ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HYPERMEDIA INFORMATION SYSTEMS Michael Lang § School of Business & Economics National University of Ireland, Galway
1. INTRODUCTION Hypermedia is a powerful information management technology that couples the enhanced representative capabilities of multimedia with the power to define ever more meaningful relationships between data. It is only in recent years that hypermedia has been popularised, due in large measure to the surge of the ubiquitous World Wide Web. Of course, not all hypermedia applications are Web-based, nor can all Web-based applications be classified as hypermedia (see Figure 1). Indeed, the Web has many basic architectural flaws and should properly only be regarded as a primitive, low-level, ‘first generation’ hypermedia environment (Bieber & Vitali, 1997). Nevertheless, the Web is the most significant vehicle for hypermedia delivery today, and it has emphatically ushered hypermedia technology into the arena of organisational information systems (Isakowitz, 1993; Lowe & Hall, 1999). However, as yet, hypermedia design processes are poorly understood and the poverty of concepts underpinning current development practice is cause for concern. Despite much interest amongst academics and practitioners alike in hypermedia/multimedia systems, giving rise to a number of dedicated journals and conferences (such as those of ACM and IEEE), very little is known about the realities of development practice. The only empirical studies published in the mainstream literature are those of Barry & Lang (2001a), Lang & Barry (2001), Britton et al. (1997), Whitley (1998), Liu et al. (1998), Russo & Graham (1999), van Aalst & van der Mast (1998), Gallagher & Webb (1997), Newman & Landay (2000), and Carstensen & Vogelsang (2001). Given that in many cases Web-based hypermedia systems are now integrated with businesscritical processes, and that these systems must be rapidly constructed, yet flexible and robust, developers are under considerable pressures. A variety of methods specifically for hypermedia and Web-based systems have been proposed in the literature, but a recent study (Lang & Barry, 2001) reveals that few of these are ever used in practice. A central argument of this paper is that formalised hypermedia design methods, founded as they are upon artificial concepts of rationality, are incongruent with their context of use, and that this is why they have not been adopted by practitioners. It is paradoxical to suggest that, on the one hand, hypermedia information systems must operate within highly flexible business environments, and that, on the other hand, the processes to develop such systems must be rigid and systematic. This is not to say that hypermedia systems development is not amenable to support by methodical techniques and automated tools. However, in proposing methods and techniques for hypermedia systems design, it is essential to recall why previous attempts to §
Postal address: School of Business & Economics; National University of Ireland, Galway; University Road; Galway; Ireland. Email:
[email protected]. Telephone +353 (0)91 750301.
introduce formalised methods and CASE tools into traditional development practice have foundered, and how fundamental differences in the nature of hypermedia information systems may affect development approaches.
2. OVERVIEW OF KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Hypermedia systems design presents challenges and opportunities that are not normally encountered with the development of orthodox ‘traditional’ information systems. It appears that the fitness of traditional IS development methods for the design of hypermedia systems is rather limited (Nanard & Nanard, 1995). Of course, merely because a system is based upon hypermedia technologies does not mean that an altogether new or different approach be taken towards its development. Such misguided assumptions of “newness” are common in both IS research and practice (Keen, 1991; Pressman et al., 1998), and much of the literature on Web and hypermedia development fails to appreciate the legacy of experiences in traditional IS development and other root disciplines. For example, comparisons may be drawn with relational and network database design, visual event-driven programming, graphic design, industrial design, and media production, yet the potential contribution of knowledge accumulated in these related areas is largely ignored. Critical questions that must be asked are: (1) How do hypermedia systems differ significantly from ‘traditional’ information systems?, and (2) What are the implications for hypermedia systems development? The first of these questions is addressed in this section of the paper where a number of distinguishing factors are outlined. Following on, the second question is then addressed in the next section. Some of the issues outlined here are concerns that impact just Web-based systems, as opposed to hypermedia systems specifically, but are deemed of relevance because the Web is the most common platform for hypermedia systems.
Hypertext Systems
Hypermedia Multimedia Systems Information Systems
Web-based IS
Figure 1. Relationships between Hypermedia, Hypertext, Multimedia, and Web-based IS.
2.1. Inherent Complexity of Hypermedia Hypermedia systems are inherently complex. Essentially, hypermedia attempts to emulate the intricate mechanisms of the human mind by associating blocks of knowledge with each other in a complex multitude of “associative trails” (Bush, 1945). Not surprisingly, there is a tendency towards chaotic ‘spaghetti’ structures, rather like the much-maligned practice of goto programming. Arbitrary linking, like the arbitrary use of goto, “is just too primitive; it is
too much of an invitation to make a mess” (Dijkstra, 1968; de Young, 1990). Even within small systems this quickly becomes a problem. For large-scale organisational systems, such issues as ‘getting lost in cyberspace’, locating information, visualising knowledge structures, and managing content are major considerations. Unlike traditional information systems, hypermedia applications typically do not have a single entry point or a single exit point. This is especially true of Web-based hypermedia, where users can enter the system through a variety of side doors rather than through the “home” page. Indeed, one of the often cited benefits of hypermedia is this very capacity to facilitate individual patterns of navigation. A natural extension of this is the concept of adaptive, personalised hypermedia information systems whereby individual users can customise what they see and how they see it. Yet another complicating factor is that for many hypermedia systems, particularly those that are Web-based, they must be designed or re-designed to be deployed across a potentially broad diversity of delivery platforms, such as desktop PC’s with numerous screen and browser configurations, mobile devices, touchscreen kiosks, digital set-top boxes or interactive television. Graphic designers and software engineers therefore have to collaborate to produce interfaces that adapt to the characteristics of the delivery device. Moreover, there is the added complexity of storing, processing and presenting multimedia data. No longer do information systems merely handle simple text and numeric data types, but must now cater for graphics, images, audio and video objects, and compound media. These more sophisticated data types, particularly those that have temporal aspects, present further challenges to systems programmers, database administrators and interface designers. Hypermedia has greater potential to facilitate natural modes of human interaction and communication than any other previous technology, but for this to occur requires drastic changes in the way we design and use information systems. Significant steps have been made within the HCI research community in recent years to devise better metaphors and to construct enhanced modes of interaction using such technologies as voice-based input, handwriting recognition, touch-sensitive screens, eye-tracking, and gesture recognition.
2.2. Cross-cultural Interdisciplinary Collaboration Hypermedia systems development is characterised by a lack of consensus. Its roots are diverse, including systems analysis, software engineering, graphic design, desktop publishing, and media production. Development teams typically involve people from a range of different backgrounds, and no single discipline can be assumed as a touchstone which all team members hold in common (Britton et al., 1997; Liu et al., 1998; Barry & Lang, 2001b; Carstensen & Vogelsang, 2001). Of course, skills diversity is not unique to hypermedia systems development, - many conventional projects, particularly large ones, necessitate the integration of various knowledge domains. However, participants in conventional systems development tend to be primarily “computer professionals”, which is often not the case with hypermedia systems development. Although graphic designers and technical writers adopted the Web in the mid-1990’s, it is only recently that Web design has become the domain of software developers (Powell et al., 1998). Understandably, something of a territorial battle has now broken out. Traditionally, there has been a pronounced tension between software engineers and graphic designers, who
have conflicting perspectives on systems design and appear to operate in wholly different worlds (Vertelney, 1991). Gallagher & Webb (1997) have observed an apparent dichotomy, – software engineering is structured, takes a logical view, emphasises functionality, and works outwards from the system interior, whereas graphic design takes a “hacker” approach, concentrates on the creative design of graphic interfaces, is more user-centred, and works inwards from the system exterior. A popular view amongst software engineers is that graphic design is a purely creative and informal discipline, and that “the front end is fluffy, … in some sense it doesn’t matter what tool you use to produce it … but everything the front end talks to is serious engineering” (Pressman et al., 1998). Conversely, graphic designers typically regard software engineers as being rigidly logical (Gallagher & Webb, 1997; Whitley, 1998). Furthermore, it would appear that software engineers and graphic designers have different perceptions and values regarding such issues as “beauty” and “goodness”. Obviously, these perceptual differences impose a communicational barrier. A recent study (Barry & Lang, 2001b) reveals that the two most significant roles in multimedia systems development are graphic design and software engineering. This finding highlights the importance of developing a common lingua franca and democratic working methods that aid the resolution of cross-cultural paradigm conflicts. Furthermore, there are process management issues to be considered. Web projects often seem to have as much in common with desktop publishing than with traditional IS development. The working arrangement between team members is highly interdependent and contingent on each other’s skills. Unlike traditional IS development, multiple activities must necessarily be performed in parallel. Methodologies that emphasise multi-disciplinary collaboration are therefore needed.
2.3. Lack of Conceptual Modelling Techniques and Tools Any system of non-trivial complexity needs to be designed in a structured way. To this end, the most valuable weapon in the software designer’s repertoire is abstraction, the process of formulating general concepts, typically represented by models. Software products are amongst the most complex of all human inventions, and it is tremendously difficult to visualise their conceptual structure because they do not have any readily identifiable geometric representation. No single technique is by itself sufficient to describe all the various aspects of an information system; rather, a complete model invariably comprises a series of interconnected, superimposed diagrams (Brooks, 1987). These visualisation difficulties not only impede the design process within one mind, but also severely hinder communications amongst many (Nanard & Nanard, 1995). Hypermedia tends to create a new, difficult-to-structure reality (Palmquist, 1996). In recent years, mechanisms to represent audio, image and video data have been progressively refined, as have multimedia databases and high-speed networks adapted for media delivery. However, despite the fact that there is a significant body of work on conceptual modelling, this has yet to be mapped effectively into the hypermedia domain, and the implications for hypermedia systems design are as yet poorly understood (Lowe & Hall, 1999). Furthermore, traditional CASE tools are ill-suited to hypermedia systems development (Arndt, 1999). In the case of Web-based information systems, software does not have the same visible flows and structures as would have been the norm with traditional IS (Carstensen & Vogelsang, 2001). Britton et al. (1997) conclude that there is a real urgency “to
provide tool-based support for structured notations that are appropriate to the specific needs of modelling multimedia systems”. However, such tools are rare. What few CASE tools there are that support hypermedia modelling techniques and methods are almost without exception incomplete research prototypes that have not yet been commercially released into the public domain at large, such as RMCase (Díaz et al., 1995), WebComposition (Gellersen & Gaedke, 1999), W3DT WebDesigner (Bichler & Nusser, 1996), WebArchitect (Takahashi & Liang, 1997), AutoWeb (Fraternali & Paolini, 1998), CGI-Lua (Schwabe & de Almeida Pontes, 1998), and Araneus (Atzeni et al., 1998). Garzotto & Paolini (1993) expressed the aspiration that their HDM approach would be a step towards the development of application generators, but this has not happened in practice. Research models, experimental tools and document standards have thus far failed to have any real impact on existing technology or to trigger the emergence of a new generation of tools. In the absence of appropriate CASE tools, many developers are reliant on manual, paper-based techniques (Barry & Lang, 2001a; McClure, 1998). Alternatively, analysis and design activities are often by-passed altogether (Lowe & Hall, 1999; Pauen et al., 1998). Most commercial authoring tools emphasise implementation, and visual code generators make it all seem so deceptively easy. There is a critical need for CASE tools that bridge the gap between design and implementation, otherwise development and maintenance shall become very costly and difficult in the long term (Coda et al., 1998; Gellersen & Gaedke, 1999; Jung & Winter, 1998).
2.4. Pressures of “Web-Time” Product Development Cycles The capacity of organisations to respond and adapt quickly to rapidly changing environments is a well recognised strategic issue. Accordingly, the need for information systems to be flexible and adaptable to changing business needs is also popularly acknowledged (Fitzgerald et al., 1999). In such circumstances, developers are under pressure to deliver information systems quickly, - sometimes, it may appear, unreasonably quickly. Yourdon (1997) defines “death march” projects as those for which the normal parameters of time and resources have been reduced by a factor of one half or more. It has been reported (Fitzgerald, 1997) that typical IS development projects now comprise about three developers for less than six months, which seems to reflect a profile of small-scale, rapid development. However, the advent of the Web has accelerated this even further. By its very nature, the Web is an immediate medium. Web developers are not impeded by production and distribution delays such as characterise the implementation of shrink-wrapped software. Web-based systems can be easily and quickly launched by developing functional front-end interfaces, powered by crude but effective back-end software, which can later be modified and enhanced in such a manner that end users may be oblivious to the whole process. For projects operating in “Web time”, time-to-market is typically between two and three months (Barry & Lang, 2001a). Even the most advanced RAD processes and tools cannot withstand such sustained demand of almost continual system turnaround. Compressed timeframes are likely to accelerate RAD to the point where it becomes FAD – “frantic application development” (Yourdon, 1996). Indeed, Web-based application development has been characterised as “guerilla programming in a hostile environment using unproven tools, processes, and technology” (Thomas, 1998). The irony is that most of the IS development techniques and methods in common use today came to prominence in the 1970s, when the profile of systems development was profoundly different. There is thus a need to “update the tenses” by adapting development processes so
that they are more responsive to the faster metabolism of modern business (Fitzgerald, 1999), and to combat the pressures of accelerated development by devising appropriate tools, techniques, and working methods that “amplify the intellect” of developers (Booch, 1998).
2.5. External Focus of Web-based Information Systems Traditionally, information systems served internal functions within organisations. With the advent of the Web, organisations are being turned inside-out as Web-based systems necessarily have an external focus. In essence, Web-based information systems have become the interface between organisations and the environments within which they operate, - shop windows to the world, as it were. This has at least two significant implications for the analysis and design of Web-based systems. Firstly, poorly designed systems stand to be exposed in all their shabbiness to a global user base. Not surprisingly therefore, the usability of Web-based information systems is seen as a critical issue (Buckingham Shum, 1996; Shneiderman, 1997). No longer can programmers and interface designers afford to pay indignant disregard to usability factors, as has been their wont. Secondly, unlike traditional information systems, there is no definite group of known users who are waiting upon the system and from whom the requirements emanate. Therefore, marketing personnel must be involved to a greater extent, both in discovering user requirements and in promoting the site once implemented.
3. TOWARDS A PRACTICAL METHODOLOGY HYPERMEDIA SYSTEMS DESIGN
OF
Given this backdrop of paramount issues which fundamentally distinguish hypermedia information systems from traditional information systems, traditional approaches and perspectives on systems design must be reconsidered. It is important to appreciate the philosophical basis of design, and how that philosophy shapes the foundation for tools, techniques, and methods to support design activities.
3.1. Formalisation versus Improvisation Within the field of information systems development, “hard” approaches have historically dominated. According to this philosophy, design is rational and objective, and design processes can be modeled systematically, thus giving rise to suggestions that information systems can be “engineered” much like other structures in the man-made world. All established branches of engineering are based on the rationalistic tradition of “logical empiricism” that underlies modern science. They aim to systematically codify and organise knowledge about certain well-known problems, so that practitioners can share known and established techniques rather than always having to revert to inherently risky virtuoso tactics (Shaw & Garlan, 1996). It has been the case with all branches of engineering that sub-specialisations emerge as separate disciplines in their own right as knowledge accumulates (Jackson, 1998; Shaw &
Garlan, 1996). In recognition of the distinct characteristics of hypermedia applications, and of the purported inadequacy of conventional software engineering techniques (Pressman et al., 1998; Pauen et al, 1998), there is growing support in the literature for the view that a new, specialised discipline is needed. A variety of phrases exist, including “multimedia software engineering” (Hirakawa, 1999), “hypermedia engineering” (Lowe & Hall, 1999), “hypertext engineering” (Nanard & Nanard, 1995), “Web site engineering” (Powell et al., 1998), and “Web document engineering” (White, 1996). Perhaps the best recognised term of all is “Web engineering”, defined by Murugesan et al (1999a) as the: “establishment and use of sound scientific, engineering and management principles and disciplined and systematic approaches to the successful development, deployment and maintenance of high quality Web-based systems and applications”. There is a strong bias in the Web/multimedia engineering literature that current systems design practice, somewhat reminiscent of the 1960’s “software crisis”, is in dire need of methodical support. At present, ad hoc trial-and-error methods prevail, applications are handcrafted, development processes are poorly understood, and there is a tendency to bypass analysis and design and proceed directly to implementation (Lowe & Hall, 1999; Murugesan et al., 1999b; Coda et al., 1998; Powell et al., 1998). Underlying this bias is the essential belief that development processes can be rationally described; that formalised methods are good, necessary, and sufficient; and that developers will use a suitable method if one is at their disposal (Introna & Whitley, 1997; Russo & Stolterman, 2000). This belief is contradicted by empirical evidence to the contrary. Although a variety of specialised methods for hypermedia systems development have been proposed in the literature (see Table 1), it has been found that none of these are used to any significant extent by practitioners (Lang & Barry, 2001). This should come as no surprise, because the findings of that study are backed up by numerous others of IS development in general which reveal that practitioners have in the main rejected formalised methods in favour of their own in-house methods, and even in cases where formalised methods are used, there is typically some degree of adaptation (e.g. Fitzgerald, 1997; Chatzoglou, 1997; Hardy, 1995).
Relationship Management Methodology (RMM)
Isakowitz et al. (1995)
Object-Oriented Hypermedia Design Methodology (OOHDM)
Schwabe & Rossi (1995)
World Wide Web Design Technique (W3DT / SHDT)
Bichler & Nusser (1996)
Extended World Wide Web Design Technique (eW3DT)
Scharl (1999)
Web Site Design Method (WSDM)
De Troyer & Leune (1997)
Scenario-based Object-Oriented Hypermedia Design Methodology (SODHM)
Lee et al (1999a)
View-Based Hypermedia Design Methodology (VHDM)
Lee et al (1999b)
Table 1: Web and Multimedia Systems Development Methods.
More than three decades since it was first discussed, the issue of whether or not it is sensible to speak of “software engineering” remains contentious (Jackson, 1998). Undeniably, information systems development is a much less homogeneous discipline than, say, bridge construction, and as a consequence, information systems cannot be produced with the scientific, methodical precision that characterises traditional engineering disciplines.
Furthermore, software design, - and, in particular, the design of interactive software, - may be said to be a “wicked problem” (Buchanan, 1992). Design decisions to address wicked problems typically do not deal with true or false answers to questions of fact or logic, as is the case with tame problems that lend themselves to resolution through rational methods (Nelson, 1994). Rather, designers must rely on informed intuition to resolve difficult dilemmas. This lends support to the alternative viewpoint that information systems development is a creative, problem-solving activity much more akin to a craft than an engineering discipline. It is inaccurate to conceive of design as merely following some cookbook method; rather, design necessitates creative thinking and draws upon the skills and experiences of talented individuals. There is growing support for the belief that IS development is essentially amethodical (Truex et al., 2000), and that it is based not on mere compliance with prescribed methods but rather more on the intuition of experienced developers as to how to act within the unique constraints of individual projects. In practice, software designers regularly make informed design decisions contingent upon circumstance (Stolterman, 1992; Baskerville & Pries-Heye, 2001). This is the true reality of systems development practice, and has been termed “improvisation” (Ciborra, 1999) or “situated action” (Suchman, 1987): “Improvisation is simultaneously rational and unpredictable; planned but emergent; purposeful but opaque; effective but irreflexive; discernible after the fact, but spontaneous in its manifestation” (Ciborra, 1999). Externally, design activity may appear as chaotic and maybe even “slightly out of control” (Cusumano & Yoffie, 1998), but it is guided by the hidden rationality of skilled individuals. This philosophy of design-as-improvisation does not accept that formalised design methods can be executed objectively. Moreover, it recognises that no method can ever be better than the people who apply that method, and that, consequentially, methods cannot be applied in a general way; instead, they must always be related to the situation at hand and the people involved (Löwgren & Stolterman, 1999). Accordingly, methods, and techniques should properly be construed as constituting a ‘toolkit’ in the software designer’s arsenal, which he may proactively mix, match and adapt contingent upon a particular problem context (Benyon & Skidmore, 1987). Rather than viewing software design as a “black box” activity, where the rationale is implicit and locked within tacit knowledge that cannot be readily described, or as a “glass box” activity, where every step in the process is explicit and transparent, it is more appropriate to think of software designers as self-organising systems, whereby they independently and creatively draw from their store of tools and knowledge (Jones, 1992). Schön (1987) refers to this intuitively satisfactory explanation of the realities of design practice as “reflection-in-action”, and strongly criticises the artificial “technical rationality” of formalised methods, which he regards of little practical use in complex real-life situations. Perhaps one of the reasons why academics have clung to formalised methods is because they are teachable. Given that it is clearly the case that these methods are rarely used in the literal sense, a key challenge for academic is how it should reformulate its graduate training programmes so as to better serve practice.
3.2. Resolving the Paradox As earlier outlined, hypermedia systems are inherently complex, require the coordinated involvement of multidisciplinary teams, often need to be very rapidly developed, yet must be robust and usable at the same time. It would therefore reasonably appear that the development
of hypermedia systems cannot be simply performed without at least some overarching approaches, techniques, methods, and tools to guide the process. However, experiences from industry reveal that formalised systems development methods simply do not work. Firstly, because they are based upon artificial concepts of rationality, they are fundamentally incongruent with their context of use. It is paradoxical to suggest that hypermedia information systems must operate within highly flexible business environments, yet that the processes to develop such systems must be rigid and systematic. Secondly, formalised methods are grievously flawed in that they implicitly assume to be true what Paul (1993) terms “the fixed point theorem” of information systems: “There exists some point in time when everyone involved in the system knows what they want and agrees with everyone else”. In actuality, there is neither theoretical nor empirical evidence to uphold such a theorem. The “fixed point theorem” is a fallacy, and the implications are clear – systems must work over a time continuum, so if they are built for one hypothetical point in time they will inevitably disappoint. This challenges the fundamental suppositions of project-based, finite horizon, engineering approaches. Traditionally, engineering approaches adopted the metaphor of building a system, which embraces the concept of architectural specification, and assembly of components. However, a better metaphor in the modern context is that of growth (Brooks, 1987). Living organisations require flexible, living systems. Traditional IS development relies heavily on product increments or releases. In contrast, hypermedia applications, particularly those that are Web-based, undergo much more continuous, fine-grained evolution (Cusumano & Yoffie, 1998). Hence, analogies such as ‘town planning’ (Lowe, 1999) or ‘gardening’ (Lowe, 1999; Paul, 1993; Oliver & Johnson, 1999)are more appropriate. For methods to be of use in this context, they must be framed at a high level of granularity; that is, they should prescribe broad guidelines rather than a complex, over-intellectualised list of tasks (Fitzgerald, 1999). Barry & Lang (2001a) reveal that Web/multimedia systems developers clearly believe that adding structure to the development process is desirable and that they expect to move towards increased adoption of methods, but that they do not want cumbersome or expensive methods. It would seem that IS development has almost gone full circle, from having no methods in the early days; then to cumbersome, heavyweight approaches of the “methodology era”; and now to lean methods such as rapid prototyping, timeboxing, Extreme Programming, concurrent engineering, and Just-in-Time production which are better suited to this new era of Web-time (Avison & Fitzgerald, 1999; Middleton, 1994). These new “lite” approaches combat complexity, enable flexibility, and reduce exposure to risks by using small dedicated teams, component-based development, layered architectures, and short sharp bursts of incremental work. For development tools to be truly effective, they must provide support for methods and techniques that aid teams in conceptualising system architectures and how the various layers and components fit together. Conversely, if methods and techniques proposed by academics are to make any significant contribution to practice, they must be mapped into usable tools which effectively implement them. Carstensen & Vogelsang (2001) argue that such methods should not be too complex or require specialised skills in formal modeling and specification. The restrictive notations of CASE tools has been seen in the past to be one of the major reasons for non-use. It is therefore encouraging to see developments in CASE technologies which support informal techniques such as storyboarding and interface sketching (Newman & Landay, 2000; Bailey, 1999; Harada et al., 1996).
There remains within academia, - and perhaps to a lesser extent within industry, - a group of old-school die-hards who continue to lobby for up-front analysis, and who vehemently criticise Web/hypermedia developers for cutting straight to implementation. This rationale must be reconsidered in the context of the issues earlier set forth. Firstly, it may be difficult if not impossible to define requirements in advance of prototyping (Baskerville & Pries-Heye, 2001). It is only by tinkering with implementation technologies that designers begin to understand technical limitations and constraints (Carstensen & Vogelsang, 2001). Secondly, the boundaries between “logical” analysis and “physical” design have always been artificial, and there is no absolute reason why they cannot overlap. Thirdly, the insistence on completing detailed analysis in advance of commencing technical design is founded upon theories of software engineering economics that appear outmoded. Given that it is possible with the development tools and pre-fabricated applets of today to generate a design, test it, and regenerate it with modifications within a relatively short period and without the same expense as of old, perhaps it is time to begin to look upon software as a malleable and disposable commodity.
4. CONCLUSIONS This paper aimed to address the paradox that formalised methods are inappropriate for hypermedia systems development, but that amethodical approaches still require affirmative action for success. The propositions tentatively set out herein remain to be validated. As yet, the realities of hypermedia systems design practice remain largely a mystery and there are many unanswered questions. What is known is that practitioners are in many cases successfully developing Web-based hypermedia systems, without ostensible recourse to formalised methods prescribed in the literature, but rather by means of their own in-house methods (Barry & Lang, 2001a). Aspects worthy of investigation are: • What is the nature of the “in-house” methods that practitioners have devised? •
To what extent are these methods formalised, e.g in the form of manuals? How are new and inexperienced recruits introduced to these methods? How do organisations control the risks of becoming reliant on the experience and intuition of key individuals?
•
At what level of granularity are methods pitched? To what extent are they intended to be, and actually, complied with? Are they indeed “methods” at all in the true sense, or just loose collections of mix-and-match techniques?
•
Are these in-house methods based on or similar to approaches prescribed in the literature?
•
Which comes first, - the method or the tool -, i.e. do the methods used primarily influence the selection of development tools, or is the selection of a particular tool (e.g Dreamweaver Ultradev, Microsoft Active Server Pages, or PHP) a precursor to the choice of development methods?
•
How, why, and perhaps why not, are methods and techniques selected and used?
Further close-up empirical studies of hypermedia systems development “in the wild” is therefore needed to explore these issues.
5. REFERENCES Arndt, T., 1999, “The Evolving Role of Software Engineering in the Production of Multimedia Applications”, in: Proc. IEEE Intl. Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, Florence, June 7-11 1999 Atzeni, P., Mecca, G. & Merialdo, P., 1998, “Design and maintenance of data intensive Web sites”, in: Schek, H.-J. et al. (Eds.) Proc. 6th International Conference on Extending Database Technology pp. 436-450. Valencia, Spain, March 1998 Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G., 1999, “Information Systems Development”, in: Currie, W. L & Galliers, B. (eds.), Rethinking Management Information Systems, Oxford University Press, pp. 250-278 Bailey, B., 1999, “Interactive Sketching of Multimedia Storyboards”, in: Doctoral Consortium at 7th ACM International Multimedia Conference, Orlando, Florida, October 30 - November 5 1999 Barry, C. & Lang, M., 2001a, “A Survey of Multimedia and Web Development Techniques and Methodology Usage”, IEEE Multimedia, Vol. 8 No. 3 pp. 52-60 Barry, C. & Lang, M., 2001b, “Contrasting Approaches: A Study of Traditional and Multimedia Information Systems Development in Ireland”, in: Proc. Irish Academy of Management Annual Conference, Derry, Ireland, 6-7 September 2001 Baskerville, R. & Pries-Heje, J., 2001, “Racing the E-Bomb: How the Internet is Redefining Information Systems Development Methodology” in: Russo, N. L. et al. (eds.), Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. pp 49-68 Benyon, D. & Skidmore, S., 1987, “Towards a Tool Kit for the Systems Analyst”, The Computer Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1 pp. 2-7 Bichler, M. & Nusser, S., 1996, “Modular Design of Complex Web-Applications with W3DT”, in: Proc. IEEE 5th Workshop on Enabling Technology: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Stanford, California, June 19-21 1996 Bieber, M. & Vitali, F., 1997, “Toward Support for Hypermedia on the World Wide Web”, IEEE Computer, Vol. 30 No. 1 pp. 62-70 Booch, G., 1998, “Leaving Kansas”, IEEE Software, January-February 1998 pp. 32-35 Britton, C., Jones, S., Myers, M. & Sharif, M., 1997, “A survey of current practice in the development of multimedia systems”, Information and Software Technology, 39 pp. 695-705 Brooks, F. P., 1987, “No Silver Bullet / Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering”, IEEE Computer, April 1987, pp. 10-18 Buchanan, R., 1992, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, Design Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2 pp. 5-21 Buckingham Shum, S., 1996, “The Missing Link: Hypermedia Usability Research & The Web”, Interfaces, British HCI Group Magazine, Summer 1996 Bush, V., 1945, “As We May Think”, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945 pp. 101-108 Carstensen, P. H. & Vogelsang, L., 2001, “Design of Web-based Information Systems – New Challenges for Systems Development?”, in: Proc. 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, June 27-29 2001, pp. 536-547 Chatzoglou, P. D., 1997, “Use of methodologies: an empirical analysis of their impact on the economics of the development process”, European Journal of Information Systems 6 pp. 256-270 Ciborra, C. U., 1999, “A Theory of Information Systems Based on Improvisation”, in: Currie, W. L & Galliers, B. (eds.), Rethinking Management Information Systems, Oxford University Press. pp. 136-155 Coda, F., Ghezzi, C., Vigna, G. & Garzotto, F., 1998, “Towards a Software Engineering Approach to Web Site Development”, in: Proc. 9th Intl. Workshop on Software Specification & Design, Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press Cusumano, M. A & Yoffie, D.B., 1998, Competing on Internet Time / Lessons from Netscape and Its Battle with Microsoft, The Free Press, New York
De Troyer, O. M. F. & Leune, C. J., 1997, “WSDM: a user centered design method for Web sites”, in: Proc. 7th Intl. World Wide Web Conference, Brisbane, Australia, April 14-18 1998 de Young, L., 1990, “Linking Considered Harmful”, in: Proc. European Conference on Hypertext, INRIA, France, November 1990, pp. 238-249 Díaz, A., Isakowitz, T., Maiorano, V. & Gilabert, G., 1995, “RMCase: A Tool to Design WWW Applications”, in: Proc. 4th Intl. World Wide Web Conference, Boston, December 11-14 1995 Dijkstra, E. W., 1968, “Go To Statement Considered Harmful”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 11 No. 3 pp. 147-148 Fitzgerald, B., 1997, “The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in Practice: A Field Study”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3 pp. 201-212 Fitzgerald, B., 1999, “Systems Development Methodologies: The Problem of Tenses”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 13 No. 3 pp. 174-185 Fitzgerald, G., Philippides, A. & Probert, S., 1999, “Maintenance, Enhancement, and Flexibility in Information Systems Development”, in: =XSDQþLþ HW DO HGV Evolution and Challenges in System Development, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York Fraternali, P. & Paolini, P., 1998, “A conceptual model and a tool environment for developing more scalable and dynamic Web applications”, in: H.-J. Schek et al. (eds.), Proc. 6th Intl. Conference on Extending Database Technology pp. 421-435. Valencia, Spain, March 1998 Gallagher, S. & Webb, B., 1997, “Competing Paradigms in Multimedia Systems Development: Who Shall Be The Aristocracy?”, in: Proc. 5th European Conference on Information Systems, Cork, Ireland, June 19-21 1997 Garzotto, F. & Paolini, P., 1993, “HDM - A Model-Based Approach to Hypertext Application Design”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1 pp. 1-26 Gellersen, H-W. & Gaedke, M., 1999, “Object-Oriented Web Application Development”, IEEE Internet Computing, January-February 1999 pp. 60-68 Harada, K., Tanaka, E., Ogawa, R. & Hara, Y., 1996, “Anecdote: A Multimedia Storyboarding System with Authoring Support”, in: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia 96, pp. 341-351, Boston, MA, USA Hardy, C. J., Barrie Thompson, J. & Edwards, H. M., 1995, “The use, limitations and customization of structured development methods in the United Kingdom”, Information and Software Technology Vol. 37 No. 9 pp. 467-477 Hirakawa, M., 1999, “Do Software Engineers Like Multimedia?”, in: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, Florence, Italy, June 7-11 1999 Introna, L. D. & Whitley, E. A., 1997, “Against Method-ism: Exploring the Limits of Method”, Information, Technology and People, Vol. 10 No. 1 pp. 31-45 Isakowitz, T., 1993, “Hypermedia, Information Systems and Organizations: A Research Agenda”, in: Proc. 26th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences pp. 361-36. IEEE Computer Society Press Isakowitz, T., Stohr, E. A. & Balasubramanian, P., 1995, “RMM: A Methodology for Structured Hypermedia Design”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38 No. 8 pp. 34-44 Jackson, M., 1998, “Will There Ever Be Software Engineering?”, IEEE Software, Vol. 15 No. 1. pp. 36-39 Jones, J. C., 1992, “Design Methods”, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (2nd ed.) Jung, R. & Winter, R., 1998, “CASE for Web Sites: Towards an Integration of Traditional CASE Concepts and Novel Development Tools”, in: Proc. ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 726731. Keen, P. G. W. (1991), “Relevance and Rigor in Information Systems Research: Improving Quality, Confidence, Cohesion and Impact”, in: Nisson, H.-E et al. (eds.), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Elsevier Science Publishers (North-Holland) pp.27-49 Lang, M. & Barry, C., 2001, “Techniques and Methodologies for Multimedia Systems Development: A Survey of Industrial Practice”, in: Russo, N. L. et al. (eds.), Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. pp 77-86
Lee, H., Lee, C. & Yoo, C., 1999a, “A scenario-based object-oriented hypermedia design methodology”, Information & Management, 36 pp. 121-138 Lee, H., Kim, J., Kim, Y. G. & Cho, S. H., 1999b, “A View-Based Hypermedia Design Methodology”, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 10 No. 2 pp. 3-13 Liu, M., Jones, C. & Hemstreet, S., 1998, “Interactive Multimedia Design and Production Processes”, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 30 No. 3 pp. 254-280 Lowe, D., 1999, “Engineering the Web: Web Engineering or Web Gardening?”, WebNet Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1 Lowe, D. & Hall, W., 1999, Hypermedia & the Web / An Engineering Approach, Wiley, Chichester Löwgren, J. & Stolterman, E., 1999, “Design Methodology and Design Practice”, Interactions, February pp. 1320 McClure, S., 1998, Web Application Development Developer Perspectives: An IDC White Paper, International Data Corporation, Framingham, Massachusetts Middleton, P., 1994, “Just-In-Time Software Development”, in: Conference Proceedings / 7th Intl. Software Quality Week, 17-20 May 1994, San Francisco, California : Software Research Institute Murugesan, S., Deshpande, Y., Hansen, S. & Ginige, A., 1999a, “Web Engineering: A New Discipline for WebBased System Development”, in: Proc. 1st ICSE Workshop on Web Engineering, Los Angeles, California, May 1999 Murugesan, S. & Deshpande, Y., 1999b, “Preface to ICSE'99 Workshop on Web Engineering”, in: Proc. Intl. Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 693-694. Los Angeles, California, May 1999 Nanard, J. & Nanard, M., 1995, “Hypertext design environments and the hypertext design process”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38 No. 8 pp. 49-56 Nelson, H. G., 1994, “The Necessity of Being 'Un-disciplined' and 'Out-of-Control': Design Action and Systems Thinking”, Performance Improvement Quarterly Vol. 7 No. 3 Newman, M. W. & Landay, J. A., 2000, “Sitemaps, Storyboards and Specifications: A Sketch of Web Site Design Practice”, in: Proc. ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, New York, USA Oliver, J. & Johnson, D., 1999, “Growing websites”, in: Proc. 5th Australian World Wide Web Conference (AusWeb99). Ballina, New South Wales, Australia, April 17-20, 1999 Palmquist, R. A., 1996, “The Search for an Internet Metaphor: A Comparison of Literatures”, in: Proc. ASIS Annual Meeting, Vol. 33 pp. 198-202 Pauen, P., Voss, J. & Six, H.-W., 1998, “Modeling Hypermedia Applications with HyDev”, in: Sutcliffe, A. et al. (eds.), Proc. IFIP 13.2 Working Conference / Designing Effective and Usable Multimedia Systems, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1998. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Paul, R. J., 1993, “Why Users Cannot 'Get What They Want'”, ACM SIGIOS Bulletin, Vol.14 No.2 pp. 8-12 Powell, T. A., Jones, D. L. & Cutts, D. C., 1998, “Web Site Engineering / Beyond Web Page Design”, PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA Pressman, R. S. et al. [Round Table], 1998, “Can Internet-Based Applications be Engineered?”, IEEE Software. Vol. 15 No. 5 pp. 104-110 Russo, N. L. & Graham, B. R., 1999, “A First Step in Developing a Web Application Design Methodology: Understanding the Environment”, in: A. T. Wood-Harper et al. (eds.), Methodologies for Developing and Managing Emerging Technology Based Information Systems: Proceedings of 6th International BCS Information Systems Methodologies Conference. Springer, London, pp. 24-33 Russo, N. L. & Stolterman, E., 2000, “Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies”, Information, Technology & People, Vol. 13 No. 4 pp. 313-327 Scharl, A., 1999, “A Conceptual, User-Centric Approach to Modeling Web Information Systems”, in: Proc. 5th Australian World Wide Web Conference. Ballina, New South Wales, Australia, April 17-20, 1999 Schön, D., 1987, Educating the reflective practitioner - Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, California Schwabe, D. & Rossi, G., 1995, “The Object-Oriented Hypermedia Design Model”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38 No. 8 pp. 45-48
Schwabe, D. & de Almeia Pontes, R., 1998, OOHDM-WEB: Rapid Prototyping of Hypermedia Applications in the WWW, MCC 08/98, March 1998, Department of Informatics, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Shaw, M. & Garlan, D., 1996, Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Prentice-Hall Shneiderman, B., 1997, “Designing Information-Abundant Websites: Issues and Recommendations”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 47 No. 1 pp. 5-29 Stolterman, E., 1992, “How system designers think about design and methods: some reflections based on an interview study”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 4: 137-150 Suchman, L. A., 1987, Plans and Situated Actions, Cambridge University Press Takahashi, K. & Liang, E., 1997, “Analysis and Design of Web-based Information Systems”, in: Proc. 6th Intl. World Wide Web Conference (WWW6). Santa Clara, California, USA, April 7-11 1997 Thomas, D., 1998, “Web Time Software Development”, Software Development Magazine, October pp. 78-80 Truex, D., Baskerville, R. & Travis, J., 2000, “Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods”, Accounting, Management & Information Technologies, 10: 53-79 van Aalst, J. W. & van der Mast, C. A. P. G., 1998, “Creating the multimedia project experience database”, in: Sutcliffe, A. et al. (eds.), Proc. IFIP 13.2 Working Conference / Designing Effective and Usable Multimedia Systems, Stuttgart, Germany, September 1998. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 117-129 Vertelney, L., 1991, “Two Disciplines in Search of an Interface”, in: Laurel, B. (ed.), The Art of HumanComputer Interface Design, Addison-Wesley White, Bebo, 1996, Web Document Engineering, SLAC-PUB-7150 May 1996. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, California, USA Whitley, E. A., 1998, “Method-ism in Practice: Investigating the Relationship between Method and Understanding in Web Page Design”, in: Proc. 19th International Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, December 13-16 1998 Yourdon, E., 1996, “Developing Applications for the Internet: Advice for the Java Generation”, American Programmer, December pp. 36-41 Yourdon, E., 1997, Death March / The Complete Software Developer’s Guide to Surviving “Mission Impossible” Projects, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA
