action-researching with the pmbok® guide

8/4/2019 Action-Researching with the PMBOK® Guide

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/action-researching-with-the-pmbok-guide 1/20

1

Action-Researching with the PMBOK ®

Guide

Christian A. Estay-Niculcar, PhDHead of Informatic of Business Department - Universidad Santa María Campus Guayaquil

CIO and Projects Head - Fundación Universitaria Iberoamericana-CorporativeCountry Manager - Fundación Universitaria Iberoamericana-Ecuador

Joan A. Pastor-Collado, PhDHead of ICT Department - Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona Spain

Santos Gracia-Villar, PhDProfessor of Engineering Project Department - Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya

President of Fundación Universitaria Iberoamericana, Barcelona Spain

Abstract

This paper explains the reliance on A Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge(PMBOK

®Guide) —2000 Edition as a base to prepare IS qualitative researchers focused in

action-research. Action-research was selected because it is presently the preferred researchmethod among information systems (IS) researchers. But action-research has several

weaknesses when applied, such as a lack of control to provide and improve its rigor andquality. To address this situation, several proposals have appeared that give relevance tousing IS action-research through a vision of project management (PM). In this paper, weexplain our work to define and to prepare IS action-researchers through a capability maturitymodel for action-research by using the PMBOK

®Guide (2000). This paper reports the results

of this study. The study considers the PMBOK ®

Guide (2000) as the basis to identify adimension of management and a dimension of construction, both linked and deployedthrough practices and five maturity levels (novice, basic, organized, managed, and adaptive).

Presentation

Action-research is a qualitative research method that juxtaposes action and research, or practice and theory, through the execution of four phases (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Action-research characteristic cycle

Reflection (Re)

Observation (Ob)

Action (Ac)

Planning (Pl)



2

The weaknesses of action-research, particularly in information systems action-research (IS-AR), were reclassified as problem areas and causes of IS-AR problems (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Problems and causes of the IS-AR problems

The problems areas are:

• Epistemological change (P1): This considers the problems that appear when aresearcher becomes an action-researcher and adopts or assimilates, partially or completely, the beliefs and the attitudes specific to action-research.

• Ethics and values (P2): This includes problems of potential biases linked to theinterventionist research natural to action-research.

• Reporting (P3): This contains the problems related to the generation and registrationof research data, information, and knowledge.

• Methodological (P4): This involves the diverse problems related to the absence of

elements that facilitate the monitoring, control, evaluation, or setting of the research.

The causes are:

• Lack of clarity that IS researchers and practitioners apply to action-research.

• The consultancy context proper to projects (consultancy commonly is consideredopposed to AR principles).

• Lack of guidelines to help IS researchers accept action-research as valid.

• Lack of quality and rigor because well-established IS-AR quality, rigor, and researchcriteria are lacking.

• Lack of a framework to use, apply, and investigate IS-AR.

To address these problems and causes, several proposals have appeared in the field that giverelevance to use IS-AR through a vision of PM without excluding rigor and quality in theresearch process. With regard to the PM approach, the authors propose a methodology for obtaining IS-AR PM good practices and levels by introducing and working collaborativelytowards competency in PM and proficiency in Action-Research. In this effort, the

PMBOK ® Guide (2000) was useful in structuring a capability maturity model for action-research and in selecting the generic practices for action-research. The model is composed of five levels (novice, basic, organized, managed, and adaptive) along with roadmaps and key

practices.

In this work, we follow an interpretative paradigm in order to analyze the vast amount of

information and documentation from several topics. Our research focused on theoretical andretrospective case studies (which included interviews and bibliographical reviews) and actual



3

case studies (which included interviews and participant observation). Our analysis wasgrounded in theory because the model and the theory both emerge from qualitative data. Thisstyle of work followed the Myers classification (Myers, 1997).

This paper examines how the PMBOK ®

Guide (2000) was used for action-research, with a

particular emphasis on IS-AR. Thus, the PMBOK ®

Guide (2000) was useful to define anaction-research project and to provide a way to apply action-research though incrementalmaturity levels with the aim of improving the rigor and quality in IS-AR projects. Our paper also examines two other factors: selecting an ERP (Enterprise Resource Enterprise) anddefining other capability models for knowledge management. In this case, each project istreated bi-dimensionally: as a research project and as a practical project. So, in each one, wesolve a practical problem and enrich the research on a specific topic.

This experience enriches the scope of the PMBOK ®

Guide (2000) and the result proves usefulto the information systems field, because it presents a way for practitioners and theorists tomeet collaboratively.

Section two of this paper examines the foundation of IS-AR. Section three presents theroadmaps, key practices, and levels mentioned above. Section 4 explains the use of thismodel in ERP selection and in the generation of a knowledge model.

Foundation For Action-Researching With the PMBOK ®

Guide

This paper addresses three areas of action-research: the IS discipline, the action-researchfield, and the PM field. In this process, we have considered the emergent literature aboutaction-research, as applied to IS problems, texts about action-research in sociology, educationand organizational behavior, and the theory and practice of PM. From this analysis and from

the papers of Estay and Pastor (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b,2002c, 2002d, 2003), we have identified several theoretical connections that provide thefoundation for this work.

Action-Research and PM Practices

Several authors relate the project approach with action-research. Thus, PM could be used as away to obtain a set of practices for IS-AR, from which the action-researcher may choose anduse accordingly for conducting research and anticipating potential problems. In relation tothese practices, we matched PM phases with action-research phases (Figure 3) in order to

provide a basis for IS-AR practices:

• Planning phase identifies the plan to follow, which emerges from understanding the problems and imagining solutions

• Action phase executes the plan, where action is the informed, careful, deliberate,reflective, and controlled variation of the practice

• Observation phase measures, records, and documents the action executed and itsconsequences

• Reflection phase analyses the action executed, by studying, evaluating, andquestioning the observed results against the current practice and the expected results.This phase also includes evaluating and specifying learning sub-phases.



4

Management Processes Group

c t i o n-R e s e ar c h

l

e

Ob

c

P P ClP CoP P

P MB OK ®

G u i d e

Phases

Figure 3: Relationships between management process groups and action-researchphases

IS-AR and PM 1

Several projects have proposed to apply IS-AR: Mathiassen (1998) advocates the use of a

projects perspective and PM to help conduct the research; McKay and Marshall (1999a,1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b, 2001) present IS-AR quality and rigor criteria and propose ageneral IS-AR project structure; and Avison, Baskerville, and Myers (2001) discuss the threeaspects of control of an IS-AR project—the procedures for initiating an AR project, those for determining authority within the project, and the degree of formalization. We detectedsimilarities between IS-AR problems with PM phases:

• A formal commitment between the action-researcher and the organization is oftenabsent, which implies a poor initiation phase.

• Time and cost planning, human resources selection, and research planning are weak or absent, which implies a weak planning phase.

• A formal and rigorous process in the production of theory, which implies an

incomplete execution phase.• The monitoring of the results and of the schedule is absent, which implies a lack of

the control phase.

IS-AR and Systemic Project Framework

Action-research is an approach and a method related to qualitative research, systems thinking,and several philosophical perspectives. By their nature, these aspects could be unified into asystemic method: to include the flexible, dynamic, and adaptive nature of the research

process in which the action-researcher is involved; and to promote the co-participative

construction of the realities implicit in the action-research process. In this sense, action-research could be focused from a systemic approach into one that provides a dynamicenvironment promoting operations and evolution. Working in a project perspective, we usedBlasco’s project systemic theory (Blasco, 2000, 2001; Estay & Blasco, 2000; Blasco, Estay,Gracia, & Tamayo, 2002), which says a project is a system composed of two subsystems: themanagement system and the construction system. Our proposal is characterized as adefinition of an IS-AR project that focuses on the PM dimension. In this sense, and followingthe systemic view disposed in a project as suggested by Blasco (2000, 2001), Estay andBlasco (2000), and Blasco et al. (2002), an IS-AR project can be characterised by four systemic components, raised from the systemic theory but applied to the projects field (Figure4):

•1Pl: planning; Ac: Action; Observation: Ob; Reflection: Re.

• IP: Initiation phase; PP: Planning phase; EP: Execution phase; CoP: Control Phase; ClP: Closing Phase.



5

• Context for the PM system, which is defined principally by the project systemstructure

• Structure of process or the network of sub-systems that define the PM system

• Composition of the processes or subsystems of the PM system

• Implementation of a PM system that reflects the continuous evolution within a

medium.

Figure 4: The PM system in the systemic project framework

IS-AR Gardening

Action-research is considered qualitative research, and is not restricted to doctrines and/or formalized visions. In qualitative research, structured and constrained approaches are notused more frequently because the researcher and research process are not considered to belimited to theories, hypothesis and/or methods. However, PM may appear rigid for action-research. The PMBOK

®Guide (2000) suggests that PM practices should be customized

according to the specific technical domain of the project and used without rigidity in order togive freedom to the project manager within the evolution of the project.

From the PMBOK ®

Guide to Action-Researching

proficUsing the PMBOK ® Guide (2000), Estay and Pastor (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2001a, 2001b,

2001c, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2003) derived a capability maturity model for IS-AR PM following a complex process depicted in Figure 5.

management

sub-system

construction

sub-system

time

implementation

project system

management

sub-system

construction

sub-system

project system

project management at t

project management at t+1

context

structure

composition



6

Figure 5: Process followed to obtain the model

Action-Researching From the PMBOK ®

Guide: Maturity Model

Architecture of the Model

The architecture of our IS-AR PM maturity model is the relational structure that allows goingfrom a maturity level to its relevant good management practices. In this process, we havefollowed the spirit of the Trillium model (Trillium, 2000). Thus, by following the Trilliummodel, the architecture consists of the following elements: roadmaps, areas of key interest,and practices.

Roadmaps. We have derived our roadmaps from the quality and rigor criteria for IS-AR, as proposed by McKay and Marshall (1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b, 2001) (see Table 1).

Table 1: Extract of McKay and Marshall criteria (McKay and Marshall, 1999b)

1. Conduct of research

1.1 Research Method

a. Is there an adequate and appropriate justification made for the use of action-research asopposed to other research methods suitable for IS?

1.2 Transparency of Process

a. Are research aims/objectives clearly stated?

b. Are the history and context of the research described and explained in sufficient detailfor consumers of the research?

c. Are issues relating to the Researcher (R) - Practitioner (P) relationship made clear?

Optimized

Repeatable

Organized

Beginner advanced

Managed

Defined

Initial

Expert

Proficient

Competent

Novice

Adaptive

Managed

Basic

Novice

Transferential

Critic

Creative

Reproductive



7

d. Are approaches and techniques (and the rationale for their selection) for data collectionand analysis stated clearly?

Areas of key interest. The areas of interest are the priority areas show researchers where toexecute actions or practices of quality and rigor while managing the IS-AR project. In this

sense, knowing that the roadmaps are linked to the PMBOK ®

Guide’s PM processes, theareas of interest are the nine areas of PM knowledge, as presented in the PMBOK ® Guide (and which define the KPAs for acquiring the criteria): integration, scope, cost, time, quality,human resources, communication, risk, and procurement.

Practices. The practices are the basic actions to satisfy the criteria. These practices have beenderived directly from the relationships between criteria and PM processes in each roadmap.Moreover, to make the practices coherent with PMBOK

®Guide (2000), the practices for IS-

AR PM are tagged with similar names to those in the PMBOK ® Guide (2000). The selectionof the practices takes into consideration the PM competence and the action-research

proficiency levels. This selection leads to identifying generic and specific practices, to those

related to PM and those related to specific IS-AR features.

Maturity Levels

From the specialized literature, we have found that competence levels outline the capabilitiesthat management needs to get through PM maturity levels and that proficiency levels showthe basic abilities that an action-researcher should possess. Thus, the proficiency levels for action-research (as given by Greenwood and Morten, 1993) are linked with the suggestedcompetence levels for PM exposed in several PM maturity models. We propose five maturitylevels: novice, basic, organized, managed, and adaptive.

Maturity Levels and Formative Process

Maturity models may not only help with the achievement of capabilities and the awareness of the importance of improvement but at same time, these help promote PM practices that

provide quality and rigor to IS-AR projects. This internalization may be considered a learning process that can be studied and applied with the help of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Benjamin S. Bloom (1956) proposes a taxonomy of educational objectives. It proposes afoundation for classifying goals in an educational system. The taxonomy, or classification,

proposed by Bloom (1956) embraces three areas or domains: cognitive area, affective area,and psychometric area, each one decomposed in formative goals. Although the taxonomy isan important reference in education research and practice, its application has proven difficult,

as shown by the fact that only the cognitive area is the most broadly treated.

To facilitate the attainment of these domain goals, these areas are linked to educationalobjectives. In this way, for example, Gardiner (2000) offers a series of educational objectivesfor each one of the goals. These educational objectives are simply cognitive verbs, actions, or operations, named educational verbs.

However, a more complete application of Bloom’s taxonomy is proposed in Ramírez,Recabarren, and Palma (1988). This model integrates Bloom’s taxonomy, educational verbs,and educational tools/techniques. In this sense, Ramírez et al. (1988) propose that theeducational verbs can be grouped into four types of educational objectives or formative levels

(Table 2):



8

• Reproductive. Students must be able to retain and assimilate scientific or technicalknowledge, a favourable disposition toward a certain value, or a familiarization with a

psychomotor ability.

• Transferential . This level constitutes the practical phase of the learning; here thestudent uses previous knowledge.

• Critical . On this level, student must compare the theory with the practice, the lawwith the case, the regulation with the facts, and the ideal with the reality.

• Creative. In this level, students are challenged to exploit their creative capacity toinvent and to design.

Table 2: Examples of verbs in the formative levels

Formativelevel

Educational verb

Reproductive Describe, name, repeat, cite, relate

Transferential Employ, utilizeCritic Examine, compare, research, testCreative Design, plan

For our specific IS-AR purposes, the above formative levels imply a formative process fromsimple to more complicated actions. Seen in this way, the maturity levels can be related withthe formative levels, just as shown in Figure 6. The relationship pursues that the formativelevels are applied with different intensity in each of the maturity levels: initially by givinghigher intensity in getting reproductive objectives so that the action-researcher learns on IS-AR; and, at the end, by giving higher intensity to creative objectives to promote the creativeuse by the action-researcher of the practices learned.

Figure 6: Intensity of relationship between formative objetives and maturity levels

Learning by LevelsBy according to the previous details, the practices are deployed in steps of complexity in oneor several levels as shown the Table 3.

Reproductive Transferential Critic Creative

Adaptive

Managed

Organized

Basic

Novice



9

Table 3: Illustration about the deploying of the practices along the maturity levels ormultilevel practices

Maturity

levelRoadmap Practice Novice Basic Organized Managed AdaptiveR1 P1 P1.N P1.B

P2 P2.B P2.GR2 P3 P3.N P3.G P3.A

P4 P4.O



10

Maturity Levels

• Level 1. Novice. This level is characterised by a general knowledge, principallyliterary, of action-research, as reflected in the reproduction of actions. The success

depends mainly on the innate ability of novice researchers to understand IS-AR, of thefacilities contributed by the practitioners, and of luck.

• Level 2. Basic. The success of the process is obtained by following the basic criteriathat allows justifying the use of action-research. Elements of planning are introduced,with emphasis on scheduling. Moreover, the concept of product is introduced and thediffusion of results provides feedback. On this level, in one or another way, the goal isto provide a level of understanding about the project concept, such that allows theexecution of basic or initial good practices.

• Level 3. Organized. PM practices are fully introduced through the institutionalizing of

aspects as the documentation of the process, the selection of the work team, and thediffusion of results. The central idea is that the researcher is competent in theintegrated application of advanced PM practices. Here it is important to acquire anduse abilities of documentation that reflect all the aspects of research, improvement,and learning.

• Level 4. Managed. Risk and quality PM processes are added with profusion;monitoring is started. The purpose is that the researcher acquires an integral vision of the undertaken management. It is pursued to reach a critical sense of the use of IS-AR in order to offer appropriate intervention proposals for the practical cycles. Theresearcher is proficient in the application and selection of practices in a precise and

experienced way so as to create a coherent and appropriate set of PM practices.

• Level 5. Adaptive. This level institutionalizes PM across the IS-AR project and alongtime. Expert, continuous, sometimes automated, creative, and sustainable use of theresults and experience are accumulated. Thus, the action-researcher evolves, learns,and adapts her/his experience through learning and conversations with other researchers and practitioners.

PMBOK ®

Guide For Action-Researching: Steps to Use it

Practices and Maturity Levels

Action-Research Criteria and PM ProcessesEach one of the criteria is related to several PM processes taken and adapted from the

PMBOK ®

Guide (2000). For example, the criteria “Practitioners should verify the work”related with the “Credibility of the research” can be focused with PM processes from the

PMBOK ® Guide as follows: Project Plan Execution (Section 4.2), Overall Change Control (Section 4.3), Scope Planning (Section 5.2), Scope Verification (Section 5.4), Scope ChangeControl (Section 5.5), Performance Reporting (Section 10.3) and Administrative Closure(Section 10.4). Thus, the verification can be reached and guaranteed with inspections in eachone of these processes with the presence of practitioners. With this, each roadmap relates toone or more maturity levels (Table 4). From this work, specific and generic practices emerge.



11

Table 4: Short view of the PMBOK ®

Guide process related with quality and rigorcriteria of IS-AR

PMBOK ®

Guide stages

Category Criteria Planning Execution Control

Practical significance

Would participantsagree that someimprovement in the

problem situation hadoccurred as a result of the intervention?

4.1 Project plandevelopment6.1 Activity definition6.2 Activity sequencing6.3 Activity durationestimating6.4 Schedule development

4.2 Project plan execution

4.3 Overallchange control

Specific and Generic Practices and PM Processes for IS-ARThus, we derive generic and specific practices as shown in Table 5. (Table 6 and Table 7 arefrom the original model in Spanish.) In particular, knowledge about IS-AR was included inthe practices from bibliographic revision.

Table 5: Example of practices

PMBOK ®

Guide process

PMBOK ®

Guide stages/practices

At planning4.16.1-4

Establish meetings. An improvement is guaranteed from the practitioners.

At control

4.3

Establish meetings to guarantee that practitioners agree about the improvements

emerging from the intervention.

4.3Write all involved individuals to show that new knowledge emerges from thedata gathered in the research.

4.3When writing memos, distinguish between theory and practice—the aim of action-researchers—and theory and research.

Table 6: Short view of generic practices deployed in PM processes

PM process

Generic practices for the Initiation phase

5.1 You must write down a list of the practical and research restrictions that you see or that

you think can arise and make sure you don’t forget them.

5.1 You must make a list of practice and research suppositions.

5.1 Describe the involved or related organizational functions.

5.1 Add, in the Range Report, the question of the investigation, where it is possible to beseen the problem and the reach a solution.

5.1 Define, in the Range Report, the work’s purpose and objectives.



12

Table 7: Short view of specific practices of IS-AR deployed in PM processes

Criteria

PM

process

Specific practices for the Initiation phase

1.1 Researchmethod

Justify in a suitable and appropiate way the Action-Researchingmethod compared to other suitable methods.

5.1

Make sure that you desire to continue and that you accept to use themethod with its beliefs and attitudes. The danger is that a lack of desire to continue becomes apparent sooner or later, unless you area good actor and you are willing to reach the end.

Establish meetings. Talk with other researchers so that they explaintheir research experiences.

Think about what are you really interested in doing with Action-

Researching.

5.1Investigate the real possibility of doing something (an action).Without an imagined action, at least, Action Researching has nosense. In other stages, other necessary things will be seen.

Check out the organizational strategies. You could find thatunmentioned intentions take precedence over the real possibilitiesof executing an action. This will help you to anticipate the need for taking action, as an improvement and/or change.

Check out the Information systems plan. This will help you knowthe ground where you will operate and the possibility of takingactions: changes or improvements.

Roadmaps and Maturity Levels

Each roadmap is associated with formative levels and verbal analysis. For example, withregard to the criteria “Practitioners should verify the work” (McKay and Marshall, 1999b)related to the “Credibility of the research,” (McKay and Marshall, 1999b) this is a multilevelroadmap associated with the organized and managed maturity levels, because the verb verifyis: part of the critical formative level and a transferential objective because it implies domainand communicational abilities to verify the work (Ramírez et al., 1988). Thus, each criterioncontains PM processes that can be integrated into current practices and which relates to one

or more maturity levels to leverage practices. Table 8 shows this relationship inSpanish/English because the verbal analysis only is applicable in Spanish verbs and thetranslation is not applicable, only to view the operation of analysis.

Table 8: Short view (Spanish/English) of the relationships between criteria andformative verbs



13

1.1 Método deinvestigación

1.1. Research method

Justificar de manera adecuada yapropiada Investigación-Acción frente aotros métodos igualmente adecuados

Is there an adequate and appropriateustification made for the use of action-

research as opposed to other researchmethods suitable for IS?

El verbo justificar se asocia al nivelreproductivo.

The verb to justify is associated with thereproductive level.



14

Deploying Practices in Levels

From the last tables, the practices are deployed along the levels as shown the Table 9 and theTable 10.

Table 9: Short view of generic practices deployed in maturity levels (based in Table 6)

PM process Generic practices for the initiation phase Level 2 3 4

5.1 You must write down a list of the practical andresearch restrictions that you see or that you think can arise and make shure you don’t forget them.

2 1

5.1 You must make a list of practice and researchsuppositions.

2 1

5.1 Describe the involved or related functions

organizational.3 1

5.1 Add, in the Range Report, the question of theinvestigation, where it is possible to be seen the

problem and the reach a solution.3 1

5.1 Define, in the Range Report, the work’s purpose andobjectives.

3 1

Table 10: Short view of specific practices of IS-AR deployed in maturity levels (based inTable 7)

Criteria PM

process

Specific practices for the Initiation phase Level IP IP 2 3 4

1.1 Researchmethod

Justify in a suitable andapropiate way the Action-Researching methodcompared to other suitablemethods.

2 2

5.1

Make sure that you desire tocontinue and that you accept

to use the method with its beliefs and attitudes. Thedanger is that a lack of desireto continue, becomesapparent sooner or later,unless you are a good actor and you are willing to reachthe end.

2

Establishe meetings. Talk with other researchers so thatthey explain their researchexperiences.

2



15

Criteria PM

process

Specific practices for the Initiation phase Level IP IP 2 3 4

Think about what are youreally interested in doing

with Action-Researching.

2

5.1

Investigate about the real possibility of doingsomething (an action).Withaut an imagined action,at least, Action Researchinghas no sense. In other stages,other necessary things will

be seen.

5

Practices by Level

When the roadmap is multilevel, or the practices or related tasks more complex, these areexecuted in advanced levels. In this way, the practices have been leveraged along thematurity models. The selected roadmaps and practices are shown in the Table 11, while theresults of this process are shown in Table 12, which illustrates all the practices by levelwithin each roadmap. The first and second columns in Table 11 are taken from the McKayand Marshall (1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b, 2001) criteria, while the third oneindicates the practices by level in the roadmap. The last columns show the detail of practices

by level in a roadmap. Table 12 depicts the total number of practices by category of qualityand rigor criteria.

Table 11: Total of practices

# IS-AR project

management specific

practicesQuality and

rigor category

Quality and rigor criteria/Roadmap IS-AR

maturitylevel

2 3 4

Credibility othe research

Does it appear that there is a match between theconstructions of P and those reported by R?

3-4 0 3,5 0,5

Is there evidence of verification by P? 3-4 0 6,5 1,5

Confirmability

Is there evidence of an orderly process of datacollection and analysis?

3 0 6 0

of theresearch

Are findings and conclusions grounded in the data? 2-3-4 2 2,5 1,5

Practicalsignificance

Would practiotioners agree that some improvement inthe problem situation had occurred as a result of theintervention?

3 0 5 0

Does the research help alleviate problems that areevident in the IS discipline?

3-4 0 4,5 1,5

Presentationof research Is the action-research presented in such a way thatthere is evidence of logical rigor throughout the study? 2-3 4 2 0



16

# IS-AR project

management specific

practices

Are the links evident between a problem in the ISfield, the literature review, theoretical framework,research method and design, and results/outcomes?

2 2 0 0

Table 12: Total of IS-AR PM practices

# IS-AR PM specific practices by level

Quality and rigor category

IS-AR maturity level 2 3 4

Research method 2 20 0 0

Transparency of process 2-3-4 30 25 2Credibility of the research 3-4 12 16 7 Transferability of theresearch

2-3-4 7 11 4

Dependability of theresearch

3-4 0 13 2

Confirmability of theresearch

3 3 12 5

Impact on participants 2 9 0 0Research skill 2 12 0 0Conceptual significance 2 12 6 5

Practical significance 3 0 17 2Presentation of research 2-3 13 8 0Total of generic

practices118 108 27

Total of specific practices

17 29 6

Total of practices bylevel

135 137 33

Total of practices 305

Experiences

To Produce Knowledge and Real Solution: Selecting an ERP

To observe our work, we apply the obtained practices in a specific work related with theselection of an ERP. The practices were very useful, because they organised the work of action-research in a more easily way. So, this experience was characterised by:

• One IS-AR PM structure composed by one problem solving-problem constructioncycle (CPSC) executed by an private enterprise (Catalonian company) and one researchmanagement cycle (CRM) executed by university researchers.

• Two particular projects where CPSC was considered a professional project, while CRM was considered a research project. The private enterprise need a process of ERPselection; the university needs to test the IS-AR PM proposal and a methodology inorder to select an ERP (Systematic Help for an ERP Acquisition or SHERPA



17

methodology, Guerrero 2001; Pastor, Franch, & Sistach 2001). Table 13 discusses theobjectives.

• Four individuals: Mateo (IS-AR researcher), Joan (IS-AR researcher and ERPselection researcher), Jorge: engineer responsible for selecting the ERP), and Ricardo(expert in selecting software).

• Five roles in the cycles: Five roles were defined (Figure 7). In CRM, Mateo was atechnical action-researcher (to provide support in action-research), Joan was anaction-researching practitioner (to learn about and research IS-AR), and Jorge was aresearch practitioner (to apply action-research). In CPSC, Joan was a facilitator action-researcher (to guide the work of Jorge), Jorge was a technical action-researcher (toguide in the action-researching of SHERPA), and Ricardo was a practitioner (workingin ERP selection).

Figure 7: Individuals and roles

Table 13: Objectives from the cycles

C RM C PSC

Project implicit Research project to improveSHERPA and IS-AR PM proposal

Professional project to select anERP

Theoreticaldimension

To improve collaborative researchwith PM elements

To improve and change the procedures to select the ERP in theenterprise

Practicaldimension

To define and test SHERPA withUML

To select and adequate ERP for the enterprise

To Produce Another Model: Knowledge Management Model

The steps to obtain the maturity model for IS-AR were applied in an engineering thesis of thecareer in Informatic of Business from the Santa María University (Campus Guayaquil). Inthis experience, the practices of an IS-AR project were used in the conduction of the thesis(see the Figure 14 as an example). This thesis, the research dimension, lead to a model and amethodology to help to mature an organization to increase their practices in knowledge

CRM

Planning

C PSC Observation

CRM Reflection

CRM Observation

CRM

Action

C PSC Planning

C PSC reflection

C PSC

Action

CRM

University Private enterprise

Mateo

(technical

action-researcher)

Ricardo

(practitioner in

ERP selection)

Jorge´s fieldJoan´s field

action

researching

practitioner facilitatoraction-researcherresearch

practitioner

technical

action-researcher

C PSC C problem-Solving ConstructionCResearch Management



18

management, and, in the practical dimension, such model and methodology were applied inthe Ecuadorian Navy in a specific software process unit, evaluating the step from level 1 tolevel 2 (Salem & Saman, 2003).

Table 14: Example of practices deployed

Maturity level

Roadmap Practice 1. NoviceIS Planning

2. BasicIS Planning

IS Practicum

3. OrganizedIS Practicum

MIS Workshop

4. ManagedIS Practicum

MIS Workshop

5. Adaptive

Work ThesisTransparencyof process

Clear comprehensionabout interestand intention

Reflect aboutintention or mission

Reflect aboutown propositionin the work

Describe withclarity thescope of theresearch

Define the product of the project

Plan meetings Review historicinformation

With this work, we defined key areas with respective practices. Such experience wasdeveloped for the Ecuadorian Navy, in particular for its Engineering Department, as a resultof providing a maturity model to improve their capabilities to produce software.

Comments and Future Work

In synthesis, we obtain a systemic vision about IS-AR PM with:

• A set of PM processes for IS-AR with its respective practices that define the structureof the IS-AR PM (IS-AR PM process structure).

• A maturity model that is a way to improve the use of IS-AR by increasing proficiency

with action-research and competence in PM processes in order to improve theimplementation of IS-AR by an action-researcher.

With this work, the PMBOK ®

Guide (2000) has been a useful tool for helping define specific projects for researchers, the IS-AR PM. It was a methodological work, but the severalexperiences empowered the model and the proposal.

This experience enriched the scope of the PMBOK ®

Guide (2000) in the complex field of itsresearch. The experiences realized were useful in the information systems field in a waywhere practitioners and theorists meet in collaborative spaces, by selecting software or bygenerating new models of maturity. From another point of view, the obtained results had been

useful to prepare IS professionals for complex projects where an IS imply strong commitment between consultants and practitioners, aspect more relevant in the IS curricula.

References

A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ®

guide). (2000). NewtownSquare, PA: Project Management Institute.

Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People Journal, 14(1) , 28-45.

Blasco, J. (2000). Los artefactos y sus proyectos [The artifacts and their projects]. Barcelona,Spain: Edicions UPC.

Blasco, J. (2001). Los proyectos, el proyectar y el proyectado [Projects, projecting and projected]. Barcelona, Spain: Edicions UPC.



19

Blasco, J., Estay, C., Gracia, S., & Tamayo, J. (2002, June). Learning collaboration through[ sic]a maturity model: mixing a collaborative methodology with an IS action-researchmaturity model. In Proceeding of Business Information Technology Management,

BITWORLD, 2-5.Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational

goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: Longman.Estay, C., & Blasco, J. (2000). El universo de proyectos: una epistemología sistémica para proyectos. [The universe of project: a systemic epistemology for projects] In Proceedings of V International Congress of Project Engineering. Lérida, Spain.October 4-6.

Estay, C. &, Pastor, J. (2000a). Improving action-research with project management. In Proceedings of the 2000 Americas Conference on Information Systems. Long Beach,CA. August 11-13.

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2000b). The realm of action-research in information systems. InProceedings of BIT 2000, 10th Annual Business and Information TechnologyConference. Manchester, UK. November 1-2.

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2000c). Towards the project-based action-research for informationsystems. In Proceedings of the BIT 2000. Manchester, UK. November 1-2.Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2001a). Deriving good practices from project management for IS

action research. In Proceedings of the 2001 AMCIS . Boston, Massachusetts. August 3-5.Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2001b). A retrospective validation of IS action research project

management. In Proceedings of the 2001 Americas Conference on InformationSystems. Boston, Massachusetts. August 3-5.

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2001c). A maturity model for IS action research project management.Report de Recerca LSI-01-14-R. Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes Informàtics.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. October 31. Retrieved May 19, 2004, fromhttp://www.lsi.upc.es/dept/techreps/ps/R01-47.pdf

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2002a). Information system action-research: Project managementmaturity model and practices. In BITWORLD 2002. Escuela Politécnica Superior delLitoral, Ecuador. June 3-5.

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2002b). A maturity model for information systems action-research project management. En ECIS 2002. pp. 28-38. Gdańsk, Poland, June 6-8.

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2002c). IS action-research project management experience: 1 IS-AR project, 2 cycles/projects, 4 individual, 5 roles, many objectives. In Actas Workshop em Investigação Qualitativa, 3ª Conferência da Associação Portuguesa de Sistemas deInformação (APSI). Coimbra, Portugal. November 21.

Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2002d). Selección de ERP en pequeñas y medianas empresas con un proyecto de Investigación-acción. [ERP selection in SMEs with and action-research project] In Proceedings of the VI International Congress of Project Engineering.

Barcelona, España: Technical University of Catalonia. October 23-25.Estay, C., & Pastor, J. (2003). Formación de investigadores informáticos en investigación-

acción: Una propuesta basada en un modelo de madurez de gestión de proyectos[Formation of Informatic researchers in action-research: project management maturitymodel-based proposal]. En 3er Congreso Internacional Virtual de Educación-CIVE2003. April 1-13.

Gardiner, L. (2000). Cognitive levels: The "Bloom" taxonomy. Rutgers University. RetrievedJune 5, 2001, from http://dfcm19.med.utoronto.ca/tp/bloom_taxonomy'.htm.

Greenwood, D., & Morten, L. (1998). Introduction to action research. London: SAGE.Guerrero, J. (2001). Selección de un ERP con SHERPA y UML. Engineer thesis. Technical

University of Catalonia .

Mathiassen, L. (1998). Reflective systems development. Scandinavian Journal of IS , 10(1-2),67-118.



McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (1999a). The poverty of action-research in IS. In Proceedings of the UKSS Conference. Lincoln Business School. Lincoln, UK. July.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (1999b). A framework for rigor in action research. In Proceedingsof 1999 Americas Conference on Information Systems. Milwaukee, WI. August 13-15.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (1999c). 2x6=12, or Does it equal action research. In Proceedings

10th

. Australasian Conference of Information Systems, pp. 597-609.McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2000a). Quality and rigor in action research. In Proceedings ECIS 2000, Vienna, Austria.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2000b). Rethinking current conceptualisations [ sic] of actionresearch. In Proceedings of PACIS 2000.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). Action research: A guide to process and procedure.Submitted to ECIS 2001. Received from J. McKay. Bled Slovenia. June 27-29.

Myers, M. (1997, 2). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 21, 241-242.

Pastor, J. A., Franch, X., & Sistach, F. (2001). Methodological ERP acquisition: TheSHERPA experience. In First World Class IT Service Management Guide (second

edition), tenHagenStam.Ramírez, C., Recabarren, M., & Palma, A. (1988). Manual de capacitación pedagógica, Dirección de Instrucción de la Armada, Chile.

Salem, Andrea, & Saman, V. (2003). Knowledge Management Maturity model v1.1:application to military software development organization in levels 1 and 2. Engineer of Business Thesis. Santa María University Campus Guayaquil. Ecuador. October 30.

[email protected] (2000). The Trillium Model. Retrieved May 19, 2004, from

http://www.sqi.gu.edu.au/trillium/

action-researching with the pmbok® guide

Documents