Situational Evaluation of Method Fragments: An Evidence-Based Goal-Oriented Approach

  • Hesam Chiniforooshan Esfahani
  • Eric Yu
  • Jordi Cabot
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6051)


Despite advances in situational method engineering, many software organizations continue to adopt an ad-hoc mix of method fragments from well-known development methods such as Scrum or XP, based on their perceived suitability to project or organizational needs. With the increasing availability of empirical evidence on the success or failure of various software development methods and practices under different situational conditions, it now becomes feasible to make this evidence base systematically accessible to practitioners so that they can make informed decisions when creating situational methods for their organizations. This paper proposes a framework for evaluating the suitability of candidate method fragments prior to their adoption in software projects. The framework makes use of collected knowledge about how each method fragment can contribute to various project objectives, and what requisite conditions must be met for the fragment to be applicable. Pre-constructed goal models for the selected fragments are retrieved from a repository, merged, customized with situational factors, and then evaluated using a qualitative evaluation procedure adapted from goal-oriented requirements engineering.


Software Development Methodology Situational Method Engineering Goal-Oriented Modeling Method Evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering, Utrecht, Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An Assembly Process Model for Method Engineering. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 267–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saeki, M.: CAME: The first step to automated method engineering. In: Workshop on Process Engineering for Object-Oriented and Component-Based Development, Anaheim, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method engineering for OO systems development. Communications of the ACM 46(10), 73–78 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bajec, M., Vavpotic, D., Krisper, M.: Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Information and Software Technology 49(4), 345–365 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Linda, W., Mark, K.: Software project risks and their effect on outcomes. Communications of ACM 47(4), 68–73 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A.V., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R.C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitchenham, B.A., Dyba, T., Jorgensen, M.: Evidence-Based Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, p. 158. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., Rolland, C.: Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, p. 1029 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Firesmith, D.: Open Process Framework (OPF), accessible via: date accessed (November 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (received Most Influential Paper After 10 Years Award at RE 2007) (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Understanding “why” in software process modelling, analysis and design. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software engineering, Sorrento, Italy. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slooten, K.V., Brinkkemper, S.: A Method Engineering Approach to Information Systems Development. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Information System Development Process. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coulin, C., Zowghi, D., Sahraoui, A.-E.-K.: A situational method engineering approach to requirements elicitation workshops in the software development process. Software Process Improvement and Practice 11(5), 451–464 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: Using the i* Evaluation Procedure for Model Analysis and Quality Improvement presentation. In: Second International Workshop on i* / Tropos. University College London, London (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: A Qualitative, Interactive Evaluation Procedure for Goal- and Agent-Oriented Models. In: Proceedings of CEUR Workshop in CAiSE 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method Construction by Goal Analysis. In: Proceedings of Int. Conf. on Information System Development. Springer, US (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ralyté, J., Jeusfeld, M.A., Backlund, P., Kühn, H., Arni-Bloch, N.: A Knowledge-based Approach to Manage Information Systems Interoperability. Information Systems, Special issue on Advances in Data and Service Integration 33(7-8), 754–784 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ågerfalk, P.J., Fitzgerald, B.: Exploring the concept of method rationale: A conceptual tool for method tailoring. In: Advanced Topics in Database Research, pp. 63–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rossi, M., Ramesh, B., Lyytinen, K., Tolvanen, J.: Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale. Rationale Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(9), 356–391 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aaen, I., Borjesson, A., Mathiassen, L.: SPI agility: How to navigate improvement projects. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12(3), 267–281 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hesam Chiniforooshan Esfahani
    • 1
  • Eric Yu
    • 2
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Toronto 
  2. 2.Faculty of InformationUniversity of Toronto 
  3. 3.INRIA - École des Mines de Nantes 

Personalised recommendations