Advertisement

A Functional Framework for Evaluating Method Engineering Environments: the case of Maestro II/ Decamerone and MetaEdit+

  • P. Marttiin
  • F. Harmsen
  • M. Rossi
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

CASE environments with method customisation capabilities and Computer Aided Method Engineering (CAME) environments have emerged during the last few years. While many research papers discuss the principles of method engineering and suggest requirements for new environments, we do not have critical evaluations of CAME environments using a wider method engineering framework. The aims of this study are twofold: 1) to build a preliminary framework for comparative studies of CAME environments, and 2) to increase the knowledge of the ‘state of the art’ in CAME by evaluating two CAME environments. We adapt a functional framework — originally built for CASE technology — to examine the following two research questions: How well can a method be defined in a CAME environment?, and How well is the defined method supported in a customisable CASE environment? The environments chosen for evaluation are Maestro II /Decamerone, and MetaEdit+. As an outcome, we will describe what framework aspects these environments support, and discuss the aspects not supported.

Keywords

CASE evaluation metaCASE method engineering systems development co-ordination 

References

  1. Auramäki, E., Leppänen, M. and Savolainen, V. (1988) Universal framework for information systems. Data base, 19, 1, pp. 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergsten, P., Bubenko, J., Dahl, R., Gustafsson, M. and Johansson, L.-A. (1989) RAMATIC - a CASE shell for implementation of specific CASE tools. TEMPORA T6.1 report, SISU, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  3. Boloix, G., Sorenson, P.G. and Tremblay, J.P. (1991) On Transformations Using A Metasystem Approach To Software Development. Technical report, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Bosua, R. and Brinkkemper, S. (1995) Realisation of an Integrated Software Engineering Environment through Heterogeneous CASE-Tool Integration. Software Engineering Environments (Ed. M.S. Verrall ), IEEE Computer Science Press, pp. 152–159.Google Scholar
  5. Brinkkemper, S. (1990) Formalisation of Information Systems Modelling. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkkemper, S. (1995) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 37, 11, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  7. Brodie, M. (1984) On the developments of data models. Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Databases and Programming Languages (Eds. M. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos and J. Schmidt ), Springer-Verlag, pp. 19–47.Google Scholar
  8. Bubenko, J.A. jr. (1988) Selecting a strategy for computer-aided software engineering (CASE). SYSLAB Report No 59, SYSLAB, University of Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, M., Nunamaker, J.F. jr. (1989) MetaPlex: an integrated environment for organization and information systems development. Proceedings of the 10th ICIS (Eds. J.I. DeGross, J.C. Henderson and B.R. Konsynski), ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 141–151.Google Scholar
  10. Cronholm, S. and Goldkuhl, G. (1994) Meanings and Motives of Method Customizations in CASE Environments. 5th Workshop on Next Generation of CASE Tools, June 6–7. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Crozier, M., Glass, D., Hughes, J., Johnston, W. and McChesney, I. (1989) Critical analysis of tools for computer-aided software engineering. Information and Software Technology. 31, 9, pp. 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I. and Over, J. (1992) Process modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35, 9, pp. 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Essink, L. (1986) A modelling approach to information system development. Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the practise (Eds. T.W. Olle, H.G. Sol and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
  14. Euromethod (1994) Euromethod Architecture. Euromethod project deliverable Work Package 3, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. Fuggetta, A. (1993) A classification of CASE Technology. IEEE Computer, 26, 12, pp. 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hahn, U., Jarke, M. and Rose, T. (1991) Teamwork Support in a Knowledge-Based Information Systems Environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17, May, pp. 467–481.Google Scholar
  17. Harmsen, F. and Brinkkemper S. (1995) Design and Implementation of a Method Base Management System for a Situational CASE Environment. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’95), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 430–438.Google Scholar
