As usual we have four interesting papers for you in this issue. We will not be able to say this for much longer, as from the next volume we plan five papers per issue. Previously we have always avoided this step, but submissions are such that we feel the quality of the ISJ will be maintained despite the larger size. In this editorial we give readers a challenge to think around some of the broader issues in each paper. Our first paper by Paul Bowen, Jon Heales and Monthira Vongphakdi looks at aspects of the ‘age-old’ problem of software reliability in situations where there are frequent changes in requirements. It explores whether increases in the volatility of system requirements decrease software reliability, whether systems that exhibit high volatility during the development phase are likely to have lower reliability when operational, and whether decreases in software reliability (and any failure of the system) are more likely to be due to analysis and design rather than construction and implementation aspects. The authors look at three application systems at a law enforcement agency, using both quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate their findings. There is a thorough analysis of the data, and the paper is unusually long because we wanted to show the extent of the analysis as well as the basic documentation. Readers may like to ask whether qualitative or quantitative data alone might have provided sufficient evidence to illustrate the points made, and what type of data provided the most interesting results. Most readers will agree that understanding organizational culture is an important part of the analysis and design process and should be reflected in any information systems’ solution. Yet eliciting knowledge of this sort is very difficult. The paper by Gordon Rugg, Malcolm Eva, Atiya Mahmood, Nazia Rehman, Stephanie Andrews and Sarah Davies helps by introducing most of us to the technique of laddering. This is an established technique in cognitive psychology (part of Kelly's personal construct theory) which has been used in advertising, architecture and many other areas. It is particularly useful for eliciting information about goals, aims and values, and provides explanations for each. The authors provide examples of laddering in three case studies investigating various aspects of culture, goals and explanation. Readers may like to consider the other theories and techniques that we in information systems have ‘imported’ from reference disciplines. Do we understand them fully, and are we aware of the debates in these disciplines about these theories and techniques? In other words, do we have only a superficial grasp of their use in the reference domain? Of course, we must also ask whether information systems is being used as a reference discipline by others. George Giaglis, Stefan Klein and Robert O’Keefe provide an analysis of the potential roles of intermediaries in electronic markets. They compare this role in traditional and electronic markets, under the headings of determination of product offerings, searching, price discovery, logistics, settlement, trust, and legal and regulatory infrastructure. This discussion suggests that we cannot generalize by suggesting that decreased transaction costs in electronic markets will lead to the reduction, or even extinction, of traditional intermediaries from electronic value chains. The authors see three possible future scenarios: disintermediation; reintermediation and cybermediation, and suggests situations when each might be the likely outcome. The authors have thus re-examined a frequently held belief and found that the evidence does not support that belief. Perhaps we should all re-examine many other ‘truths’ and see if new evidence supports them. There are many information systems development methodologies available. We have published previous research that has suggested their usefulness has been very varied and sometimes counter-productive. It is particularly interesting that the huge development of web applications has not seen the acceptance of one or more methodologies for that domain. Indeed, ‘trial-and-error’ might be a more suitable phrase than methodology. Richard Vidgen proposes a variant of Multiview called Web Information Systems Development Methodology (or WISDM) for these applications. He also describes a 2 year action research project at a business consultancy to show its use. He asks ‘what's different about IS development for the Internet?’. We might agree or disagree with these particular conclusions. We might also ask ‘what is different about x?’, where x is the latest fad or fashion in information systems. Too often, the answer is – at least in a fundamental sense – not much!