Advertisement

Abstract

nformation systems development methods (ISDMs) produce a product, the application, by following a development process model. We argue that in failing to produce the application process model that supports the application product, ISDMs only address part of the IS development problem. Additionally, we show that there is, in fact, a range of abstractions of the application product and process and ISDMs do not build these abstractions.. To address these issues, we define the completeness principle that integrates the 100% and conceptualization principles of conceptual modelling. This principle states that an information system should be a faithful representation of the product and process models at the required level of conceptualization. A method that complies with this principle is called a complete method. We develop a complete method and discuss issues raised in developing such methods.

Keywords

Dependency Graph Abstraction Level Method Block Conceptualization Principle Complete Method 
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. (ASA99) ASAP World Consultancy and J. Blain et al, Using SAP R/3, Prentice Hall of India, 1999Google Scholar
  2. (Fox97) Fox M.S. & Gruninger M, On Ontologies and Enterprise Modelling, Intl. Conf. On Enterprise Integration Modelling, Italy, 1997Google Scholar
  3. (Fox98) Fox M.S. & Gruninger M., Enterprise Modelling, AI Magazine, 19,3, 109–121, 1998Google Scholar
  4. (Gri82) Griethuysen JJ van (ed.) Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Scheme and the Informtion Base, Publication Nr. ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3-N695, ANSI, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. (Gro97) Grosz G., et al, Modelling and Engineering the Requirements Engineering Process: An Overview of the NATURE Approach, Requirements Engineering Journal, 2,3, 115–131Google Scholar
  6. (Har94) Harmsen F., et al, Situational Method Engineering for Information System Project Approaches, in Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, Verrijn-Stuart and Olle (eds.), Elsevier, 169–194Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoe94 ter Hoefstede Propoer AHM. van der Weide Formal Description of a Conceptual Language for the Description and Manipulation of Information Models Information Systems 187489–523Google Scholar
  8. (Lou95) Loucopoulos P., & Kavakli E., Enterprise Modeling and the Teleological Approach to Requirements Engineering, IJCIS, 45–79, 1995Google Scholar
  9. (Met93) MetaEdit version 1.2, MetaCase Consulting, Jyvaskyla, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  10. (Pra99) Prakash N., (1999) On Method Statics and Dynamics, Information Systems Journal, 24,8, 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (Pra06) Prakash Naveen, On Generic Method Models, Requirements Engineering Journal, 11,4, 221–237, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (Rol99) Rolland C., Prakash N., and Benjamen A., A Multi-model View of Process Modelling, Requirements Engineering Journal, 4,4, 169–187, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (Ral03) Ralyté J; Deneckère R., Rolland C., Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering, Proc. CAiSE 2003, Eder J. & Missikoff M. (eds.) LNCS 2681, Springer, 95–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naveen Prakash
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Park Phase IIGreater NOIDAIndia

Personalised recommendations