A Proposal For Context-Specific Method Engineering

  • Colette Rolland
  • Naveen Prakash
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)


The new emerging method engineering discipline acknowledges the need for the construction of methods tuned to specific situations of development projects. This raises at least three problems (1) the representation of method fragments in a method base, (2) the formalization of the notion of project situation and, (3) the retrieval of relevant fragments for the project situation at hand. Our contribution to the first two of these problems lies in the definition of a contextual approach which enables us to represent both method knowledge (i.e. the method base contents) and method meta-knowledge (i.e. knowledge about the potential use of method fragments) as pairs of the form <situation, decision>. This emphasizes both engineering decisions and method engineering decisions, their rationale and situations of applicability. We contribute to the third problem by proposing a tight coupling of method knowledge and method meta-knowledge in the method base. This enables the formal description of the context of use of every method fragment and shall facilitate the retrieval of relevant fragments according to the situation of the project under development. The paper presents and exemplifies the method knowledge and method meta-knowledge levels.


  1. Arango G (1989), “Domain analysis: from art to engineering discipline”, Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Software Specification and Design, IEEE Computer Society Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bubenko J., Rolland C., Loucopoulos P., DeAntonellis V. (1994), “Facilitating ”Fuzzy to Formal“ Requirements Modelling”,IEEE 1st Int. Conference on Requirements Engineering. ICRE’94, pp 154–158Google Scholar
  3. De Antonellis V., Pernici B., Samarati P. (1991) “F-ORM METHOD: A methodology for reusing specifications”, in Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems, Van Assche F., Moulin B., Rolland C. (eds ), North HollandGoogle Scholar
  4. Franckson M. (1994), “The Euromethod deliverable model and its contribution to the objectves of Euromethod”,Proc. IFIP-TC8 Int. Conf. on Methods and Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, Verrijn-Stuart and 011e (eds), North-Holland, pp131–149Google Scholar
  5. Gamma E., Helm R., Johnson R., Vlissides J. (1993), “Design patterns: Abstraction and Reuse of Object-Oriented Design”,Proc. of the ECOOP’93 Conf., Sringer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  6. Harmsen F et al (1994), “Situational method engineering for informational system project approaches”,in Method and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, VerrijnStuart and 011e (eds.), North Holland, pp169–194Google Scholar
  7. Hidding G.J. (1994), “Methodology information: who uses it and why not?” Proc. WITS-94. Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones T.C. (1984), “Reusability in programming: a survey of the state of the art”. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,SE Vol 10, NolGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson R. E., Foote B. (1988), “Designing reusable classes”,Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Vol 1, No3Google Scholar
  10. Johnson R.E., Russo F. (1991), “Reusing object-oriented design”, Technical report UIUCDCS 91–1696, May 1991, University of IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  11. Krasner G.E, Pope S.T (1988), “A cookbook for using the Model-View Controller user interface in Smalltalk-80”,Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Vol 1, No3Google Scholar
  12. Krogstie J., Lindland O.I., Sindre G. ( 1995 a),“Defining quality aspects for conceptual models”, in E.D. Falkenberg et al., editor, Information Systems Concepts, Proc. ISCO3, Marburg, Germany, North HollandGoogle Scholar
  13. Krogstie J., Lindland O.I., Sindre G, (1995 b), “Towards a Depeer Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAISE’95, livari J. and Lyytinen K. (eds), Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. Lyytinen K. (1987), “Different perspectives on information systems: problems and solutions”,ACM Computing Surveys, Vol 19, Nol 02 (1993) “The 02 User Manual December” Google Scholar
  15. Olle T. W., J. Hagelstein, I. MacDonald, C. Rolland, F. Van Assche, A. A. Verrijn-Stuart. (1988), “Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for Understanding”,Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Plihon V. (1994), “The OMT, The OOA, The SA/SD, The E/R, The 0*, The OOD Methodology” NATURE Deliverable DP2Google Scholar
  17. Plihon V., Rolland C. (1995), “Modelling Ways-of-Working”,Proc 7th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAISE’95, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  18. Pohl K. (1993), “The Three Dimensions of Requirement Engineering”, 5th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Paris, France, June 1993Google Scholar
  19. Prakash N. (1994), “A Process View of Methodologies”,6th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAISE’94, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  20. N. Prat (1995), “Using learning techniques for process model improvement”, Internal report, CRI ( Centre de Recherche en Informatique ), University of Paris-SorbonneGoogle Scholar
  21. Pree W. (1995), “Design Patterns for Object-Oriented Software Development”,Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Prieto-Diaz R., Freeman (1987), P., “Classifying software for reusability”, IEEE Software. Vol. 4, No. 1Google Scholar
  23. Rolland C. (1994), “A Contextual Approach to modeling the Requirements Engineering Process”, SEKE’94, 6th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vilnius, LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Rolland C., Souveyet C., Moreno M. (Rolland, 1995), “An Approach for Defining Ways-OfWorking”,Information Systems, Vol 20, No4, pp337–359Google Scholar
  25. Rolland C.,Plihon V. (1996), “Using generic chunks to generate process models fragments” in Proc.of 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering“, ICRE’96, Colorado Spring Tempora (1994), Tempora ESPRIT project: final reportGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmitt J.R. (1993), “Product Modeling in Requirements Engineering Process Modeling”. IFIP TC8 Int. Conf. on Information Systems Development Process, Prakash., Pernici and Rolland (eds) North HollandGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmitt J.R. (1995), “Méta-modélisation des démarches d’analyse”,Phd thesis, University of Paris6 JussieuGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwer S., Rolland C. (1995), “Theoretical formalization of the process meta-modelling approach”,internal CRI report 95–08, University of Paris 1, France.Google Scholar
  29. Si-Said S., Rolland C., Grosz G. (1996), “MENTOR: A Computer Aided Requirements Engineering Environment”,in Proc 8th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE’96), Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Weinand A., Gamma E., Marty R. (1989), “Design and implementation of ET++, a seamless oject-oriented applcation framework”,Journal of Structured Programming, Vol 10, No2, pp6387Google Scholar
  31. Welke R, and Kumar K. (1991), “Method engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction”, in Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Agenda. Cotterman and Senn(eds ), WileyGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson D.A, Rosenstein L.S., Shafer D. (1991), “Programming with MacApp”,Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  33. Wirfs-Brock J., Johnson R. (1990), “Surveying current research in Object-Oriented Design”. Communications of ACM, Vol 33, No9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colette Rolland
    • 1
  • Naveen Prakash
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Paris 1-SorbonneParis Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Kashmere GateDelhi Institute of TechnologyDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations