Advertisement

Methodological Framework to Guide the Development of Continual Evolution Methods

  • Ornela CelaEmail author
  • Mario Cortes-Cornax
  • Agnès Front
  • Dominique Rieu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)

Abstract

Companies live in a fast-changing environment imposing to constantly evolve in order to stay competitive. Such an evolution is carried out through continuous improvement cycles or radical changes often based on innovation that concern their products, their processes, their internal organization, etc. We refer to this situation as continual evolution. There are two implications of such continual evolution from our viewpoint: (a) the instillation of the “no end point” philosophy in organizations and (b) the use of methods based (1) on continual evolution cycles (by opposition to project-based approaches that have delimited budget and dates) and, (2) on autonomous and collective implication of the organization’s actors. This article presents a methodological framework, called As-Is/As-If framework to support method engineers in handling such continual evolution. The framework offers a process model and a product meta-model that are both reusable instruments, aiming to guide the construction of continual evolution methods. The process model and product meta-model can be seen as prototypical examples to be adapted in each situation at hand using heuristics proposed as part of the framework. The usefulness of the framework is illustrated through two methods adaptations.

Keywords

Method engineering Continual evolution Framework 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank Prof. C. Rolland for her valuable feedbacks.

References

  1. 1.
    Rashid, O.A., Ahmad, M.N.: Business process improvement methodologies: an overview. J. Inf. Syst. Res. Innov. 5, 45–53 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh, J., Singh, H.: Continuous improvement philosophy – literature review and directions. Benchmarking Int. J. 22(1), 75–119 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, T., Wyatt, J.: Design thinking for social innovation. Dev. Outreach 12(1), 29–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chesbrough, H., Bogers, M.: Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New Front. Open Innov. Oxford Univ. Press 3–28 (2014, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Georgiades, S.: Employee engagement and organizational change. In: Georgiades, S. (ed.) Employee Engagement in Media Management, pp. 19–37. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16217-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolland, C.: Capturing system intentionality with maps. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling Information System Engineering, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72677-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortes-Cornax, M., Front, A., Rieu, D., Verdier, C., Forest, F.: ADInnov: an intentional method to instil innovation in socio-technical ecosystems. In: Nurcan, S., Soffer, P., Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9694, pp. 133–148. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Movahedian, F., Front, A., Rieu, D., Farastier, A., et al.: A participative method for knowledge elicitation in collaborative innovation projects. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2017), pp. 244–254. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cela, O., Front, A., Rieu, D.: CEFOP: a method for the continual evolution of organisational processes. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2017), pp. 33–43. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forest, F., Mallein, P., Arhippainen, L.: Paradoxical user acceptance of ambient intelligent systems: : sociology of user experience approach. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media, pp. 211–218. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Çela, O., Front, A., Rieu, D.: Model consolidation: a process modelling method combining process mining and business process modelling. In: Gulden, J., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R., Guerreiro, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2018. LNBIP, vol. 318, pp. 117–130. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91704-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Front, A., Rieu, D., Santorum, M., Movahedian, F.: A participative end-user method for multi-perspective business process elicitation and improvement. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(3), 691–714 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Version 2.5 (2016). https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF
  14. 14.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. ScienceDirect 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deneckere, R., Kornyshova, E., Rolland, C.: Method family description and configuration. In: International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2011), pp. 384–387. SCITEPRESS (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C., Ben Ayed, M.: An approach for evolution driven method engineering. In: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, pp. 80–101. IGI Global, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A method to build information systems engineering process metamodels. J. Syst. Softw. 82(10), 1730–1742 (2009). ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cervera, M., Albert, M., Torres, V., Pelechano, V.: A methodological framework and software infrastructure for the construction of software production methods. In: Münch, J., Yang, Y., Schäfer, W. (eds.) ICSP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6195, pp. 112–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14347-2_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakhal, F., Dubois, H., Rieu, D.: Pattern based methodology for UML profiles evolution management. In: IEEE - International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2013), pp. 1–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deming, W.E.: Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Womack, J., Jones, D.T.: Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth for your corporation. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 48(11), 1148 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hambleton, L.: Define-measure-analyze- improve-control (DMAIC). In: Treasure Chest Six Sigma Growth Methods, Tools, Best Practices, pp. 13–27 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mueller, R.M. Thoring, K.: Design thinking vs lean startup: a comparison of two user driven innovation strategies. In: Leading through Design, vol. 151, pp. 91–106 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ornela Cela
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mario Cortes-Cornax
    • 1
  • Agnès Front
    • 1
  • Dominique Rieu
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, Grenoble INP, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations