Advertisement

ProMISE: A Process Metamodelling Method for Information Systems Engineering

  • Charlotte Hug
  • Agnès Front
  • Dominique Rieu
Conference paper
  • 524 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 230)

Abstract

Processes play a great part in information systems engineering projects success. There are a lot of process models and metamodels; however, the “one size fits all” motto has to be moderated: models have to be adapted to the specificities of the organizations or the projects. In order to help method engineers building adapted process models, we propose a method to build process metamodels and to instantiate them according to the organizations context. Our method consists of selecting the concepts needed from a conceptual graph, gathering the current knowledge of metamodelling concepts for information systems engineering processes, and integrating them in a new process metamodel that will be instantiated for any project in an organization. This method is supported by a tool.

Keywords

Process engineering Information systems engineering Metamodelling Graph Tool 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Humphrey, W.S., Kellner, M.I.: Software process modeling: principles of entity process models. In: ICSE 1989, pp. 331–342. ACM, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Software Engineering Institute: CMMI for Development, Version 1.2 (2006) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Royce, W.W.: Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: ICSE 1987, pp. 328–338. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 11(4), 14–24 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Longman Publishing, Co., Inc., Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with SCRUM. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D.: A Process Engineering Method Based on a Process domain Model and Patterns. In: MoDISE International Workshop, pp. 126–137 (2008) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D.: Process Engineering Method Based on Ontology and Patterns. In: ICSOFT 2008, pp. 29–36 (2008) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A Method to build Information Systems Engineering Process Metamodels. J. of Sys. & Soft. 82(10), 1730–1742 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D.: Ingénierie des processus. Une approche à base de patrons. Revue RSTI. Série ISI 13(4), 11–34 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG: Software Process Engineering Meta-Model. Version 2.0 (2008) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Open Process Framework, http://www.opfro.org
  14. 14.
    OOSPICE, Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination for Object- Oriented/ Component-Based Software Development, http://www.oospice.com
  15. 15.
    Australian Standard: Standard Metamodel for Software Development Methodologies. AS, 4651–2004 (2004) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC: 24744 Software Engineering - Metamodel for Development Methodologies (2007) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formulation for Complex Systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2.2 (2009) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Goedicke, M.: ViewPoint oriented software development. Third International Workshop on Software Engineering and Its Applications, pp. 374–384 (1990) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as elements of information systems. WP 131, Heidelberg, Berkeley (1970) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potts, C., Bruns, G.: Recording the Reasons for Design Decisions. In: ICSE 1988, pp. 418–427. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potts, C.: A generic model for representing design methods. In: ICSE 1989, pp. 217–226. IEEE Computer Society/ ACM Press (1989) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J.W., Vassiliou, Y.: DAIDA: An Environment for Evolving Information Systems. ACM Trans. on Inf. Sys. 10(1), 1–50 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolland, C., Souveyet, C., Moreno, M.: An Approach for defining ways-of-working. Information System Journal 20(4), 337–359 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-Model View of Process Modelling. Requirements Engineering 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panet, G., Letouche, R.: Merise/2 Modèles et techniques Merise Avancés. Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris (1994) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hug, C.: Méthode, modèles et outil pour la méta-modélisation des processus d’ingénierie de systèmes d’information. PhD Thesis, Grenoble I University (2009) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hug, C., Mandran, N., Front, A., Rieu, D.: Qualitative Evaluation of a Method for Information Systems Engineering Processes. In: RCIS 2010, pp 257–268 (2010) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Objectiver: A KAOS tutorial. Respect-It (2007) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    OMG.: MOF 2.0 / XMI Mapping Specification. Version 2.1.1 (2007) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte Hug
    • 1
  • Agnès Front
    • 2
  • Dominique Rieu
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre de Recherche en InformatiqueUniversité Paris 1 Panthéon-SorbonneFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique de GrenobleGrenoble UniversityGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations