Overview of MIS System Development Approaches

The Skanska case study provides an example of MIS system development in practice. Skanska
implemented a CRM system to create potential for employees across the organization by
supporting marketing and sales work (Johansson & Ström, 2002). This aligns with the purpose of
MIS as information systems designed to provide information needed for effective decision
making at the management level (Rosenblatt & Watson, 1991).

Several approaches exist for developing an effective MIS like the one adopted by Skanska:

Top-Down Approach

The top-down approach follows a hierarchical decomposition strategy for systems analysis and
design (Hirschheim & Klein, 1994). High-level requirements are broken down into lower-level
functional elements. This aligns with Skanska’s approach where top management played an
active role in identifying key CRM objectives and scope.

Top-down methodology is suitable for large enterprises where management has a comprehensive
vision to guide MIS development (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003). However, it tends to focus more
on directives rather than user needs at the operational level.

Bottom-Up Approach

Unlike top-down, the bottom-up approach gathers requirements from end-users to build the
system from the ground up (Hirschheim & Klein, 1994). This involves studying existing
procedures and information needs at the operational level.

While not explicitly stated, Skanska's CRM system was likely influenced by input from sales and
marketing end-users which is characteristic of bottom-up methodology. However, the approach
can lead to fragmentation without proper integration.

Integrative Approach

The integrative approach combines top-down strategic direction and bottom-up user perspectives
for a well-rounded MIS (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003). Key workflows are modeled across levels
to identify dependencies and integration points.

This approach promotes iterative development, allowing requirements to be refined over time.
Skanska's CRM system was developed over several years, indicating likely iterations and
refinements. However, the integrative approach requires extensive coordination.

Traditional Approach

The traditional waterfall approach follows distinct phases in sequential order - planning, analysis,
design, development, testing, deployment (Royce, 1970). Each phase must be fully completed
before the next.
Skanska's long-standing MIS development before CRM was likely more sequential and
traditional. However, the methodology lacks flexibility for late-stage changes which modern
approaches like CRM aim to address.

Agile Approach

In contrast to traditional methods, agile development takes an incremental approach, breaking

projects into smaller modules called sprints (Beck et al., 2001). This provides greater adaptability
to evolving r equirements.

While not specified, Skanska may have adopted more agile techniques for its CRM system to
accommodate shifting needs. However, agile methods require strong project governance to
prevent scope creep.

In summary, Skanska’s CRM system development likely integrated traditional top-down

direction with bottom-up user input through an iterative approach. This provided strategic
alignment while also meeting operational requirements. No single methodology dominates.

Nguồn trích vầy nha

1. Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Information systems development: Methodologies,

techniques and tools. McGraw Hill.
2. Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M.,
Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C.,
Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for agile
software development. http://agilemanifesto.org/
3. Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H.K. (1994). Realizing emancipatory principles in information
systems development: The case for ETHICS. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 83-109.
4. Johansson, J. & Ström, F. (2002). Customer Relationship Management - Case studies of
five Swedish companies. Luleå University of Technology.
5. Rosenblatt, H. J., & Watson, H. J. (1991). The evolution of federal information systems.
Journal of Information Technology Management, 2(1), 1–6.
6. Royce, W. W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems. Proceedings
of IEEE WESCON, 26(8), 1-9.

Discussion of SDLC Methodology

The systems development life cycle (SDLC) provides a framework for building MIS like
Skanska's CRM system. It divides the development effort into manageable phases (Dennis &
Wixom, 2009):

Planning - Defines project scope, timeline, costs, resources, risks.

Analysis - Models existing processes, data and requirements.

Design - Specifies system architecture, software, hardware needs.

Development - Programming and system construction.

Testing - Validating system functionality against requirements.

Deployment - System installation and data migration.

Maintenance - Ongoing support and enhancements.

Skanska's 3T efficiency program in the 1990s could be viewed as an early SDLC iteration to
improve processes before CRM adoption. Subsequent CRM development would have
progressed through planning, analysis, design, testing, and deployment. Maintenance is
ongoing.

Different SDLC methodologies suit different environments. Traditional planar

methodologies like waterfall model follow a linear sequence (Royce, 1970). While
systematic, they lack flexibility.

Iterative approaches like agile methods allow revisiting of phases as needed, suiting rapidly
changing environments (Beck et al., 2001). Skanska's blending of traditional and agile
techniques indicates the methodology must match context.

Overall, SDLC provides a roadmap for system implementation through deliberate planning,
development, and deployment stages. Skanska's long-standing MIS efforts reveal the
evolutionary nature of SDLC in practice.

Benefits and Limitations of SDLC

Applying SDLC methodology provided Skanska with an organized approach to develop its
CRM system but also imposed some limitations:

Benefits

Structured Process - SDLC phases provide checkpoints to ensure development stays on track.
This prevents ad hoc efforts that can lead to failure.

Reduced Risk - Thorough planning, analysis and testing reduces surprises during
implementation. This manages project risk.

Stakeholder Input - End-users provide input during analysis to ensure operational needs are
met in design. This improves adoption.

Documentation - Each phase requires documentation of plans, requirements, designs, etc.

This captures key knowledge and decisions.

Clear Milestones - Completion of each phase provides demonstrable progress measurements

and accountability.
Standards - Established SDLC methods promote adherence to development standards and
best practices.

Limitations

Time Consuming - The linear sequence of phases in SDLC takes time. Rapid iterations may
be restricted.

Administrative Overhead - Extensive documentation and approvals add overhead compared

to agile methods.

Reduced Flexibility - Freezing requirements early limits responding to changes in dynamic

environments.

Resource Heavy - Rigorous adherence to SDLC phases requires ample resources which may
be prohibitive.

User Disconnect - SDLC detachment during design and development can misalign systems
from user workflow.

Imposed Process - Forcing SDLC process on teams more suited to agile methods can
backfire.

In summary, SDLC provided Skanska with a disciplined approach to incrementally develop

its CRM system but also imposed some timeline, administrative and flexibility constraints.
Skanska's blending of traditional and iterative techniques helped balance these tradeoffs.