Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technology
prototyping,
systems development,
decision
variables
0950-5849/95/$09.50
Background
Although prototyping has been used for several years, there
appears to be no unique definition, nor an established set of
guidelines (decision variables) for its use. An investigation
of the literature reveals a wide variety of variables which
allegedly impact the decision to prototype.
In an effort to determine, among other things, the benefits
and disadvantages of prototyping, Carey and Currey asked
questionnaire respondents to indicate when they thought
prototyping was the best strategy. Although this is not a
direct indication of the decision variables used in the
prototyping decision, it does provide some of the reasons
prototyping was initially considered. Their findings
indicated that prototyping was the best strategy for: (a) all
on-line development; (b) all new development; (c) when
user expectations or requirements are not clear; and (d)
when the appropriate tools are available.
Doke et aL6, used a Delphi panel of industry experts
to indicate the factors used in their decision to use
prototyping. The top factors determined from the study
were:
communicate design widely;
on-line system;
reduce development time;
developers lack experience;
feasibility in question;
alternatives need evaluated;
large and complex system;
113
clarity of requirements;
requirements stability;
system mode;
project duration;
innovation;
project size;
project impact;
performance requirements;
user involvement;
users experience with prototyping;
users experience with computers;
number of users;
impact on users;
developers familiarity with application domain;
developers experience with prototyping;
management support;
project feasibility; and
tool availability.
Table 1. Respondent
Organization
profile
characteristics
Average
2810
67
Minimum
7
I
Maximum
22 000
800
Average
15
Minimum
3
Maximum
31
characteristics
Years of IS experience
Experience with prototyping
(1 =none; 7 =extensive)
Industry
Manufacturing
and service
Diversified financial
Insurance
Retail
Transportation
Utilities
Education
Health Service
Government
Other
43%
2%
4%
8%
4%
4%
8%
4%
20%
2%
Results
Data collection
A mail survey was used to collect data from 118
Information Systems (IS) managers throughout the United
States. Of the 118 respondents, 84 used prototyping (7 1% ) .
For those firms using prototyping,
the IS manager was
asked to complete the following:
Please list the factors that you feel should be
considered in the decison whether or not to use
prototyping
for a specific system development
project. For each factor listed, indicate the importance of the factor on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = low
importance; 10 = high importance).
114
Frototypingde&ion
Frequency
Sum
Mean
VariaMW
Std
Range
DW
importance. Thus, frequency of response and the importance of that factor provide different views of the decision
factors. A detailed discussion of the 12 factors is provided
in the next section.
Reouirements
dktermination
Project size
Complexity
Availability of tools
Mode
24
19
16
16
16
200
139
127
123
128
8.33
7.32
7.94
7.69
8.00
2.13
2.85
2.56
2.23
2.18
3-10
l-10
l-10
3-10
3-10
Discussion
Project duration
Feasibility/testing
Innovativeness
User exuerience
User in;olvement
Impact (importance)
Developer experience
15
14
14
12
12
10
8
110
115
104
78
105
75
54
7.33
8.21
7.43
6.50
8.75
7.50
6.75
2.55
2.14
2.38
2.60
1.30
2.91
2.99
2-10
4-10
3-10
3-10
6-10
2-10
l-10
Requirements
Frequency
Sum
Mean
STD
Range
DW
User involvement
12
105
8.75
1.30
6-10
Requirements
Feasibility/testing
determination
24
14
200
115
8.33
8.21
2.13
2.14
3-10
4-10
Mode
16
128
8.00
2.18
3-10
Complexity
16
127
7.94
2.56
l-10
Availability of tools
Impact (importance)
Innovativeness
Project duration
Project size
Developer experience
User experience
16
10
14
15
19
8
12
123
75
104
110
139
54
78
7.69
7.50
7.43
7.33
7.32
6.75
6.50
2.23
2.91
2.38
2.55
2.85
2.99
2.60
3-10
2-10
3-10
2-10
l-10
l-10
3-10
Information
and S&ware
of tools
115
Innovativeness
116
Information
and Sojiware
a comparison
previousstudtes
Decisionvariables
This study
Unclear requirements
Large systems
Complex systems
Availability of tools
On-line systems
Project duration
Feasibility/testing
New development
User lacks DP experience
Need user involvement
Critical system
Developers experience
Need early results
Alternatives need evaluated
Communicate design widely
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to the reviewers for their valuable
comments, and to the companies that participated in this
study.
X
X
References
X
X
X
X
Summary
Table 4 summarizes the previous discussion and compares
the results of this study to the empirical studies mentioned
in the second section. As seen in Table 4, all four of the
variables in Carey and Curreys study were also
uncovered in this study. Similarly, eight of the variables
from the Doke et aL6 study corresponded to variables
from this study. Of the top 12 variables discussed in this
paper, only two variables, user lacks DP experience and
critical system, were not included in either the Carey and
Currey or Doke et al. 6 study. The close association among
the three studies suggests that a set of decision variables
does indeed exist and is being used in industry.
10
II
12
I3
I4
15
Conclusion
I6
I7
I8
I9
20
21
22
23
24
117
25 Mahmood,
M A System development
methods-a
comparative
investigation
MIS Quarterly Vol 11 No 3 (September 1987) pp
293-311
26 Ahituv, N, Hadass, M and Neumann, S A flexible approach to
information system development MIS Quarterly Vol 8 No 2 (June
1984) pp 69-78
27 Tate, G and Verner, J Case study of risk management, incremental
development, and evolutionary prototyping In5 and Soft. Technol.
118