According to the author, an office system (OS) can be viewed in two different ways: as a relatively self-contained entity within the boundaries of an “office,” or as an interdepartmental system that can be integrated with existing MIS systems. A case can be made for a distinct office system development methodology that differs from the traditional information system development methodology (ISDM). Office systems support work environments that are considered loosely structured, containing a high number of exceptions or anomalies, and cooperative in nature. Based on these assumptions, the author reviews seven different OS development methodologies.

Methodologies reviewed include ETHICS (Manchester Business School), Pava (Sociotechnical Design Methodology), FAOR (Functional Analysis of Requirements), COMPACT (developed by CCTA), LBMS (Computer Management Group), OFFICER (Computer Management Group), and IBM. The origins of these methodologies represent a balance of academia, government, and business.

The author’s objective is to contrast the methodologies in terms of their underlying philosophy (sociotechnical design or rational), objective (limited to the creation of a computer-based information system), target (stand-alone or integrated), individuals involved (user, trained staff, or consultant), and scope (as the methodology relates to traditional ISDM phases). The assumption is that OS methodologies are designed to select available products and tailor them to an organization’s specific requirements. The methodology is not designed for programming from user requirements.

This paper’s important contribution for all system development professionals is the concept of a fit among the organization, goals, personnel, and system objectives. For example, the IBM methodology is holistic in approach, using highly trained professionals, whereas COMPACT can be used within a small office with limited scope. Also, specific methodologies could be used when goals are well defined, as opposed to a situation in which both goals and value must be identified as part of system development. Specific development methodologies are effective in specific situations.