Contextual Method Integration

  • Mauri Leppänen

Information systems development (ISD) methods are commonly engineered by integrating method components from existing methods into a new or a current methodical body. Finding suitable components and integrating them into a coherent, consistent and applicable ISD method requires that the purposes and conceptual contents of method components are described in a strict manner, typically through metamodeling. In this paper we present a contextual view of method component which, based on the contextual approach, expresses, more closely than earlier presentations, semantic features of those parts of an ISD context which are involved by method components. We also show, with a large example, how method integration can be carried out based on this contextual information of method components.


Case Model Method Engineering Sequence Diagram Goal Model Method Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Codd, E. 1972. Further normalization of the data base relational model. In R. Rustin (Ed.) Data Base Systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 33-64.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: an activity theoretical ap-proach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gupta, D. & Prakash, N. 2001. Engineering methods from method re-quirements specifications. Requirements Engineering 6(3), 135-160.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harmsen, F. 1997. Situational method engineering. University of Twente, Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, The Netherlands, Dis-sertation Thesis.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hidding, G., Freund, G. & Joseph, J. 1993. Modeling large processes with task packages. In Proc. of Workshop on Modeling in the Large, AAAI Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G. & Rumbaugh, J. 1999. The Unified Software De-velopment Process. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karlsson, F., Ågerfalk, P. & Hjalmarson, A. 2001. Method configuration with development tracks and generic project types. In J. Krogstie, K. Siau & T. Halpin (Eds.) Proc. of the 6th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Work-shop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and De-sign (EMMSAD’01).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kinnunen, K. & Leppänen 1996. M., O/A matrix and a technique for methodology engineering. Journal of Systems and Software 33(2), 141-152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koubarakis, M. & Plexousakis, D. 2000. A formal model for business process modeling and design. In B. Wangler & L. Bergman (Eds.) Proc. of 12th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2000). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 142-156.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, K. & Welke, R. 1992. Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation specific methodology construction. In W. Kottermann & J. Senn (Eds.) Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 257-269.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, J., Xue, N.-L. & Kuo, J.-Y. 2001. Structuring requirement specifica-tions with goals. Information and Software Technology 43(2), 121-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leppänen, M. 2000. Toward a method engineering (ME) method with an emphasis on the consistency of ISD methods. In K. Siau K. (Ed.) Proc. of the Fifth CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Mod-eling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD’00).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leppänen, M. 2005. An ontological framework and a methodical skele-ton for method engineering. Ph.D. thesis, Jyväskylä Studies in Comput-ing 52, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leppänen, M. 2005. A context-based enterprise ontology. In G. Guiz-zardi & G. Wagner (Eds.) Proc. of Int. Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies, and Rules for the Enterprise (VORTE’05), Enschede, The Netherlands, 17-24.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leppänen, M. 2005. Conceptual analysis of current ME artifacts in terms of coverage: A contextual approach. In J. Ralyté, Per Ågerfalk & N. Kraiem (Eds.) Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Situational Require-ments Engineering Processes (SREP’05), Paris, 75-90Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leppänen, M. 2006. Towards an Ontology for Information Systems De-velopment. In J. Krogstie, T. Halpin & E. Proper (Eds.) Proc. of the 10th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD’06), Luxemburg, June 5-6, Presses Uni-versitaires de Namur, 363-374.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ralyté, J. 2004. Towards situational methods for information systems de-velopment: engineering reusable method chunks. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Information Systems Development (ISD’04), Vilnius, Lithua-nia, September 9-11, 271-282.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckere, R. & Rolland, C. 2003. Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In J. Eder & M. Missikoff (Eds.) Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineer-ing (CAiSE’03). LNCS 2681, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 95-110.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saeki, M. 1998. A meta-model for method integration. Information and Software Technology 39(14), 925-932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, J. & Smith, D. 1977. Database abstraction: aggregation and gen- eralization. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 2(2), 105-133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Song, X. 1997. Systematic integration of design methods. IEEE Software 14(2), 107-117.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Song, X. & Osterweil, L. 1992. Towards objective, systematic design-method comparison. IEEE Software 9(3), 43-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vlasblom, G., Rijsenbrij, D. & Glastra, M. 1995. Flexibilization of the methodology of system development. Information and Software Tech-nology 37(11), 595-607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wieringa, R. & Dubois, E. 1998. Integrating semi-formal and formal software specification techniques. Information Systems 23(3/4), 159-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wistrand, K. & Karlsson, F. 2004. Method components - rationale re-vealed. In A. Person & J. Stirna (Eds.) Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’04). LNCS 3084, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 189-201.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. 1992. Genres of organizational communica-tion: a structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, 299-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang, Z. & Lyytinen, K. 2001. A framework for component reuse in a metamodelling-based software development. Requirements Engineering 6 (2), 116-131.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauri Leppänen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations