Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> LIMITATIONS OF THIS REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS <s> This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies-from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research. <s> BIB001 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> LIMITATIONS OF THIS REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS <s> This paper discusses the findings of a field study of experienced systems developers which investigated the use of systems development methodologies (SDMs) in practice. Among the main findings to emerge are the following. There is a wide difference between the formalized sequence of steps and stages prescribed by a methodology and the methodology-in-action uniquely enacted for each development project. Also, there is much evidence which suggests that developers omit certain aspects of methodologies not from a position of ignorance, but from the more pragmatic basis that certain aspects are not relevant to the development environment they face. Thus, methodologies are tailored to the needs of the prevailing development environment and, being documented in a single manual often, are framed at a higher level of granularity that specifies broad activities and objectives, rather than specifying in a very detailed fashion the exact manner in which development should take place. Additionally, the findings clarify the apparently contradictory position in the literature as to whether developer experience is positively or negatively correlated with methodology use. The study would suggest that experienced developers are likely to use methodologies, albeit ones which have been heavily customized to the exigencies of the particular situation. <s> BIB002 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> LIMITATIONS OF THIS REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS <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> BIB003 </s> Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature <s> LIMITATIONS OF THIS REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS <s> 1. The conundrum of the case study Part I. Thinking about Case Studies: 2. What is a case study?: the problem of definition 3. What is a case study good for?: case study versus Large-N cross-case analysis Part II. Doing Case Studies: 4. Preliminaries 5. Techniques for choosing cases 6. Internal validity: an experimental template 7. Internal validity: singular observations Epilogue: single-outcome studies. <s> BIB004
The main limitation of this review is potential bias in the selection, classification and assessing of the literature, which might be caused by subjective opinions of the researchers. In order to reduce this bias and, as part of the next steps, another researcher will independently analyse and classify the final pool of 19 articles. Subsequently, in discussion with the researcher, we will develop a common understanding of the results by comparing his evaluation with ours and critically reflecting on it. In case of unresolvable differences, we will call upon another independent researcher to provide further feedback. Another limitation pertains to the data collection that might be hindered by the keywords we used. Considering that there were more than 1,000 ISDM methodologies and that most of them are commercial products named creatively and not standardised BIB002  BIB003 , our choice of keywords and search strings might have failed to address "buzz words" and unique names of methodologies. Concerning data extraction, we found that some studies did not describe their methods and samples adequately. There is therefore a possibility that the extraction process might have resulted in some inaccuracy in data. Furthermore, our categorisation might have suffered, and could not always be conducted to a very satisfactory degree because some articles lacked sufficient details about the design and findings. Owing to this, we might have differed in what we actually extracted. There is therefore a possibility that the extraction process may have resulted in some inaccuracy in the data. What follows in our research program will build upon our literature review findings. After uncovering what has been done and what needs to be done, the next step is how to do it. Our long-term goal is to discover new variables and relationships, beyond what is already known. For this, two researchers will catalogue and classify existing validated and tested theories and models that might be useful in examining methodology acceptance by individuals, especially in the areas lacking research. Following the cataloguing and classification, the researchers will extract, from these theories, relevant factors and constructs that might help explain methodology acceptance as per guidelines of good qualitative analysis (for e.g. BIB001 BIB004 ), with the help of the software Atlas.ti. The research community might be able to use our work as a rich source to develop a better understanding of the theoretical fieldwork of methodology usage and success. We hope that such a "database" might prove to be a useful source of guidance to researches when looking at the problem at hand from different perspectives. It might help them by sparking new ideas and developing exciting concepts. Regarding the current status of our categorisation and classification project, we have to date identified and conducted an initial classification of 46 theories. We acknowledge that, as a result of subjectivity, limited resources and information processing capabilities, we are sure to have missed out some potential theoretical concepts. We also advise researchers to be critical when they use a theory, because theories are subjectively measured and as such one must make a judgment about which theories are most helpful.