge management perspective. This framework can provide guidance for future research into acceptance of agile methodologies, and has implications for practitioners concerned with the effective deployment of agile methodologies. <s> BIB010
Early systems development projects often applied unsystematic methods. As these systems, embedded in a dynamic environment, became increasingly complex, the use of more disciplined methodological approaches proved to be indispensable  . Some of the most fundamental concepts that justify the use of structured methodologies, as identified by Fitzgerald,  are: i) they reduce complexity by subdividing the development and management process into plausible and coherent steps, ii) they increase transparency and therefore control of the development process, thus reducing risk and uncertainty, iii) they provide a goal-oriented framework that helps to direct the application of techniques and resources at appropriate times during the development and management process, and iv) they enable the standardisation of the development and management process. This facilitates the application of lessons learned from past experiences and also increases productivity and quality, because resource requirements can be predicted and made available as and when necessary  . As such, in search of ways to achieve predictable results, organisations either adopt, or customise and adaptively apply, information systems development (ISD) (e.g. object oriented systems development, agile system development etc.) and information system management (ISM) methodologies (e.g. IT project management (PM), enterprise architecture management (EAM), project portfolio management (PPM), IT benefits management (BM) etc.). These consist of tested bodies of methods, rules, and assumptions that fit the organisation BIB003 BIB006 . Even though a methodological approach to solving complex tasks holds certain benefits, a methodology in itself is no silver bullet BIB006 . Despite the overwhelming advantages of using an IS methodology, only a handful of organisations are able to develop and implement one that is useful to the individuals that actually have to use it. Furthermore, only about 50% of organisations are able to motivate their staff to use such IS methodologies  . In a survey conducted by Russo et al.  , they report that only 6% of organisations claim that their methodologies are always used as specified. Eva and Guilford  conducted a survey of 152 organisations, and found that only 17% of respondents use a methodology as a whole. As a result of this inconsistent use, despite the high investment in the development of IS methodologies and the pressure to use them, their practical usefulness is still a controversial issue BIB007 . The root of these problems lie, among others, in the failure to understand the needs of actual methodology users, which ultimately leads to the development and implementation of an IS Methodology that does not suit the user"s needs and skills, and which they consequently reject. The reason why user acceptance of IS methodologies is so much more important for consistent use, than acceptance at an organisational level is because, although an IS methodology is "adopted" by an organisation, the extent of its use (i.e. breadth and depth) is usually decided by the actual users of the methodology BIB008 BIB005 . The importance to distinguish between the intentions of individuals to use a methodology from those of an organisation, is also suggested by Fichman BIB001 : "the relative lack of attention to individual adoption of technologies is unfortunate because, while the organisation as a whole makes the initial adoption decision for such technologies, the actions of individual adopters (e.g., how enthusiastically they embrace the innovation) can be expected to have a large impact on the implementation process". Thus, overcoming resistance to IS BIB001 th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, 16 th -18 th February 2011, Zurich, Switzerland methodology acceptance at an individual level is a critical area of concern in IS research BIB009 . Another issue, critical to understanding acceptance of methodologies, is recognising that comprehensive methodologies are not similar to individual methods (e.g. stakeholder analysis, use cases, entity relationship diagrams etc) and tools (e.g. ARIS, CASE tools, project management information systems, etc.). Although literature exists on the use of methods and tools, there is not sufficient justification for assuming, without empirical validation, that the results from the method/tool acceptance domain would be applicable to the methodology usage context BIB008 . Reasons why the adoption and success of new methodologies might be so different and so much more challenging than the adoption and success of specific methods and tools lies partly in the tacit organisational and individual problems that are caused by the introduction of new methodologies (which still remain insufficiently explored) BIB004 . Radical changes that are accompanied by new methodologies justify the need for exclusive research on their impact, instead of simply considering research on the adoption of methods and tools (which represent minor changes), to be directly applicable in the context of methodologies BIB002 . For example, the stress associated with the learning of a new methodology, the fear, and the impact on selfesteem and identity that is associated with the organisational restructuring or re-engineering can be grave. Little consideration is given to the emotional costs of role conflict and ambiguity, organizational conflict or workplace transformation, which recognizes the communication practices, personal relationships and co-ordination within the organization BIB004 . Consequently, the magnitude of behavioural change entailed by the adoption of a methodology is greater than that of a method or a tool BIB008 . All this warrants considering the antecedents of adoption and success of methodologies and the interrelationships between them to be different than that of individual methods and tools. In order to better understand the domain of methodology acceptance, there is a need to conduct a critical review of the extant literature with the aim of: a) distinguishing what has been done from what needs to be done, b) synthesising and gaining a new perspective, c) discovering avenues for future research on methodology adoption at an individual level  , and d) developing a research agenda for future studies. Consequently, our critical analysis is organised along the following research questions: 1) What findings have been reported in studies up to now?, and 2) what are the potential fruitful avenues for future research regarding an individual's acceptance of IS development and management (ISDM) methodologies? As to our knowledge, no systematic review of ISDM methodologies has been published before. Existing reviews focus on very specific types of ISD methodologies, especially agile and object-oriented system development (for e.g. BIB010  . Furthermore, the previous reviews, except that of  , generally do not include any examination of the research design and methodology of the published studies, as in this systematic review. We feel that this overview will be important for researchers who wish to identify areas that have been researched or in which research is lacking, as well for practitioners who want to stay up to date on the current state of research in the general domain of ISDM methodologies. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 defines IS methodology as it is used in this paper, differentiating it from methods and tools. In this section, we also provide justification for the necessity of this differentiation. Section 3 explains the literature review and research practice assessment methodology. In section 4, we present the results, critically examine the literature review, and discuss future research opportunities. In section 5, we discuss the limitation of the literature review and provide an overview of the next steps in our research that i) aims at providing a solution to the limitations and ii) elaborates on how we plan to build upon our literature review results in order to develop a better understanding of the research topic at hand. We conclude with section 6, highlighting the contributions of the current research.