A. MARKS
collected from three empirical stages using three data collection
methods (i.e. questionnaires, interviews, and documents).
ISDM are perceived to play a critical role in information sys-
tem development processes. However, the findings of this study
indicate that a very small percentage of the examined IS units
utilize ISDM for their IS development activities, which means
that federal higher education institutions in the UAE have a
long way to go before achieving standardization of information
system development proce sses. The study has raised the impor-
tance of studying the practice of ISDM in a developing country
and within the federal higher education sector in specific. It is
clear that even though a wide range of published ISDM are cited
in the IS literature, their adoption is quite low within the federal
hi gher education sector in t he UAE. This study further f ound that
the adoption of ISDM is related with the nature of business ac-
tivities. For example, IS units supporting students’ registration-
sused a somewhat more structured ISDM approach than IS units
supporting Purchasing and Procurement.
Furthermore, a clear difference in ISDM adoption was noti-
ce d between different size IS departments. Such a difference was
also noted between mature and novice organizations. Older uni-
versities seemed to adopt a more structured ISDM than newer
ones. Interestingly, most of the factors believed to be a reason
for not using ISDM coul d not be supported by the survey resu lts.
However, lack of understanding and lack of appropriate know-
ledge of ISDM concepts and principles and their implications is
a significant barrier to adoption; successful adoption exists only
if those concerned have a full understanding of the ISDM. Sur-
prisingly, the majority of respondents disagreed with the state-
ment that ISDM are too complex or hard to use. This could be
explained due to the fact that most of the surveyed IS units are
not using ISDM. Thus, they might not have a clear picture of its
complexity. It is, however, expected that the growth of popular
ISDM is likely to increase with time.
The proposed model of ISDM adoption based on Delphi te-
chnique and AHP analysis demonstrated an easy procedure to
select the best alternatives from various conflicting variables.
Using the AHP tool supported by “ExpertChoice” software may
help IS practitioners evaluate ISDM alternatives more efficient-
ly and effectively, compared to the traditional method.
First, AHP is a suitable tool for ISDM evaluation. Second,
AHP software applications are inexpensive and available in the
market. Third, the software applications are easy to learn and use
within a short time. Fourth, outcomes from an AHP analysis can
be compared with the intuition or experience of decision-makers
and provide insi ght into differences. Fifth, AHP allows decis ion -
makers to conduct sensitivity analysis to test for different sce-
na rios and conditions of problems. Sixth, the pr oposed model mi-
tigates conflicts and promotes consensus of group decision-ma-
king by identifying reasons of outcomes. Finally, an AHP ana-
lysis is applicable to other issues in regard to choice selection
or alternative evaluations.
This study has examined a systematic way of assessing al-
ternatives of ISDM, which is a complex and controversial issue.
It has endorsed the idea that good decision-making should focus
on objectives and not on alternatives. It has drawn attention to
the use of the Delphi technique and Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) in evaluating ISDM alternatives in a complex decision-
ma king process. The purpose of the ISDM adoption decision mo-
del was to find a better way to assess ISDM alternatives. Both
Delphi technique and AHP have never been used before to eva-
luate ISDM in order to select the appropriate ISD methodology
for organizations. The contribution of this study is not to do just
anything that has never been done before, but something that is
important and better. In this case, it is to apply suitable techni-
ques that are more effective and can produce better results.
Future Research
The knowledge gained from conducting the research relating
to ISDM adoption, Delphi technique, and AHP technique areas
can be further developed and expanded to deal with many
prospects. This research intended to investigate ISDM adoption
based on the views of senior IS managers who were in charge
of IT/IS departments within the surveyed organizations. There-
fore, the investigation was limited to the UAE and the exam-
ined federal higher education sectorin terms of ISDM use, te-
chniques, IS environment, trend of ISDM adoption, barrier, etc.
The study did not make an effort to investigate the ISDM prac-
tices from the IS developer point of view. Accordingly, future
studies should focus on the views of those individual IS devel-
opers who work in information system development projects.
Their opinions could differ considerably from that of their sen-
ior IS managers. Future studies on ISDM practices within the
context of developing countries are highly recommended to
manifest the status of ISDM practices in these countries.
In terms of Decision Making, the proposed model using Del-
phi technique and AHP technique is suitable for evaluation and
selection. However, the best selection does not always guaran-
tee successful deployment or implementation, nor ensure a good
return on investment. Therefore, this research can be expanded
by using other decision-making techniques such as System dy-
namics (SD). Research combining the three areas of Delphi te-
chnique, AHP and SD is a fruitful area t o be developed.
REFERENCES
Avison, D. E. & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information systems develop-
ment: Methodologies, techniques & tools. Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Beynon-Davies, P. (1998). Information systems development. London:
Macmillan.
Beynon-Davies, P. & Williams, D. M. (2003). The diffusion of infor-
mation system development methods. Journal of Strategic Informa-
tion System, 12, 29-46. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00033-1
Charvat, J. (2003). The project management methodologies: Selecting,
implementing and supporting methodologies and processes for pro-
jects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Fitzgerald, B., & Russo, L. (2002). Information system development:
Method in action. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Education.
Fitzgerald, B. (1998). An empirical investigation into the adoption of
system development methodologies. Information and Management,
34, 317-328. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00072-X
Huisman, H. M., & Iivari, J. (2003). Adaptation and the deployment of
systems development methodologies. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Computer, Communication and Control Tech-
nologies and the 9th International Conference on Information Sys-
tems Analysis and Synthesis, Tampa, 1 July-2 August 2003.
Huisman, M., & Iivari, J. (2001). The relationship between organisa-
tional culture and the deployment of systems development method-
ologies. Lecture N otes in Computer Science, 2068, 234-250.
Huisman, M., & Iivari, J. (2002). The individual deployment of systems
development methodologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
2348, 134-150.
Huisman, M., & Iivari, J. (2006). Deployment of systems development
methodologies: Perceptual congruence between IS managers and
systems developer. Information & Management, 43, 29-49.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.005
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .
118