concerns as 
ational size; 
ve. Perhaps 
System may 
iculating the 
, 1991]. One 
for another, 
short or long 
Jy for staff of 
for another 
e. Decision 
ntly at each 
implications 
NS and their 
mper, 1992] 
  
1e criteria in 
the filtered 
a matching 
ind C2 are 
ised on how 
experience, 
and tests, 
tools and 
xpectations 
ighed rating 
yer function, 
weights is 
nclude the 
lection per 
methodology per evaluator based on the contingency model 
(OSAD,ISAD viewed in relation to Aspects, as well as other 
criteria). 
¢ STEP 9: The preceding step has its level of subjectivity 
(per evaluator) which has to be brought to a more objective 
level of choice. This can be achieved using the MECCA 
technique (Multi Element Component Comparison 
Analysis). Composite results per evaluator are put together 
in a table. The result of this step is a priority list of 
methodologies with the highest total scores to be 
considered either per phase of the Object System or as a 
whole, but preferably per phase; so that a methodology can 
be seen to be transparently suitable for a particular phase, 
or otherwise. It should be noted that other considerations 
within the MECCA technique (like weighting) are already 
embedded in steps 2 through 6. 
¢ STEPS 10 AND 11: The Final Decision on Development 
Strategy can be an approach using: 
(i) Prototypes, (ii) Specifying during the System Life Cycle, 
or (iii) A Mixture of both 
The determination can be effected by considering both the 
degrees of uncertainty and complexity as contingencies 
relevant for the evaluation of the Object System for 
Strategy determination. This line of reasoning has become 
acceptable though with variations [Episkopou and Wood- 
Harper, 1986; Burns and Denis, 1985 ; Modha et al, 1990]. 
To arrive at an optimum Strategy and Decision, the above 
stated contingencies are used to assess the Object System 
inorder to determine the Uncertainty and Complexity levels 
of the development process. 
  
Em N 
  
  
  
  
  
  
      
  
Mia 6 L---------- : 
1 1 L ' 
1 ' ' ' 
' | ' 1 
| 1 I 1 
1 1 ' 1 
ben 0 = d A------- L……- 
10 24 
Legend : Mia Max TUS 
ifying 
[7] Prototyping 
Figure 6 An Example of a Decision Matrix for 
Development Strategy 
CONCLUDING REMARKS 
The Selection of an Optimum methodology for developing 
any Information System has to be preceded by a thorough 
understanding of trends in Information System 
Development, the nature of the Object System, as well as 
a good reasoned analysis of any criteria and contingencies 
necessary for use in the selection process. 
The criteria score can directly be used without the phases 
weighting if one does not intend to evaluate the 
methodologies over the entire phases of the Object 
System. It can be reasoned that if it is accepted that no 
single methodology has yet proven to be satisfactory over 
the entire Systems life cycle, then a framework for 
evaluation may not seek for such a methodology; rather it 
can concentrate on refining the criteria C, and examining 
C, in terms of their importance relative to each other. 
The question of levels of decomposition and aspects 
become apparent when one considers that methodologies 
do have specific orientations and the techniques they 
recommend prove either too detailed or too broad to be 
sufficiently used in some phases. 
Step ten of the framework (Establishment of development 
strategy) may precede step zero depending on any other 
experiences of the evaluation committee. This is so since 
a step-ten result of Low complexity + Low uncertainty may 
require only prototyping , in which case it would no longer 
be expedient to continue evaluating the Structured 
methodologies. But even prototyping may not be carried out 
without some form of preliminary studies. In that case, a 
soft approach may become handy. 
The evaluation model lends itself to criticisms but it is 
hoped that the flexibility offered would make it applicable to 
a wide range of information systems. 
REFERENCES 
Avison,D.E. and Fitzgerald,G., 1988. Information System 
Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. 
Blackwell Publications, Oxford. 
Burch,J.G.(Jnr.),Strater,F.R.,and Grudnitski,G., 1979. 
Information Systems: Theory and Practice (2nd.Ed.). John 
Wiley & Sons, New York. 
Burns,R.N. and Dennis A.R., 1985. Selecting the 
Appropriate Application Development Methodology. Data 
Base Fall, pp.19-23. 
Cutts,G.,1991. Structured Systems Analysis and Design 
Methodology (2nd Edition). Blackwell Scientific Publications, 
London. 
Davis,G.B., and  Olson,M.H. 1985. Management 
Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure, 
and Development. (2 Ed.) McGraw Hill, Singapore. 
Dippel,G. and House,W.C., 1969.Information Systems: 
Data Processing and Evaluation. Scott, Foresman & Co., 
Illinois. 
Dutch User Group of Structured Development 
Methodologies", 1990.16 Methodologies for Systems 
Development: A Comparative Review. 
Elfving,A.and Kirchoff,U.,1991. Design Methodology for 
Space Automation and Robotics Systems. ESA Journal 
Vol.15, pp.149-164. 
Episkopou,D.M. and Wood-Harper,A.T.,1986. Towards a 
Framework to Choose Appropriate IS Approaches. The 
Computer Journal, vol. 29, No. 3, pp.222-228. 
Essien,O.U.,1992. Selection of an Optimum Structured 
Methodology for the Development of Topographic Database 
Systems. MSc. Thesis, ITC. 
265