A Paradigm for Spreadsheet Engineering Methodologies

Özgür Özlük ISBA Department, College of Business, SFSU San Francisco, CA 94132 ozgur@sfsu.edu

ABSTRACT Spreadsheet engineering methodologies are diverse and sometimes contradictory. It is difficult for spreadsheet developers to identify a spreadsheet engineering methodology that is appropriate for their class of spreadsheet, with its unique combination of goals, type of problem, and available time and resources. There is a lack of well-organized, proven methodologies with known costs and benefits for well-defined spreadsheet classes. It is difficult to compare and critically evaluate methodologies. We present a paradigm for organizing and interpreting spreadsheet engineering recommendations. It systematically addresses the myriad choices made when developing a spreadsheet, and explicitly considers resource constraints and other development parameters. This paradigm provides a framework for evaluation, comparison, and selection of methodologies, and a list of essential elements for developers or codifiers of new methodologies. This paradigm identifies gaps in our knowledge that merit further research.

1. INTRODUCTION Our goal is to see spreadsheet research mature into an important, widely-respected field, which generates research results that are routinely used in business. This goal will be achieved when spreadsheet developers regularly consider which spreadsheet engineering methodology they will apply to a particular spreadsheet. A spreadsheet engineering methodology provides prescriptive recommendations for the choices made throughout the lifecycle of a spreadsheet. Four barriers must be overcome to achieve this goal.
   The first barrier is lack of a compelling value proposition. Despite the extensive research on spreadsheet errors [Panko 1998] and the occasional major error that appears in the business press, the argument that current spreadsheet development practices are risky is having little impact. As [Pettifor 2003] points out, “the world is not falling apart through spreadsheet errors”. The argument that something must be done about spreadsheet errors is so far achieving little traction in the business world.
   With the benefit of hindsight, the limited success of the errors/risks argument is not surprising. In essence, this is an attempt to sell a problem. People don’t invest in problems, they invest in solutions. For spreadsheet research to have impact on business practice, it must look beyond errors and their consequences, to the creation of solutions. These solutions—spreadsheet engineering methodologies—must have a compelling value proposition so that busy spreadsheet developers will invest in learning and applying them. An attractive value proposition must include benefits that are important to spreadsheet A Paradigm for Spreadsheet Engineering Methodologies Thomas A. Grossman & Özgür Özlük Page 2 of 11 Extracted from Proceedings of EuSpRIG 2004 Conference Risk Reduction in End User Computing: Best practice for spreadsheet users in the new Europe ISBN: 1 902724 94 1
   Copyright © European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group 2004 www.eusprig.org developers who are relatively unconcerned with risks and errors. These might include more enjoyable development, greater job satisfaction, cost and personnel savings, reduced development time, lifecycle productivity, or enhanced quality of analysis and insight. The contents of this value proposition is an important research question that can only be answered by empirical research on spreadsheet developers.
   We note that even if the spreadsheet research community were to be successful in persuading spreadsheet developers and senior management to take spreadsheet risks seriously, those risks can be mitigated only by the use of appropriate spreadsheet engineering methodologies. The barriers below militate against such use.
   The second barrier is lack of knowledge of spreadsheet practice. Spreadsheets are undoubtedly the most widely used programming language, and are used for countless different purposes with wide variety in development practices. Unfortunately, there is no systematic knowledge about this diversity of usage and development. This diversity makes it difficult to develop useful generalizations or theories regarding spreadsheets. As discussed by [Grossman and Özlük 2003], any recommendations or theories will apply to only a particular class of spreadsheets with similar characteristics. Empirical research is needed to identify the most important sprea

…(Full text truncated)…