Advertisement

Method Engineering: Who’s the Customer?

  • L. Mathiassen
  • A. Munk-Madsen
  • P. A. Nielsen
  • J. Stage
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

This paper reports from a large Danish effort to engineer an object-oriented method for analysis and design of computer systems. Over a period of six years a method was developed based on new ideas on how to learn object-orientation supplemented with well-known ideas of how to work object-oriented in systems development.

The experience from this method engineering effort is interpreted as an iterative process involving elements of theory, method and case records. These elements played different roles when engineering the method. But, what is more important, they became key elements in structuring and presenting the method to practitioners and students of the field.

This particular method engineering effort has thus been governed by a paradigm for learning methods rather than a paradigm for working with methods. We discuss this paradigm by exploring three issues involved in method engineering: (1) the relation between learning the method and working with the method; (2) the role of principles, patterns, and guidelines in explaining the method; and, finally, (3) the relation between concepts for reflection and modelling and concrete representations used to create texts and diagrams.

We suggest that the primary customers of method engineering are those studying methods eager to learn a class of new systems development practices. Those actually working with the method should be thought of in a secondary role when structuring and presenting a new method — even though they are the ultimate judges of the method’s practical strengths and weaknesses.

Keywords

Method engineering systems development object-orientation learning working. 

References

  1. Andersen, R., J. A. Bubenko Jr. and A. Sølvberg (1991). Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Proceedings from CAiSE ‘91. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booch, G. (1991). Object-Oriented Design with Applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  3. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  4. Coad, P. and E. Yourdon (1991a). Object Oriented Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New York. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  5. Coad, P. and E. Yourdon (199 lb). Object Oriented Design. Prentice-Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Fichman, R. G. and C. F. Kemerer (1993). Adoption of Software Engineering Process Innovations: The Case of Object Orientation. Sloan Management Review, 34, 2, 7–22.Google Scholar
  7. Harel, D. (1987). Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8, 231–274.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jackson, M. (1983). System Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobson, I., M. Christerson, P. Jonsson and G. Övergaard (1992). Object-Oriented Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kensing, F. and A. Munk-Madsen (1993). Participatory Design: Structure in the Toolbox. Comm. ACM, 36, 6, 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mathiassen, L. (1981). Systems Development and Systems Development Method. In Danish. Dr.scient. Thesis, Oslo University.Google Scholar
  12. Mathiassen, L., A. Munk-Madsen, R. A. Nielsen and J. Stage (1991). Soft Systems in Software Design, in Systems Thinking in Europe (eds. M. C. Jackson et al.), 311–317, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Mathiassen, L., A. Munk-Madsen, P. A. Nielsen and J. Stage (1993). Object-Oriented Analysis. In Danish. Marko, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  14. Mathiassen, L., A. Munk-Madsen, R A. Nielsen and J. Stage (1995). Object-Oriented Design. In Danish. Marko, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  15. Nielsen, P. A. (1990a). Approaches for Appreciating information systems methodologies: A soft systems survey. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 2.Google Scholar
  16. Nielsen, P. A. (1990b). Using and Learning IS Development Methodologies. Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  17. Olle, T. W., H. G. Sol and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, editors (1982). Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  18. Olle, T. W., H. G. Sol and C. J. Tully, editors (1983). Information Systems Design Methodologies: A A Feature Analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Olle, T. W., H. G. Sol and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, editors (1986). Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Rumbaugh, J., M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, S. Eddy and W. Lorensen (1991). Object-Oriented Modelling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  21. Stage, J. (1989). Between Tradition and Transcendence: Analysis and design in systems development. In Danish. Dr.scient. Thesis, Oslo University.Google Scholar
  22. Steinholtz, A. SOlvberg and L. Bergman (1990). Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Proceedings from CAiSE `90. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Tolvanen, J.-P. and K. Lyytinen (1993). Flexible Method Adaptation in CASE: The metamodeling approach. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 5, 51–78.Google Scholar
  24. Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. and T. W. Olle, editors (1994). Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Yourdon, E. (1989). Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Mathiassen
    • 1
  • A. Munk-Madsen
    • 2
  • P. A. Nielsen
    • 1
  • J. Stage
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAalborg UniversityAalborg ØDenmark
  2. 2.Fredriksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations