Advertisement

Component-based Situational Methods

A framework for understanding SME
  • Yves-Roger Nehan
  • Rébecca Deneckere
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)

Abstract

The work presented in this paper is related to the area of Situational Method Engineering (SME) which focuses on project-specific method construction. We propose a faceted framework to understand and classify issues in system development SME. The framework identifies four different but complementary viewpoints. Each view allows us to capture a particular aspect of situational methods. Inter-relationships between these views show how they influence each other. In order to study, understand and classify a particular view of SME in its diversity, we associate a set of facets with each view. As a facet allows an in-depth description of one specific aspect of SME, the views show the variety and diversity of these aspects.

Keywords

Knowledge Representation Process Configuration Construction Technique Method Component Reusable 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.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Firesmith and B. Henderson-sellers, The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction, Addison-Wesley (2001).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Rolland and C. Cauvet, Object-Oriented Conceptual Modelling, CISMOD’92, International Conf. on Management of Data, Bangalore (July, 1992).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Ralyte, Method chunks engineering, PhD thesis, University of Paris 1-Sorbonne (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Mirbel and V. de Rivieres, Adapting Analysis and Design to Software Context: The jecko Approach, In 8th International Conference on Object Orirented Information Systems (2002).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Rolland and J. Ralyté, An Assembly Process for Method Engineering, Proc. of the 13th CAISE, Springer, pp.267–283 (2001).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Rolland, C. Ben Achour, C. Cauvet, J. Ralyté, A. Sutcliffe, N.A.M. Maiden, M. Jarke, P. Haumer, K. Pohl, Dubois and P. Heymans, A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Requirements Engineering Journal 3:1 (1998).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Jarke and K. Pohl, Information systems quality and quality information systems, In Proc. Of the IFIP 8.2 working conference on the impact of computer-supported techniques on information systems development, Mineapolis, NM (june 1992).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Jarke and K. Pohl, Requirements Engineering: An Integrated View of Representation, Process and Domain, Proc. 4th European Software Conf., Springer Verlag (1993).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Rolland, A comprehensive view of process engineering, proceeding of CAISE’98, Pisa, Italy, (1998).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Rolland, A primer for method engineering, proceeding of INFORS1D’ 97, Toulouse, France (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Mirbel, Rethinking 1SD methods, Fitting project team members profiles. I3S technical Report I3S/RR-2004-13-FR, (2004).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Henderson-Sellers, Process meta-modelling and process construction: examples using the OPF. Ann. Software Engineering 14(1–4) (2002) 341–362MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Storrle, Describing process paterns with UML, in ESWT, (2001).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Gnatz, F. Marshall, G. Popp and W. Schwerin, Modular process paterns supporting an evolutionary software development process. Lectures notes in Computer sciences, 2188, (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Rolland, J. Ralyte and M. Ayed, Construction the Lyee method with a method engineering approach, Knowledge-Based System, 17 (2004) 2396248Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Ralyte, Towards Situational Methods for Information Systems Development: Engineering Reusable Method Chunks. Proc. of ISD’04, Vilnius, Lithuania, September 9–11, 2004. pp. 271–282. ISBN 9986-05-762-0Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Reinhartz-Berger and A. Sturn, Applying the Application-based Domain Modeling Approach to UML Structure Views, er’2004, Springer, pp. 766–779Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Deneckere, Approche d’extension de méthodes fondée sur l’utilisation de composants génériques, PhD thesis, University of Paris 1-Sorbonne (2001).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Ralyté, R. Deneckere and C. Rolland, Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering, International Conference on Advanced information Systems Engineering (CAISE), Springer Verlag, Velden, Austria, (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Karlsson and Pär J., Ågerfalk, Method Configuration: Adapting to Situational Characteristics while Creating Reusable Assets, In Information and Software Technoloy, Volume 46, Issue 9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Marko, An approach for creating project-specific software development methodologies, TPSE Cairo (2005).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Van Slooten and B. Hodes, Characterising IS develop. project, IFIP WG 8th Conf. on Method Engineering, Chapman and Hall, pp. 29–44, (1996).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. De Antonellis., B. Pernici and P. Samarati, F-ORM METHOD: A methodology for reusing specifications, in Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems, F. Van Assche, B. Moulin and C. Rolland (eds), North Holland, (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Brinkkemper, M, Saeki and F. Harmsen, Meta-Modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering, Information Systems 24 (1999) 209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Henderson-Sellers, SPI — A role for Method Engineering, Proceedings of the 32nd EUROMICRO, SEAA’06, (2006).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. F. Harmsen, S. Brinkkemper and H. Oei, SME for IS projects, In T.W. Olle & A.A. Verrijn Stuart (Eds.), Methods and associated tools for the IS life cycle — Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference (CRIS’94) (pp. 169–194). Amsterdam: North-Holland (1994).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    OMG, «unified Modeling Language: Superstructure», Version 2.0 (2005); http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05-07-04.pdf
  28. 28.
    M. Cossentino, S. Gaglio, B. Henderson-sellers, V. Seidita, A metamodelling approach for method fragment comparison, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD), Luxembourg (june 2006).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Henderson-Sellers, M. Serour, T. McBride, C. Gonzalez-Perez and L. Dagher, Process construction and customization, Journal of Universal Computer Sciences, 10(3), online journal accessible at http://www.jucs.org (2004)
  30. 30.
    B. Henderson-Sellers, C. Gonzalez-Perez and McBride, A meta-model for assessable software development methodologies. Software Quality Journal, 13(2) (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Cossentino and V. Seidita, Composition of a new process to meet agile needs using method engineering. Software Engineering for Large Multi-Agent Systems Vol. III. LNCS Series, Vol. 3390. Springer-Verlag GmbH (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    G. Terracina, A. Garro and D. Ursino, A multi-agent system for supporting the predition of protein structures. ICAE, 11(3) IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2004), 256–280Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Method fragment definition, FIPA Document (Nov 2003); http://www.fipa.org/activities/methodology.html
  35. 35.
    C. Rolland, N. Prakash and A. Benjamen, A multi-model view of process modeling, Requirements Engineering Journal, pp. 169–187 (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves-Roger Nehan
    • 1
  • Rébecca Deneckere
    • 1
  1. 1.CRIUniversity Paris 1 - Panthéon SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations