Advertisement

Computer-aided Methodology Engineering

  • Michael Heym
  • Hubert Österle
Part of the Business Engineering book series (BE)

Abstract

The paper introduces an approach to a structured and disciplined specification of methods in the area of information systems development (ISD), especially in software engineering and project management. In particular, we focus on the underlying model to specify such ISD knowledge. This proposed methodology representation model and the corresponding MEET-tool are intended to build a so-called computer-aided methodology engineering wol in order to support methods specification and further development. The paper is based on the research work that compares different ISD methods in the ‘Information Management 2000’ research program at the Institute for Information Management at the University of St Gallen. Several information systems development methods used in practice have been completely analysed by the participating industrial partners.

Keywords

computer-aided methodology engineering information systems development project management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Olle, T W, Hagelstein, J, Macdonald, I G, Rolland, C, Sol, H G, Van Assche, F J M and Verrijn-Stuart, A A Information systems methodologies: a framework for understanding (2nd edn) Addison-Wesley (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heym, M ‘Methodology engineering—specification and integration of methods for information systems development’ PhD Thesis, University of St Gallen 1433 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Computer Science and Technology Board Scaling up: a research agenda for software engineering’ Commun. ACM Vol 33 No 3 (1990) pp 281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huff, C C ‘Elements of a realistic CASE tool adoption budget’ Comm. ACM Vol 35 No 4 (1992) pp 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esprit The AMADEUS Project—Deliverable D: Workpackage A: A classification of methods (1986) to be ordered from: Interprogram BV, Wildenborch 3, 1112 XB Diemen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esprit The AMADEUS Project—Workpackage D: The unified model (1987) to be ordered from: Interprogram BV, Wildenborch 3, 1112 XB Diemen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eurogroup Euromethod Project—An introduction and rationale, Internal Report: Deliverable 1, Phase 3 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC ‘Information technology—standardization framework for software engineering’ Draft Technical Report, Ref. No ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 N984 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindtner, P ‘Domänenwissen in Methoden zur Analyse betrieblicher Informationssysteme’ PhD Thesis, University of St Gallen, No 1292 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abiteboul, S, Hull, R ‘IFO: a formal semantic database model’ ACM Trans. Database Syst. Vol 12 No 4 (December 1987) pp 525–565Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R and King, R Semantic database modeling’ ACM Comp. Surv. Vol 19 No 3 (1987) pp 201–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brinkkemper, S ‘Formalisation of information systems modelling’ PhD Thesis, University of Nijmegen, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brinkkemper, S, de Lange, M, Looman, R and van der Steen, F ‘On the derivation of method companionship by meta-modelling’ ACM SIGSOFT Soft. Eng. Notes Vol 15 No 1 (1990) pp 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verhoef, T F, Hofstede, A H M and Wijers, G M Structuring modelling knowledge for CASE shells’ in Andersen, R, Bubenko, J A and Solvberg, A (eds) Advanced information systems engineering Lecture Notes in Computer Science 498, Springer (1991) pp 502–524Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wijers, G M ‘Modelling support in information systems development’ PhD Thesis University of Delft, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    James Martin & Company IE/Expert customizer user guide, Part 1: The Customization Process, Part II: The Customization Toolset James Martin & Company, Chertsey (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dowson, M (ed) Proceedings First International Conference an the Software Process IEEE Computer Society Press (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Humphrey, W S ‘The software engineering process: definition and scope’ in Tully, C (ed) Proc. 4th Int. Soft. Proc. Workshop ACM SIGSOFT Soft. Eng. Notes Vol 14 No 4 (1989) pp 82–83Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humphrey, W S Managing the software process Addison-Wesley (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kellner, M I Software process modeling support for management planning and control’ in 17 pp 8–28Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osterweil, L Software processes are software too’ Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soft. Eng. IEEE (1987) pp 2–13Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tully, C (ed), Proc. 4th Int. Soft. Process Workshop: Representing and Enacting the Software Process ACM SIGSOFT Soft. Eng. Notes Vol 14 No 4 (1989)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts, C ‘Describing and acting process models with PML’ in 22 pp 136–141Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sathi, A, Fox, M and Greenberg, M ‘Representing of activity knowledge for project management’ IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. and Mach. Intelligence Vol PAMI-7 No 5 (1985) pp 531–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gruhn, V ‘Validation and verification of software process models’ PhD Thesis, University of Dortmund, Informatik Report No 394/91 (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hünnekens, H, Junkermann, G, Peuschel, B, Schäfer, W and Vagts, J ‘A step towards knowledge-based software process modeling’ in Madhavji, N H, Schäfer, W and Weber, H (eds) Proc. First Int. Conf. System Development Environments and Factories Pitman (1990) pp 49–58Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaiser, G E ‘Rule-based modeling of the software development process’ in 22 pp 84–86Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaiser, G, Feiler, P H and Popovich, St S Intelligent assistance for software development and maintenance’ IEEE Software (May 1988) pp 40–49Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krogstie, J, McBrien, P, Owens, R and Seltveit, A H ‘Information systems development using a combination of process and rule based approaches’ in Andersen, R, Bubenko, J A and Solvberg, A (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering Springer (1991) pp 319–335Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taylor, R N, Beiz, F C, Clarke, L A, Osterweil, L, Selby, R W, Wileden, J C, Wolf, A L and Young, M ‘Foundations for the arcadia environment architecture’ ACM SIGSOFT Soft. Eng. Notes Vol 13 No 5 (1988) pp 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pöcock, J N ‘VSF and its relationship to open systems and standard repositories’ in Endres, A and Weber, H (eds) Software Development Environments and CASE Technology Lecture Notes in Computer Science 509 Springer (1991) pp 53–68Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bergsten, P, Bubenko, J, Dahl, R, Gustafsson, M R and Johansson, L A ‘Ramatic—a CASE Shell for implementation of specific CASE tools’ Swedish Institute for Systems Development (SISU), TEMPORA T6.1 Report, First Draft, Göteborg (1989)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alderson, A ‘Meta-CASE technology’ in Endres, A and Weber, H (eds) Software development environments and CASE technology Lecture Notes in Computer Science 509, Springer (1991) pp 81–91Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smolander, K, Marttiin, P, Lyytinen, K and Tahvanainen, V-P ‘MetaEdit—a flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling’ in Andersen, R, Bubenko, J A and Solvberg, A (eds) Advanced information systems engineering Lecture Notes in Computer Science 498, Springer (1991) pp 168–193Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Madhavji, N H and Schäfer, W ‘Prism—methodology and process-oriented environment’ IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. Vol 17 No 12 (1991) pp 1270–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Finkelstein, A ‘Not waving but drowning’: representation schemes for modelling software development Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soft. Eng. IEEE Computer Society Press (1989) pp 402–404Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gruhn, V ‘Software processes are social processes’ in Forte, G, Madhavji, N H and Müller, H (eds) Proc. 5th International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering IEEE Computer Society Press (1992) pp 196–201Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boehm, B ‘What we really need are process model generators’ Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soft. Eng. IEEE Computer Society Press (1989) p 397Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Potts, C ‘A generic model for representing design methods’ Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soft. Eng. IEEE Computer Society Press (1989) pp 217–226Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heym, M and Üsterle, H ‘A reference model for information systems development’ in Kendall, K E, Lyytinen, K and DeGross, J (eds) The impact of computer supported tech-nologies on information systems development North-Holland (1992) pp 215–239Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wynekoop, J L and Conger, S A ‘A review of computer aided software engineering research methods’ in Nissen, H-E, Klein, H K and Hirschheim, R (eds) Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions North-Holland (1991)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) SSADM Version 4 Reference Manual NCC Publications, Manchester (1990)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    James Martin Associates Information engineering methodology, Business Area analysis handbook James Martin Associates PLC, Ashford (1989)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ernst & Young NAVIGATOR Systems Series, Reference Manual, Release 1.0 (1990)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ploenzke ISOTEC Handbuch: Version 2 EDV Studio Ploenzke (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Heym
    • 1
  • Hubert Österle
    • 2
  1. 1.NAVISCO AGHamburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für WirtschaftsinformatikUniversität St. GallenSt. GallenSchweiz

Personalised recommendations