Modularization Constructs in Method Engineering: Towards Common Ground?

  • Par J. Ågerfalk
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
  • Fredrik Karlsson
  • Steven Kelly
  • Jolita Ralyté
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


Although the Method Engineering (ME) research community has reached considerable maturity, it has not yet been able to agree on the granularity and definition of the configurable parts of methods. This state of affairs is causing unnecessary confusion, especially with an ever increasing number of people contributing to ME research. There are several competing notions around, most significantly ‘method fragments’ and ‘method chunks’, but also ‘method components’ and ‘process components’ are used in some quarters and have also been widely published. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably, but there appears to be important semantic and pragmatic differences. If the differences are unimportant, we should be able to come to an agreement on what construct to promote. Alternatively, the different constructs may serve different purposes and there is a need for them to coexist. If this is the case, it should be possible to pinpoint exactly how they are related and which are useful in what contexts. This panel is a step towards finding common ground in this area, which arguably is at the very core of ME.


Method Engineer Requirement Engineer Method Component Method Rationale Information System Development 
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.
    Harmsen, F., Brinkkemper, S., and Oei, H. (1994). Situational Method Engineering for Information System Project Approaches. In: A.A. Verrijn Stuart and T.W. Olle (Eds.), Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands, September 1994, IFIP Transactions A-55, North-Holland, 1994, ISBN 0-444-82074-4, pp. 169–194. Also in: Memoranda Informatica 94-03, ISSN 0924-3755, 34 pages, January 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harmsen, A.F. (1997). Situational method engineering. Doctoral dissertation, Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinkkemper S., Saeki, M., and Harmsen, F. (1999). Meta-Modelling Based Assembly Techniques for Situational Method Engineering, Information Systems, 24(3), pp. 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkkemper S., Saeki M., and Harmsen, F. (2001). A Method Engineering Language for the Description of Systems Development Methods (Extended Abstract). In: K.R. Dittrich, A Geppert, and M.C. Norrie (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference CAiSE’01, pp. 173–179, Interlaken, Switzerland, 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag. ISBN 3-540-42215-3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu, L. and Brinkkemper, S. (2007). Concepts for Product Software. To appear in European Journal of Information Systems.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weerd, I. van de, Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J., and Versendaal, J. (2006). A Situational Implementation Method for Web-based Content Management System-applications: Method Engineering and Validation in Practice. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11(5), 521–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weerd, I. van de, Brinkkemper, S., Versendaal J. (2007). Concepts for Incremental Method Evolution: Empirical Exploration and Validation in Requirements Management. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, LNCS 4495, 469–484.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rolland, C. and Prakash, N. (1996). A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen & R. Welke (Eds.), Method Engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support (Vol. 191–208): Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rolland, C., Plihon, V. and Ralyté, J. (1998). Specifying the Reuse Context of Scenario Method Chunks. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Information System Engineering (CAISE’98), Pisa, Italy, June 1998. B. Pernici, C. Thanos (Eds), LNCS 1413, Springer-Verlag, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ralyté, J. and Rolland, C. (2001). An Approach for Method Reengineering. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER2001), LNCS 2224, Springer-Verlag, pp.471–484.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., and Rolland, C. (2003). Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering, In Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2003), Klagenfurt, Austria, June 16–18, 2003, (Eds, Eder J, et al.) Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mirbel, I. and Ralyté, J. (2006). Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches, Requirements Engineering, 11(1), pp. 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarke, M., Rolland, C., Sutcliffe, A., and Domges, R. (1999). The NATURE requirements Engineering. Shaker Verlag, Aachen.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., and Benjamen, A. (1999). A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Engineering, 4(4), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., and Ralyté, J. (2007). Situational method engineering: chunks or fragments? CAiSE Forum, Trondheim, 11–15 June 2007, 89–92Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Röstlinger, A., and Goldkuhl, G. (1996). Generisk flexibilitet: På väg mot en komponentbaserad metodsyn, In Swedish: “Generic flexibility: Towards a component-based view of methods”, Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-96-15, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University. Originally presented at V1TS Höstseminarium 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., and Seigerroth, U. (1998). Method integration: The need for a learning perspective. IEE Proceedings Software, 145, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ågerfalk, P.J. (2003). Information Systems Actability: Understanding Information Technology as a Tool for Business Action and Communication. Doctoral dissertation. Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wistrand, K. and Karlsson, F. (2004). Method Components: Rationale Revealed. In Persson, A. and Stirna, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004), Riga, Latvia, June 7–11, 2004. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karlsson, F. (2005) Method Configuration: Method and Computerized Tool Support. Doctoral dissertation. Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karlsson, F. and Wistrand, K. (2006). Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ågerfalk, P.J. and Wistrand, K. (2003). Systems Development Method Rationale: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis. In Camp, O., Filipe, J., Hammoudi, S. & Piattini, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003). Angers, France.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rossi, M., Ramesh, B., Lyytinen, K., and Tolvanen, J.-P. (2004). Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(9), 356–391.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ågerfalk, P.J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Exploring the Concept of Method Rationale: A Conceptual Tool for Method Tailoring. In Siau, K. (Ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research Vol 5. Hershey, PA, Idea Group.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., and Stolterman, E. (2002). Information systems development-methods in action. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henderson-Sellers, B. and Graham, I.M. (1996). OPEN: toward method convergence? IEEE Computer, 29(4), 86–89Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Firesmith, D.G. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002). The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction, Addison-Wesley, 330ppGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO/IEC (2007). Software Engineering. Metamodel for Development Methodologies. ISO/IEC 24744: International Standards Organization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Par J. Ågerfalk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
    • 3
  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
    • 4
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
    • 5
  • Fredrik Karlsson
    • 6
  • Steven Kelly
    • 7
  • Jolita Ralyté
    • 8
  1. 1.Lero — The Irish Software Engineering Research CentreUniversity of LimerickIreland
  2. 2.Uppsala UniversitySweden
  3. 3.Institute for Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityNetherlands
  4. 4.European Software InstituteSpain
  5. 5.University of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Methodology Exploration Lab, Dept. of Informatics (ESI)Örebro UniversitySweden
  7. 7.MetaCaseFinland
  8. 8.CUIUniversity of GenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations