A Structured System Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) and Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) Comparison Normative Information Model-based Systems Analysis and Design (NIMSAD) MM
A Structured System Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) and Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) Comparison 08
Table of Contents
Structured System Analysis and Design Method (SSADM)3
Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)5
Normative Information Model-based Systems Analysis and Design (NIMSAD)7
Start of Methodology Use9
Customers and Problem Owners10
Culture and Politics of Methodology Use10
Risks in Describing Context11
Risks of Methodology11
User Motives and Values12
Needed Abstract Reasoning13
Problem Situation and Boundaries13
Diagnosis of the Situation14
Prognosis of System14
Deriving Notional Systems15
More on NIMSAD…17
There are many methodologies to systems analysis and design. Each methodology differs from the other in many aspects including technical approaches, view of users and system environment, epistemology and ontology, suitability for use, etc. Hence a more structured and formal way of evaluating methodologies is by using the Normative Information Model-based Systems Analysis and Design (NIMSAD).
NIMSAD is well noted to have a “wide scope, not restricted to any particular category of methodologies, practical and considers different use situations” (Koskinen, Lintinen, Sivula and Tilus, 2003). In this paper, two methodologies are compared using the NIMSAD framework, the Structured System Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) from the waterfall approach family and the Dynamic Systems Development Methodology (DSDM) from the agile methodology family.
Structured System Analysis and Design Method (SSADM)
SSADM is a structured waterfall approach to systems analysis and design. It uses three main techniques; logical data modeling, data flow modeling and entity behavior modeling. There are seven stages to this methodology starting from stage 0 to stage 6:
Stage 0: Feasibility Study
In this stage goals and implications of the project are investigated. Four main components are taken into consideration: technical, functional, organizational and ethical components. System requirements are analyzed and business options are identified. The end product of this stage is a feasibility study document. (Wikipedia, 2012)
Stage 1: Investigation of the Current Environment
Data requirements are investigated. A system analyst tries to analyze the current system by means of “interviewing employees, circulating questionnaires, observations and existing documentation” (Wikipedia, 2012). The objectives of this investigation is to find out “ what users do and how they do it, core requirements for the new system, data model construction and to define system boundaries” (Wikipedia, 2012). The end products of this stage are a user catalog, requirements catalog and a first set of data flow diagrams (Wikipedia, 2012).
Stage 2: Business System Options
The analyst may present a set of different business options. These options consider the “degree of automation, boundary between the system and the users, distribution of the system, cost and benefit of the new system and business impact of the new system” (Wikipedia, 2012). In the end, stakeholders and analyst choose a single option.
Stage 3: Requirements Specification
Here, a full logical system specification (description of what the system must do) is developed based on requirements set in stage 1 and chosen business option. Logical models of data flow diagrams and entity...