Representation of Method Fragments

A Comparative Study
  • Anat Aharoni
  • Iris Reinhartz-Berger
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


The discipline of situational method engineering promotes the idea of retrieving and adapting fragments, rather than complete methodologies, to specific situations. In order to succeed in creating good methodologies that best suit given situations, fragment representation and cataloguing are very important activities. This paper presents and compares three existing approaches to fragment representation. It further provides a set of evaluation criteria for comparing fragment representation approaches. These criteria include expressiveness, consistency, formalism, situational cataloguing, adaptability and flexibility to changes, comprehensibility, and connectivity. Based on this comparison, we introduce a new visual approach that combines the benefits of the three reviewed approaches and attempts to overcome their limitations. This approach relies on a specific domain engineering method, called Application-based DOmain Modeling (ADOM), which enables specification of fragments at various levels of details, specification of fragment types and their constraints, and validation of specific fragments against their relevant fragment types. All these activities are done using a well known modeling language (UML), increasing user accessibility (and consequently comprehensibility).


Activity Diagram Granularity Level Requirement Document Fragment Type Product Fragment 
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.


  1. 1.
    Aydin MN, Harmscn F. Making a Method Work for a Project Situation in the Context of CMM. LNCS 2559, Springer, pp. 158–171, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinkkemper, S. Method Engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), pp. 275–280, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinkkemper, S. Saeki, M., Harmsen, F. Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. Information Systems, 24(3), pp. 209–228. 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryan, M. SGML-An Author’s Guide to the Standard Generalized Markup Language. Addison-Wesley publishers Ltd., 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. Domain Engineering: A Model-Based Approach,, 2002.
  6. 6.
    Extreme Programming Web Site, Extreme Programming: A gentle introduction,, 2006.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Krogstie, J. and Arnesen, S. Assessing Enterprise Modeling Languages using a Generic Quality Framework. In J. Krogstie, K. Siau, & T. Halpin, (Eds.), Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, Idea Group, pp. 63–79, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., and Sindre, G. Defining Quality Aspects for Conceptual Models. In E. D. Falkenberg, W. Hesse, & A. Olive (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 working conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO3): Towards a consolidation of views, pp. 216–231, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malouin, J.L., Landry, M. The mirage of universal methods in system design. Journal of applied systems analysis, 10, pp. 47–62, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mirbel, I. Rethinking ISD methods: Fitting project team members profiles. I3S technical report I3S/RR-2004-13-FR, 2004. Available from
  12. 12.
    Mirbel, I., Method chunk federation. Available at, 2006.
  13. 13.
    OMG, “Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure”, Version 2.0, 2005,
  14. 14.
    OPEN Process Framework (OPF) Web Site.
  15. 15.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckere, R., Rolland, C., Towards a generic model for situational method engineering, CAiSE 2003, LNCS 2681, pp. 95–110, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I. Conceptual Modeling of Structure and Behavior with UML-The Top Level Object-Oriented Framework (TLOOF) Approach, 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER’2005), LNCS 3716, 1–15, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I. and Aharoni, A. Representation of Method Fragments: A Domain Engineering Approach. Accepted to the EMMSAD’07 workshop in conjunction with CAiSE’07, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A. Behavioral Domain Analysis-The Application-based Domain Modeling Approach, UML’2004, LNCS 3273, pp. 410–424, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Rolland, C., Plihon, V., Ralyté, J., Specifying the reuse context of scenario method chunks, Proceedings of the CAiSE’98, LNCS 1413, Springer, pp. 191, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Schach, S. R. An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with UML and the Unified Process. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, pp. 56, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Sturm, A., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Applying the Application-based Domain Modeling Approach to UML Structural Views, ER’2004, LNCS 3288, pp. 766–779, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Wistrand, K. Karlsson, F. Method Components — Rationale Revealed. Proceedings of the CAiSE 04, LNCS 3084, Springer, pp. 189–201, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Weerd, I. Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J., Versendaal, J. A situational implementation method for web-based content management system-application: method engineering and validation in practice. Software process: improvement and practice 11(5): 521–538, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anat Aharoni
    • 1
  • Iris Reinhartz-Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations