Acta Informatica Pragensia 2026, 15(2), 440-472 | DOI: 10.18267/j.aip.317261

Design and Usability Evaluation of LDSAM: An Aligned ISO/IEC 29110 – Basic Profile – Development Methodology for Big Data Software Systems in Small Business

David Alejandro Montoya-Murillo ORCID...1, Manuel Mora ORCID...2, Gloria Phillips-Wren ORCID...3, Sergio Galván-Cruz ORCID...1, Estela Lizbeth Muñoz-Andrade ORCID...1
1 Department of Electronic Systems, Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico
2 Department of Information Systems, Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico
3 Department of Information Systems, Law and Operations, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, USA

Background: System Development Life Cycles (SDLC) are proposed through development methodologies (e.g. Rational Unified Process) and international standards (e.g. ISO/IEC 12207) to guide the systematic development of software products to meet expected time, budget, and functional quality. The ISO/IEC 29110-5-1-2: Software engineering guidelines for the generic Basic profile standard provides a disciplined-systematic lightweight SDLC alternative to agile approaches for businesses interested in ISO/IEC certifications rather than agile ones. However, its utilization in the domain of Big Data Analytics Systems has not been investigated.

Objective: Big Data Analytics Systems (BDAS) have been proposed using rigorous SDLCs such as CRISP-DM, Team Data Science Process, and Domino Data Science Lifecycle, but their utilization for small business – or small teams called Very Small Entities (VSEs) – is scarcely reported given the requirements demanding human, technological and financial resources not available in small business.  Given this problematic situation, new agile SDLCs for BDAS have been proposed such as Data-Driven Scrum, but some small organizations still require the utilization of a more systematic development process, and thus SDLCs based on ISO/IEC standards are expected.

Methods: In this research, the design of Light Data Science – Analytics Methodology (LDSAM) and its pilot usability evaluation from a sample of 27 international practitioners are reported. LDSAM is a lightweight development methodology aligned to the ISO/IEC 29110 – Basic Profile – created especially for VSEs.

Results: LDSAM was elaborated using Design Science Research Methodology. Initial usability evaluation results of LDSAM are satisfactory, but further empirical research is encouraged to advance to more mature and stable lightweight SDLCs for BDAS.

Conclusion: The LDSAM was successfully developed, and its usability was evaluated by a pilot sample of international academics and professionals. Favorable results were obtained on the usability metrics for the proposed LDSAM SDLC for BDAS.

Keywords: Big data analytics systems; BDAS; System development life cycle; ISO/IEC 29110; Very small entities; LDSAM; Light data science – analytics methodology; CRISP-DM; Team data science process; Domino data science lifecycle.

Received: September 23, 2025; Revised: March 26, 2026; Accepted: March 28, 2026; Prepublished online: May 17, 2026; Published: June 12, 2026  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Montoya-Murillo, D.A., Mora, M., Phillips-Wren, G., Galván-Cruz, S., & Muñoz-Andrade, E.L. (2026). Design and Usability Evaluation of LDSAM: An Aligned ISO/IEC 29110 – Basic Profile – Development Methodology for Big Data Software Systems in Small Business. Acta Informatica Pragensia, 15(2), 440-472. doi: 10.18267/j.aip.317
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    Supplementary files

    Download fileAppendix-A-F.pdf

    File size: 1.6 MB

    References

    1. Ajah, I. A., & Nweke, H. F. (2019). Big data and business analytics: trends, platforms, success factors and applications. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 3(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc3020032 Go to original source...
    2. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Britton, C., Cottee, M., & Rainer, A. (2005). Using an expert panel to validate a requirements process improvement model. Journal of Systems and Software, 76(3), 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2004.06.004 Go to original source...
    3. Beck, K. (1999). Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer, 32(10), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.796139 Go to original source...
    4. Blalock, H. M. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations. Prentice-Hall.
    5. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer, 36(6), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1204376 Go to original source...
    6. Chapman, Clinton J., Kerber R., Khabaza T., Reinartz T., Shearer C., & Wirth R. (2000). CRISP-DM 1.0 step-by-step data mining guide. SPSS. https://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/modeler/14.2/es/CRISP-DM.pdf
    7. Clarke, P., & O'Connor, R. V. (2013). An empirical examination of the extent of software process improvement in software SMEs. Journal of Software Evolution and Process, 25(9), 981-998. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1580 Go to original source...
    8. Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329-354. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0236 Go to original source...
    9. Davoudian, A., & Liu, M. (2020). Big data systems: A software engineering perspective. ACM Computing Surveys, 53(5), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408314 Go to original source...
    10. Domino Data Lab. (2019). The Practical Guide to Managing Data Science at Scale. Domino Data Lab. https://domino.ai/resources/managing-data-science
    11. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information Technology Adoption Across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs1. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751 Go to original source...
    12. Ebert, C. (2007). The impacts of software product management. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 850-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.017 Go to original source...
    13. Fayyad, U. M., Haussler, D., & Stolorz, P. E. (1996). KDD for Science Data Analysis: Issues and Examples. In KDD-96 Proceedings, (pp. 50-56). AAAI. https://cdn.aaai.org/KDD/1996/KDD96-009.pdf
    14. Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996). The KDD process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/240455.240464 Go to original source...
    15. Galvan-Cruz, S., Mora, M., Laporte, C. Y., & Duran-Limon, H. (2021). Reconciliation of scrum and the project management process of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard-Entry profile-an experimental evaluation through usability measures. Software Quality Journal, 29(2), 239-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-021-09552-3 Go to original source...
    16. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.00407 Go to original source...
    17. Gornik, D. (2003). Rational Unified Process: Best Practices for Software Davor Gornik Development Teams. IBM. https://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/rational/web/whitepapers/2003/rup_bestpractices.pdf
    18. Gorton, I., Bener, A. B., & Mockus, A. (2016). Software engineering for big data systems. IEEE Software, 33(2), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2016.47 Go to original source...
    19. Greeno, G., J., Simon, & A., H. (1988). Problem Solving and Reasoning. In Handbook of Experimental Psychology, (pp. 589-671). John Wiley & Sons.
    20. Grunstra, B. R., Ackoff, R. L., Gupta, S. K., & Minas, J. S. (1965). Scientific method: Optimizing applied research decisions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 25(4), 594. https://doi.org/10.2307/2105451 Go to original source...
    21. Hakim, A., Indonesia, U. B., Suryadi, N., Huda, C., Indonesia, U. B., & Indonesia, U. B. (2024). Sharia Retail store service standards based on customer preferences in the cooperative ecosystem. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 22(2), 335-363. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2024.022.02.05 Go to original source...
    22. Haakman, M., Cruz, L., Huijgens, H., & van Deursen, A. (2021). AI lifecycle models need to be revised: An exploratory study in Fintech. Empirical Software Engineering, 26, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09993-1 Go to original source...
    23. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Go to original source...
    24. Hevner, A. R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), Article 4.
    25. Hoda, R., Salleh, N., & Grundy, J. (2018). The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Software, 35(5), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2018.290111318 Go to original source...
    26. Hummel, O., Eichelberger, H., Giloj, A., Werle, D., & Schmid, K. (2018). A collection of software engineering challenges for big data system development. In 2018 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, (pp. 362-369). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2018.00066 Go to original source...
    27. Iranmanesh, M., Lim, K. H., Foroughi, B., Hong, M. C., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2023). Determinants of intention to adopt big data and outsourcing among SMEs: organisational and technological factors as moderators. Management Decision, 61(1), 201-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-08-2021-1059 Go to original source...
    28. ISO/IEC. (2011). ISO/IEC TR 29110-5-1-2:2011 - Software Engineering - Lifecycle Profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) - Part 5-1-2: Management and engineering guide - Generic pro-file group: Basic profile. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. https://www.iso.org/es/contents/data/standard/05/11/51153.html
    29. ISO/IEC. (2023). Systems and Software Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes ISO/IEC15288:2023. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. https://www.iso.org/standard/81702.html
    30. ISO/IEC. (2017). Systems and Software Engineering - Software Life Cycle Processes, ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2026. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. https://www.iso.org/standard/63712.html
    31. Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. P. (2015). Small data in the era of big data. GeoJournal, 80(4), 463-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9601-7 Go to original source...
    32. Kose, B.O. (2021). Agile business analysis for digital transformation. In Handbook of Research on Multidisciplinary Approaches to Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and ICTs, (pp. 98-123). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4099-2.ch006 Go to original source...
    33. Laporte, C., O'Connor, R., & Fanmuy, G. (2013) International systems and software engineering standards for very small entities. CrossTalk, 2013(May/June), 28-33. Go to original source...
    34. Lee, D., Park, J., & Ahn, J.-H. (2001). On the Explanation of Factors Affecting E-Commerce Adoption. In ICIS 2001 Proceedings International Conference on Information Systems, (Article 14). AIS.
    35. Lin, Y., & Huang, S. (2018). The design of a software engineering lifecycle process for big data projects. IT Professional, 20(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1109/mitp.2018.011291352 Go to original source...
    36. Mariscal, G., Marbán, Ó., & Fernández, C. (2010). A survey of data mining and knowledge discovery process models and methodologies. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 25(2), 137-166. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0269888910000032 Go to original source...
    37. Maroufkhani, P., Tseng, M., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, W. K. W., & Khalid, H. (2020). Big data analytics adoption: Determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102190 Go to original source...
    38. Martinez-Plumed, F., Contreras-Ochando, L., Ferri, C., Hernandez-Orallo, J., Kull, M., Lachiche, N., Ramirez-Quintana, M. J., & Flach, P. (2019). CRISP-DM Twenty years Later: From data mining processes to data science trajectories. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33(8), 3048-3061. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2019.2962680 Go to original source...
    39. Martinez, I., Viles, E., & Olaizola, I. G. (2021). Data Science Methodologies: Current challenges and Future Approaches. Big Data Research, 24, 100183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2020.100183 Go to original source...
    40. Microsoft. (2017) Team Data Science Process Lifecycle. https://github.com/Azure/Microsoft-TDSP/blob/master/Docs/lifecycle-detail.md
    41. Mohd-Selamat, S. A., Prakoonwit, S., Sahandi, R., Khan, W., & Ramachandran, M. (2018). Big data analytics-A review of data-mining models for small and medium enterprises in the transportation sector. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(3), e1238. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1238 Go to original source...
    42. Montoya-Murillo, D., Mora, M., Galvan-Cruz, S., Munoz-Zavala, A., & Alvarez-Rodriguez, F. (2025). A Review of SDLCs for Big Data Analytics Systems in the Context of Very Small Entities Using the ISO/IEC 29110 Standard-Basic Profile. International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 22(1), 194-215. https://doi.org/10.34028/iajit/22/1/15 Go to original source...
    43. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192 Go to original source...
    44. Mora, M., Gelman, O., Paradice, D., & Cervantes, F. (2008). The case for conceptual research in information systems. In CONF-IRM 2008 Proceedings International Conference on Information Resources Management, (Article 52). AIS.
    45. Mora, M., Raisinghani, M. S., O'Connor, R., & Gelman, O. (2009). Toward an integrated conceptualization of the service and service system concepts. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(2), 36-57. https://doi.org/10.4018/jisss.2009040103 Go to original source...
    46. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (2019). Human problem solving. Echo Point Books & Media.
    47. Niazi, M. (2015). A comparative study of software process improvement implementation success factors. Journal of Software Evolution and Process, 27(9), 700-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1704 Go to original source...
    48. O'Connor, R. V., & Laporte, C. Y. (2017). The evolution of the ISO/IEC 29110 set of standards and guides. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 10(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijitsa.2017010101 Go to original source...
    49. O'Connor, R. V., & Coleman, G. (2009). Ignoring "Best Practice": Why Irish Software SMEs are Rejecting CMMI and ISO 9000. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v16i1.557 Go to original source...
    50. Oktaba, H., & Ibargüengoitia González, G. (1998). Software process modeled with objects: Static view. Computación y Sistemas, 1(4), 228-238.
    51. Olorunshola, O. E., & Ogwueleka, F. N. (2021). Review of system development life cycle (SDLC) models for effective application delivery. In Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies (ICTCS 2020) ICT: Applications and Social Interfaces (pp. 281-289). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0739-4_28 Go to original source...
    52. Pääkkönen, P., & Pakkala, D. (2015). Reference architecture and classification of technologies, products and services for big data systems. Big Data Research, 2(4), 166-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2015.01.001 Go to original source...
    53. Pai, D. R., Subramanian, G. H., & Pendharkar, P. C. (2015). Benchmarking software development productivity of CMMI level 5 projects. Information Technology and Management, 16(3), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0234-4 Go to original source...
    54. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 Go to original source...
    55. Plotnikova, V., Dumas, M., & Milani, F. (2020). Adaptations of data mining methodologies: a systematic literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 6, e267. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.267 Go to original source...
    56. Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008). An Evaluation of the Degree of Agility in Six Agile Methods and its Applicability for Method Engineering. Information and Software Technology, 50, 4, 280-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.002 Go to original source...
    57. Robinson, S., & Gillis, A. S. (2025). 5V's of big data. TechTarget.com. https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatamanagement/definition/5-Vs-of-big-data
    58. Russo, D., & Stol, K. (2021). PLS-SEM for Software Engineering Research. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(4), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447580 Go to original source...
    59. Saadatmand, M. (2024). A hierarchical decision model for evaluating the Strategy Readiness of Quantitative Machine Learning/Data science-driven investment strategies. Doctoral dissertation. Portland State University. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.3744 Go to original source...
    60. Salazar-Salazar, G., Mora, M., Duran-Limon, H., Alvarez-Rodriguez, F., & Munoz-Zavala, A. (2024). Review of Agile SDLC for Big Data Analytics Systems in the Context of Small Organizations Using Scrum-XP. International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 21(6), 1089-1110. https://doi.org/10.34028/iajit/21/6/12 Go to original source...
    61. Saltz, J. S., & Krasteva, I. (2022). Current approaches for executing big data science projects-a systematic literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 8, e862. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.862 Go to original source...
    62. SAS. (2025). Semma data mining methodology. http://www.sas.com/technologies/analytics/datamining/miner/semma.html
    63. Shafique, U., & Qaiser, H. (2014). A comparative study of data mining process models (KDD, CRISP-DM and SEMMA). International Journal of Innovation and Scientific Research, 12(1), 217-222.
    64. Sheskin, D. J. (2003). Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Go to original source...
    65. Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., & Murphy, R. (2007). An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 883-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.008 Go to original source...
    66. Sutherland, J. (2010). Jeff Sutherland's Scrum Handbook. The Scrum Training Institute Press.
    67. Todman, L. C., Bush, A., & Hood, A. S. (2023). 'Small Data' for big insights in ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 38(7), 615-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.01.015 Go to original source...
    68. Tsai, C. W., Lai, C. F., Chao, H. C., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2015). Big data analytics: A survey. Journal of Big Data, 2(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-015-0030-3 Go to original source...
    69. Vinzi, E., V., Chin, W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8 Go to original source...
    70. Wang, J., Xu, C., Zhang, J., & Zhong, R. (2022). Big data analytics for intelligent manufacturing systems: A review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 62, 738-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.03.005 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content