Advertisement

Reuse Mechanisms in Situational Method Engineering

  • Jörg Becker
  • Christian Janiesch
  • Daniel Pfeiffer
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)

Abstract

Methods describe systematic procedures to overcome problems. It has been widely acknowledged that methods have to be adapted to the context of their application in order to maximize their impact. Since the original proposal of situational method engineering, numerous approaches have been introduced to tackle this problem. In order to efficiently design situation specific methods it is necessary to reuse existing knowledge. Reuse mechanisms have emerged in different research areas that can be transferred to method engineering. The objective of this paper is to identify relevant reuse mechanisms for method engineering and to review the literature for their usage. Thereof, we derive suggestions for the improvement of existing method engineering approaches and the design of new ones.

Keywords

Modeling Language Information System Development Analogy Construction Method Engineer Business Document 
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.
    F.P. Brooks, Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering, IEEE Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Lindvall and I. Rus, Process Diversity in Software Development, IEEE Software 17(4), 14–18 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Kautz, The Enactment of Methodology: The Case of Developing a Multimedia Information System, in: Proc. 25th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2004) (Washington, D.C., 2004), pp. 671–683.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Fitzgerald, N.L. Russo, and T. O’Kane, Software Development: Method Tailoring at Motorola, Communications of the ACM 46(4), 65–70 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Wistrand and F. Karlsson, Method Components — Rationale Revealed, in: Proc. 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004) (Riga, 2004), pp. 189–201.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.H.M. ter Hofstede and T.F. Verhoef, On the Feasibility of Situational Method Engineering, Information Systems 22(6/7), 401–422 (1997).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Kelly, M. Rossi, and J.-P. Tolvanen, What is Needed in a MetaCASE Environment?, Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 1(1), 25–35 (2005).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Luoma, S. Kelly, and J.-P. Tolvanen, Defining Domain-Specific Modeling Languages-Collected Experiences, in: Proc. 4th Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (OOPSLA 2004) (Vancouver, 2004).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Kumar and R.J. Welke, Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Construction, in: Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, edited by W. W. Cottermann and J. A. Senn (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1992), pp. 257–269.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Brinkkemper, Method Engineering-Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools, Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.F. Harmsen, Situational Method Engineering (Twente, Utrecht, 1997).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Wimmer and N. Wimmer, Conceptual modeling based on ontological principles, Knowledge Acquisition 4(4), 387–406 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Alexander, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Constructions (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1977).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Fowler, Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, 1996).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 2005).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Gupta and N. Prakash, Engineering Methods from Method Requirements Specifications, Requirements Engineering 6(3), 135–160 (2001).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Szyperski, D. Gruntz, and S. Murer, Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming (Addison-Wesley, London, 2003).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Becker, L. Algermissen, T. Falk, D. Pfeiffer, and P. Fuchs, Model Based Identification and Measurement of Reorganization Potential in Public Administrations — the PICTURE-Approach, in: Proc. 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) (Kuala Lumpur, 2006), pp. 860–875.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Slater, Output from generic packages, ACMSIGAda Ada Letters XV(3), 76–79 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T.C. Jones, Reusability in Programming: A Survey of the State of the Art, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10(5), 488–493 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Rosemann and W.M.P. van der Aalst, A Configurable Reference Modelling Language, Information Systems 32(1), 1–23 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Becker, M. Kugeler, and M. Rosemann, Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes (Springer, Berlin, 2007).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.-W. Scheer, Business Process Engineering: Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises (Springer, Berlin et al., 2002).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Becker and R. Schütte, Handelsinformationssysteme (Redline Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 2004).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. vom Brocke, Design Principles for Reference Modelling — Reusing Information Models by Means of Aggregation, Specialisation, Instantiation, and Analogy, in: Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, edited by P. Fettke and P. Loos (Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, 2007), pp. 47–75.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Becker, P. Delfmann, and R. Knackstedt, Adaptive Reference Modeling: Integrating Configurative and Generic Adaptation Techniques for Information Models, in: Proc. Reference Modeling Conference (RefMod) (Passau, 2006).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Crawford: Core Components Technical Specification-Part 8 of the ebXML Framework. Version 2.01. UN/CEFACT (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, Meta-modelling Based Assembly Techniques for Situational Method Engineering, Information Systems 24(3), 209–228 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Leppänen, Contextual Method Integration, in: Advances in Information System Development, edited by G. Knapp, G. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic, and S. Wrycza (Springer, 2007).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Ralyté and C. Rolland, An Assembly Process Model for Method Engineering, in: Proc. 13th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2001). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 2068 (Interlaken, 2001), pp. 267–283.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering, in: Proc. 10th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 1998). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Pisa, 1998), pp. 381–400.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Punter and K. Lemmen, The MEMA-model: towards a new approach for Method Engineering, Information and Software Technology 38(4), 295–300 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Saeki and K. Wenyin, Specifying Software Specification & Design Methods, in: Proc. 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 1994) (Utrecht, 1994).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Ralyté and C. Rolland, An Approach for Method Reengineering, in: Proc. 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2001) (Yokohama, 2001), pp. 471–484.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    X. Song, Systematic Integration of Design Methods, IEEE Software 14(2), 107–117 (1997).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    F. Karlsson and K. Wistrand, Combining Method Engineering with Activity Theory: Theoretical Grounding of the Method Component Concept, European Journal of Information Systems 15(1), 82–90 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Ralyté, R. Deneckère, and C. Rolland, Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering, in: Proc. 15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2003) (Klagenfurt, 2003), pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Bajec, D. Vavpotič, and M. Krisper, Practice-driven Approach for Creating Project-specific Software Development Methods, Information and Software Technology 49(4), 345–365 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Baskerville and J. Stage, Accommodating Emergent Work Practices: Ethnographic Choice of Method Fragements, in: Proc. IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on Realigning Research and Practice in IS Development: The Social and Organisational Perspective (Boise, ID, 2001), pp. 12–28.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Becker, R. Knackstedt, D. Pfeiffer, and C. Janiesch, Configurative Method Engineering: On the Applicability of Reference Modeling Mechanisms in Method Engineering, in: Proc. 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2007) (Keystone, CO, 2007).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Cameron, Configurable Development Processes, Communications of the ACM 45(3), 72–77 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    S. Greiffenberg, Methodenentwicklung in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung (Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg, 2003).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    S. Henninger, A. Ivaturi, K. Nuli, and A. Thirunavukkaras, Supporting Adaptable Methodologies to Meet Evolving Project Needs, in: Proc. Joint Conference on XP Universe and Agile Universe (Chicago, IL, 2002), pp. 33–44.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    F. Karlsson: Method Configuration: Method and Computerized Tool Support. Linköping (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    F. Karlsson and P.J. Ågerfalk, Method Configuration: Adapting to Situational Characteristics While Creating Reusable Assets, Information and Software Technology 46(9), 619–633 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    M. Leppänen: An Ontological Framework and a Methodical Skeleton for Method Engineering: A Contextual Approach. Jyväskylä (2005)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    B.A. Nuseibeh: A Multi-Perspective Framework for Method Integration. London (1994)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    J. Odell, Meta-modelling, in: Proc. OOPSLA’95 Workshop on Metamodelling in OO (Austin, TX, 1995).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    C. Patel, S. de Cesare, N. Iacovelli, and A. Merico, A Framework for Method Tailoring: A Case Study, in: Proc. 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Method Engineering for Object-Oriented and Component-Based Development (Vancouver, 2004).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    I. Mirbel and J. Ralyté, Situational Method Engineering: Combining Assembly-based and Roadmap-driven Approaches, Requirements Engineering 11(1), 58–78 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    J.-P. Tolvanen: Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools: Theoretical Principles and Empirical Evidence. Jyväskylä (1998)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Rossi, B. Ramesh, K. Lyytinen, and J.-P. Tolvanen, Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(9), 356–391 (2004).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M.A.G. van Offenbeek and P.L. Koopman, Scenarios for System Development: Matching Context and Strategy, Behaviour & Information Technology 15(4), 250–265 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    J. Becker, C. Janiesch, S. Seidel, and C. Brelage, A Framework for Situational and Evolutionary Language Adaptation in Information Systems Development, in: Advances in Information System Development, edited by G. Knapp, G. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic, and S. Wrycza (Springer, 2007).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    A. Mili, S.F. Chmiel, R. Gottumukkala, and L. Zhang, An Integrated Cost Model for Software Reuse, in: Proc. 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Limerick, Ireland, 2000), pp. 157–166.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    J. Becker, C. Janiesch, and D. Pfeiffer, Towards more Reuse in Conceptual Modeling: A Combined Approach using Contexts, in: Proc. 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2007) Forum (Trondheim 2007).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    G. Guizzardi, L.F. Pires, and M.J.v. Sinderen, On the Role of Domain Ontologies in the Design of Domain-Specific Visual Modeling Languages, in: Proc. 17th ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 2002) (Seattle, WA, 2002).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    C. Janiesch, Implementing Views on Business Semantics: Model-based Configuration of Business Documents, in: Proc. 15th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2007) (St. Gallen, 2007).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Becker
    • 1
  • Christian Janiesch
    • 1
  • Daniel Pfeiffer
    • 1
  1. 1.European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS)University of MünsterMünisterGermany

Personalised recommendations