  18. Harmsen, F., Brinkkemper S. and Oei H. (1994) Situational Method Engineering for Information System Projects. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS’94 (Eds. T.W. Olle and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 169–194.Google Scholar
  19. Harmsen, F., Lubbers I. and Wijers G. (1995) Success-driven selection of Fragments for Situational Methods–The S cube model. Proceedings REFSQ’95 Workshop (Eds. P. Peters and K. Pohl ), Aachener Berichte zur Informatik, pp. 104–115.Google Scholar
  20. Harmsen, F., and Saeki, M. (1996) Comparison of Four Method Engineering Languages. Proceedings IFIP WG8.118.2 Working Conference on Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support (ME’96), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, J.C. and Cooprider, J.G. (1994) Dimensions of IS Planning and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology. IT and the Corporation of the 1990’s: Research studies (Eds. T. Allen and M. Scott-Morton ), Oxford University Press, pp. 221–248.Google Scholar
  22. Heym, M. and Osterle, H. (1992) A reference model of information systems development. The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (Eds. K.E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen and J. I. DeGross), Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 215–240.Google Scholar
  23. Hoef, R. van de and Harmsen F. (1995) Quality requirements for situational methods. Proceedings of the NGCT’95 Workshop, Jyväskylä, Finland.Google Scholar
  24. ISDOS (1981) An introdution to the System Encyclopedia Manager, ISDOS Ref #81 SEM-0338–1, ISDOS Project, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  25. Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Rolland, C. and Schmitt, J.-R. (1994) Experience-Based Method Evaluation and Improvement: A process modeling approach. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS’94 (Eds. T.W. Olle and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  26. Kelly S., Lyytinen, K. and Rossi, M. (1996) MetaEdit+ A Fully Configurable Multi-User and multi-Tool CASE and CAME Environment. Proceedings of the CAiSE’96 conference, 2024 May, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  27. Koskinen, M. (1996) Designing Multiple Process Modelling Languages for Flexible, Enactable Process Models in a MetaCASE Environment, Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Next Generation CASE Tools (NGCT’96), Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  28. Kumar, K. and Welke, R.J. (1992) Methodology Engineering: A proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Engineering. Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development (Eds. W.W. Cotterman and J.A Senn ), John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp. 257–269.Google Scholar
  29. Lyytinen, K., Smolander, K. and Tahvanainen, V.-P. (1989) Modelling CASE Environments in Systems Work. CASE’89 conference papers, Kista, Sweden.Google Scholar
  30. Marttiin, P. (1994) Towards Flexible Process Support with a CASE Shell. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Eds. G. Wijers, S. Brinkkemper and T. Wasserman), LNCS#811, Springer- V erlag, pp. 14–27.Google Scholar
  31. Marttiin, P., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M., Tahvanainen, V.-P., Smolander, K. and Tolvanen, J.-P. (1995) Modeling Requirements for Future CASE: modeling issues and architectural considerations. Information Resource Management Journal, 8, 1, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
  32. Marttiin, P., Rossi, M., Tahvanainen, V.-P. and Lyytinen, K. (1993) A Comparative Review of CASE Shells: a preliminary framework and research outcomes. Information and Management, 25, pp. 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merbeth, G. (1991) Maestro II–das integrierte CASE-System von Softlab. CASE Systeme und Werkzeuge (Ed. H. Balzert ), BI Wissenschaftsverlag, pp. 319–336.Google Scholar
  34. MetaEdit+ (1995) MetaEdit+: Method Workbench User’s Guide (version 2. 0 ). MetaCASE Consulting, MicroWorks Finland.Google Scholar
  35. Misra, S.K. (1990) Analysing CASE system characteristics: evaluative framework. Information and Software Technology, 32, 6, pp. 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nijssen, G.M. (1989) An Axiom and Architecture for Information Systems. Information System as an In-Depth Analysis (Ed. E.D. Falkenberg), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. ( North-Holland ), IFTP, pp. 157–175.Google Scholar
  37. Norman, R.J. and Chen, M. (1992) Working together to integrated CASE. IEEE Software, March, pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
  38. Oei, J.L.H. and E.D. Falkenberg (1994) Harmonisation of Information System Modelling and Specification Techniques. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS’94 (Eds. T.W. Olle and A.A. Verrijn-Stuart), North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 151168.Google Scholar
  39. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (1995a) Linking Ability - a Model Linking Tool for MetaEdit+ Environment. Working paper series B39, Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  40. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (1995b) Debate Browser - a Design Rationale Tool for MetaFdit+ Environment. Working paper series B40, Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  41. Olle, T.W., Hagelstein, J., MacDonald, I.G., Rolland, C., Sol, H.G., Van Assche, F.J.M. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A (1991) Information Systems Methodologies: A framework for understanding. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham, England.Google Scholar
  42. Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Tully, C.J. (Eds.) (1983) Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrjin-Stuart, A.A. (Eds.) (1982) Information Systems Design Methodologies: A comparative review. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (Eds.) (1986) Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the practise. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  45. Rossi, M., Gustafsson, M., Smolander, K., Johansson, L.-A. and Lyytinen, K. (1992) Metamodeling Editor as a Front End Tool for a CASE Shell. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Ed. P. Loucopoulos), LNCS#593, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 546–567.Google Scholar
  46. Saeki, M., Iguchi, K., Wen-yin, K. and Shinohara, M. (1993) A meta-model for representing software specification & design methods. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Information Systems Development Process (Eds. N. Prakash, C. Rolland and P. Pernici ), Como, pp. 149–166.Google Scholar
  47. Slooten, K. van, and Brinkkemper S. (1993) A Method Engineering Approach to Information Systems Development. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Information Systems Development Process (Eds. N. Prakash, C. Rolland and P. Pernici ), Como, pp. 167–186.Google Scholar
  48. Smolander, K., Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V.-P. and Marttiin P. (1991) MetaEdit - A flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, (Eds. R. Andersen, J. Bubenko and A. Solvberg), LNCS #498, Springer-Verlag, pp. 168–193.Google Scholar
  49. Smolander, K. (1992) OPRR–A Model for Methodology Modeling. Next Generation of CASE Tools (Eds. K. Lyytinen and V.-P. Tahvanainen), Studies in Computer and Communication Systems, IOS press, pp. 224–239.Google Scholar
  50. Sorenson, P.G., Tremblay, J-P. and McAllister, A.J. (1988) The Metaview system for many specification environments. IEEE Software, 30, 3, March, pp. 30–38.Google Scholar
  51. Ter Hofstede, A. H. M. and Weide, Th. P. van der (1993) Expressiveness in data modeling. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 10, pp. 65–100.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Venable, J. (1993) CoCoA: A Conceptual Data Modelling Approach for Complex Problem Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghampton.Google Scholar
  53. Verhoef, T.F. and Ter Hofstede, A.H.M. (1995) Feasibility of Flexible Information Modelling Support. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Eds. J. Iivari, K. Lyytinen and M. Rossi), LNCS #932, Springer-Verlag, pp. 168–185.Google Scholar
  54. Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S. and Tractinsky, N., Evaluation of Vendor Product: CASE Tools as Methodology Companions. Communications of the ACM, 35, 4, pp. 90–105.Google Scholar
  55. Wijers, G. and Dort, H. van (1990) Experiences with the use of CASE tools in the Netherlands. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Eds. B. Steinholz, A. Salvberg and L. Bergman), LNCS#436, Springer-Verlag, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  56. Wijers, G. (1991) Modelling Support in Information Systems Development. Ph.D. dissertation, Thesis publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. Wynekoop, J.D. and Russo, N.L. (1993) System development methodologies: unanswered questions and the research-practice gap. Proceedings of 14th ICIS (Eds. J. I DeGross, R.P Bostrom and D. Robey), Orlando, USA, pp. 181–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Marttiin
    • 1
  • F. Harmsen
    • 2
  • M. Rossi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations