Supporting Situational Method Engineering with ISO/IEC 24744 and the Work Product Pool Approach

  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


The advantages of situational method engineering (SME) as an approach to the development, specification and application of methods are significant. However, taking this approach into practice in real-world settings is often a daunting task, because the necessary infrastructure and superstructure are not currently available. By infrastructure, we mean the underpinning theoretical and technological foundations on which SME is based; in this regard, this paper explains how the ISO/IEC 24744 metamodel solves many long-standing problems in methodology specification and enactment that other approaches, such as OMG’s SPEM, cannot. By superstructure, we mean the exploitation mechanisms, often in the form of tools and decision procedures, that allow individuals and organisations to obtain value out of SME during their daily activities. Without these, SME is often seen as a purely theoretical exercise with little practical purpose. In this regard, we this paper also introduces the work product pool approach, which departs from the conventional view that methodologies must be described in a process-centric fashion to focus on a product-centric worldview, thus providing teams the capability to adopt an opportunistic and people-oriented setting in which to conduct their work.


Work Product Method Engineering Work Unit Method Component International Electrotechnical Commission 
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.
    Atkinson, C. and T. Kühne, 2000. Meta-Level Independent Modelling. In International Workshop on Model Engineering at 14 th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. 12–16 June 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C. and T. Kühne, 2001. Processes and Products in a Multi-level Metamodeling Architecture. Int. J. Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng. 11(6): 761–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinkkemper, S., 1996. Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Information and Software Technology. 38(4): 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chau, T., F. Maurer, and G. Melnik, 2003. Knowledge Sharing: Agile Methods vs. Tayloristic Methods. In 12 th IEEE International Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE 2003). IEEE Computer Society. 302–307.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C. and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2005. A Representation-Theoretical Analysis of the OMG Modelling Suite. In The 4 th International Conference on Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques. 28–30 September 2005. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 129. IOS Press: Amsterdam. 252–262.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C. and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2006. A Powertype-Based Metamodelling Framework. Software and Systems Modelling. 5(1): 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C. and B. Henderson-Sellers, 2007. Modelling Software Development Methodologies: A Conceptual Foundation. Journal of Systems and Software. (in press).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenfield, J. and K. Short, 2004. Software Factories: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guizzardi, G., 2007. On Some Modal Properties of Ontologically Well-Founded Structural Conceptual Models. In CAiSE 2007. LNCS (in press). Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., 1992. A Book of Object-Oriented Knowledge. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, 2004. ISO/IEC 15504-1: 2004. Software Process Assessment-Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, 2007. ISO/IEC 24744. Software Engineering-Metamodel for Development Methodologies.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, K. and R.J. Welke, 1992. Methodology Engineering: a Proposal for Situation-Specific Methodology Construction, in Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, W.W. Cotterman and J.A. Senn (eds.). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester (UK). 257–269.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lycett, M., R.D. Macredie, C. Patel, and R.J. Paul, 2003. Migrating Agile Methods to Standardized Development Practice. IEEE Computer. 36(6): 79–85.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McConnell, S., 1996. Rapid Development. Redmond: Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group, 2005. formal/05-01-06. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, version 1.1.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group, 2005. formal/05-07-04. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Superstructure, version 2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group, 2006. ad/2006-08-01. Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model, version 2.0.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group, 2006. formal/05-07-05. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Infrastructure, version 2.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seidewitz, E., 2003. What Models Mean. IEEE Software. 20(5): 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, 2002. CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1, Continuous. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Continuous Representation, version 1.1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomsett, R., 2002. Radical Project Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
    • 1
  1. 1.European Software InstituteSpain

Personalised recommendations