Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Balanced Scorecard for Method Improvement: Approach and Experiences

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2017, EMMSAD 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 287))

Abstract

Modelling methods provide structured guidance for performing complex modelling tasks including procedures to be performed, concepts to focus on, visual representations, tools and cooperation principles. Development of methods is an expensive process which usually involves many stakeholders and results in various method iterations. This paper aims at contributing to the field of method improvement by proposing a balanced scorecard based approach and reporting on experiences from developing and using it in the context of a method for information demand analysis. The main contributions of the paper are (1) a description of the process for developing a scorecard for method improvement, (2) the scorecard as such (as a tool) for improving a specific method, and (3) experiences from applying the scorecard in industrial settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Seigerroth, U.: Enterprise Modeling and Enterprise Architecture: the constituents of transformation and alignment of Business and IT. Int. J. IT/Bus. Alignment Gov. (IJITBAG) 2, 16–34 (2011). ISSN 1947-9611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ralyté, J., Backlund, P., Kühn, H., Jeusfeld, Manfred A.: Method chunks for interoperability. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 339–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11901181_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Eng. 11(1), 58–78 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0019-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 38(4), 275–280 (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0950-5849(95)01059-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Avison, D.E., Fitzgerald, G.: Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Wieringa, R., Moralı, A.: Technical action research as a validation method in information systems design science. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 220–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. March, S.T., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technologies. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry, vol. 75. Sage (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lind, M., Seigerroth, U., Forsgren, O., Hjalmarsson, A.: Co-design as social constructive pragmatism. In: AIS Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag 2008) at International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2008), France (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lundqvist, M., Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U.: Modelling information demand in an enterprise context: method, notation and lessons learned. Int. J. Syst. Model. Design 2(3), 74–96 (2011). IGI Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business Press, Boston (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm. Sci. Q. 23(4), 582–603 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering, Doctoral dissertation University of Twente. Moret Ernst & Young, Utrecht, The Netherlands (1997). ISBN 90-75498-10-1

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). ISBN 978-3662437247

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldkuhl, G.: The grounding of usable knowledge: an inquiry in the epistemology of action knowledge. In: CMTO Research Papers, No. 1999:03, Linköping University (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluating techniques for system analysis and design modelling methods – a review and comparative analysis. In: Information System Journal. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mooney, J., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K.: A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems, Amsterdam, pp. 17–27 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parker, M., Benson, R.: Information Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  22. DeLone, W., McLean, E.: Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rostock, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, 18059, Rostock, Germany

    Kurt Sandkuhl

  2. School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Box 1026, 55111, Jönköping, Sweden

    Kurt Sandkuhl & Ulf Seigerroth

Authors
  1. Kurt Sandkuhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulf Seigerroth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kurt Sandkuhl or Ulf Seigerroth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa , Haifa, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

  2. University of Duisburg-Essen , Duisburg, Germany

    Jens Gulden

  3. Université de Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  4. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Wided Guédria

  5. Saint Louis University , St. Louis, Missouri, USA

    Palash Bera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U. (2017). Balanced Scorecard for Method Improvement: Approach and Experiences. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Gulden, J., Nurcan, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2017 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 287. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59466-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation