Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Situational Method Engineering

Abstract

What is situational method engineering (SME) and why is it of current interest?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We will use method and methodology as synonyms—see Sect. 1.3 for our rationale for this decision.

  2. 2.

    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

  3. 3.

    Tailoring A Measurement Environment.

  4. 4.

    Strictly speaking we should say ‘software development methodology’ since clearly the word ‘methodology’ can be applied in a wide range of human endeavours.

  5. 5.

    OPEN is an acronym for Object-oriented Process, Environment and Notation (Graham et al. 1997).

References

  • Ågerfalk PJ, Åhlgren K (1999) Modelling the rationale of methods. In: Khosrowpour M (ed) Managing information technology resources in organizations in the next millennium. Proceedings of the 10th information resources management association international conference. IDEA Group, Hershey, PA, pp 184–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk P, Fitzgerald B (2006) Exploring the concept of method rationale: a conceptual tool for method tailoring. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced topics in database research, vol 5. IGI, Hershey, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ, Wistrand K (2003) Systems development method rationale: a conceptual framework for analysis. Paper presented at the 5th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2003), 23–26 April 2003, Angers, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambler S (1998) Process patterns: building large-scale systems using object technology. SIGS Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambler S (1999) More process patterns: building large-scale systems using object technology. SIGS Press, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ANSI (1989) Information resource dictionary system (IRDS). American National Standards Institute, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson C (1997) Metamodelling for distributed object environments. First international enterprise distributed object computing workshop (EDOC ’97), Brisbane, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson C (1999) Supporting and applying the UML conceptual framework. In: Bézivin J, Muller P-A (eds) «UML» 1998: beyond the notation, vol 1618. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison DE (1996) Information systems development methodologies: a broader perspective. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke RJ (eds) Method engineering. Principles of method construction and tool support. Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on method engineering, 26–28 August 1996, Atlanta, USA. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 263–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison DE, Fitzgerald G (2003) Where now for development methodologies? Comm ACM 46(1):79–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison DE, Wood-Harper AT (1991) Information systems development research: an exploration of ideas in practice. Comput J 34(2):98–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin M (2007) Examining key notions for method adaptation. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, 12–14 September 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydin MN, Harmsen F (2002) Making a method work for a project situation in the context of CMM. In: Oivo M, Komi-Sirviö S (eds) Product-focused software process improvement: 14th international conference, PROFES 2002, Rovaniemi, Finland, 9–11 December 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2559. Springer, Berlin, pp 158–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddoo N, Hall T (2003) De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views. J Syst Software 66:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M (2011a) Application of method engineering principles in practice: lessons learned and prospects for the future. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris, France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 2–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M (2011b) Keynote presentation at ME ’11, Paris, 20–22 April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M, Vavpotič D, Furlan S, Krisper M (2007a) Software process improvement based on the method engineering principles. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, 12–14 September 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 283–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M, Vavpotič D, Krisper M (2007b) Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Inform Software Tech 49(4):345–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier F, Henderson-Sellers B, Le Parc-Lacayrelle A, Bruel J-M (2003) Formalization of the whole-part relationship in the Unified Modeling Language. IEEE Trans Software Eng 29(5):459–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili VR, Rombach HD (1987) Tailoring the software process to project goals and environments. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on software engineering, 30 March–2 April 1987, Monterey, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann M (2003) Process management—a guide for the design of business processes. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers W, van de Weerd I, Brinkkemper S, Mahieu A (2008) The influence of situational factors in software product management: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on software product management, IWSPM ’08, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin RM (1981) Management teams. Why they succeed or fail. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p 171

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin RM (1993) Team roles at work. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p 141

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstra J, Jonkers H, Obbink J (1985) A software development model for method engineering. In: Roukens J, Renuart J (eds) ESPRIT ’84: status report of ongoing work. Elsevier Science B.V., North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Berki E, Georgiadou E, Holcombe M (2004) Requirements engineering and process modelling in software quality management—towards a generic process metamodel. Software Qual J 12:265–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner R (2011) Towards construction of situational methods for service identification. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 204–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inform Software Tech 38(4):275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S (2006) Personal email communication to authors

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks FP (1987) No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Comput 20(4):10–19

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher T, Klesse M, Kurpjuweit S, Winter R (2007) Situational method engineering: on the differentiation of “context” and “project type”. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 12–14 September 2007. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2011) A method base for enterprise architecture management. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 34–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Calero C, Ruiz F, Piattini M (eds) (2006) Ontologies in software engineering and software technology. Springer, Berlin, p 339

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cervera M, Albert M, Torres V, Pelechano V (2011) Turning method engineering support into reality. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 138–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou S-C (2002) A process modeling language consisting of high level UML-based diagrams and low level process language. J Object Tech 1(4):137–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn A (2000) Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Software 17(4):64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conradi R (2001) Personal communication to first author

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradi R, Fernström C, Fuggetta A (1993) A conceptual framework for evolving software processes. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng Notes 18(4):26–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantine LL, Lockwood LAD (1994) One size does not fit all: fitting practices to people. Am Program 7(12):30–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossentino M, Gaglio S, Seidita V (2006b) A repository of fragments for agent systems design. In: Proceedings of the WOA06, pp 130–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunin P-Y, Greenwood RM, Francou L, Robertson I, Warboys B (2001) The PIE methodology—concept and application. In: Ambriola V (ed) Software process technology. Proceedings of the 8th European workshop, EWSPT 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2077. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza D, Wills AC (1998) Objects, components, and frameworks with UML: the catalysis approach. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorling A (1993) SPICE: software process improvement and capability determination. Inform Software Tech 35(6/7):404–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Garbajosa J (2011) A study to support agile methods more effectively through traceability. Innovat Syst Software Eng 7:53–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favre J-M (2004) Foundations of meta-pyramids: languages vs. metamodels. Episode II. story of thotus the baboon. In: Proceedings of Dagstuhl seminar 04101 “language engineering for model-driven software development”

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayad ME, Tsai WT, Fulghum ML (1996) Transition to object-oriented software development. Comm ACM 39(2):108–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1994) Software process modelling and technology. Research Studies Press Ltd., Taunton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorini ST, Leite JCSP, De Lucena CJP (2001) Process reuse architecture. In: Dittrich KR, Geppert A, Norrie MC (eds) Proceedings of CAiSE2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2068. Springer, Berlin, pp 284–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith DG, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) The OPEN process framework. An introduction. Addison-Wesley, London, p 330

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith D, Henderson-Sellers B, Graham I (1997) OPEN modeling language (OML) reference manual. SIGS Books, New York, NY, p 276

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith D, Krutsch S, Stowe M, Hendley G (1998) Documenting a complete Java application using OPEN. Addison-Wesley, Harlow, p 494

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B, Russo NL, O’Kane T (2003) Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Comm ACM 46(4):65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G, Conboy K (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. Eur J Inform Syst 15:197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flatscher RG (2002) Metamodeling in EIA/CDIF—meta-metamodel and metamodels. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul 12(4):322–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung KH (2011) A method engineering approach to support dynamic evolution in composition-based distributed applications. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Garciá-Magariño I (2013) A collection of method fragments automated with model transformations in agent-oriented modeling. Eng Appl Artif Intel 26:1131–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke A, Fill, H-G, Karagiannis D, Winter R (2009) Situational method engineering for governance, risk and compliance information systems. In: Proceedings of DESRIST ’09, Malvern, PA, USA, 7–8 May 2009. ACM Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini C, Giunchiglia F (2004) A semantics for abstraction. In: Lopez de Mantaras R, Saitta L (eds) Proceedings of ECAI 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 343–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia F, Walsh T (1992) A theory of abstraction. Artif Intell 57(2–3):323–390

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Glass RL (2000) Process diversity and a computing old wives’/husbands’ tale. IEEE Software 17(4):127–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass RL (2003) Questioning the software engineering unquestionables. IEEE Software 20(3):119–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass RL (2004) Matching methodology to problem domain. Comm ACM 47(5):19–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnatz M, Marschall F, Popp G, Rausch A, Schwerin W (2001) Towards a living software process development process based on process patterns. In: Ambriola V (ed) Software process technology. Proceedings of the 8th European workshop, EWSPT 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2077. Springer, Berlin, pp 182–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2007) Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J Syst Software 80(11):1778–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2008b) Metamodelling for software engineering. Wiley, Chichester, p 210

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham I, Henderson-Sellers B, Younessi H (1997) The OPEN process specification. Addison-Wesley, London, p 314

    Google Scholar 

  • Green P, Rosemann M (2005) Business systems analysis with ontologies. IGI Group, Hershey, PA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood RM, Balasubramaniam D, Kirby G, Mayes K, Morrison R, Seet W, Warboys B, Zirintsis E (2001) Reflection and reification in process system evolution: experience and opportunity. In: Ambriola V (ed) Software process technology. Proceedings of the 8th European workshop, EWSPT 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2077. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenberg S (2003) Methodenentwicklung in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology and information systems. In: Proceedings of the International conference on formal ontology in information systems—FOIS ’98, Trento, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen AF (1997) Situational method engineering. Moret Ernst & Young, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen AF, Brinkkemper S, Oei H (1994) Situational method engineering for information systems projects. In: Olle TW, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds) Methods and associated tools for the information systems life cycle. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 working conference CRIS/94, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 169–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasher L, Zacks RT (1984) Automatic processing of fundamental information: the case of frequency of occurrence. Am Psychol 39(12):1372–1388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (1995) Who needs an OO methodology anyway? Guest editorial. J Object-Orient Prog 8(6):6–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Process metamodelling and process construction: examples using the OPEN process framework (OPF). Ann Software Eng 14:341–362

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2003) Method engineering for OO system development. Comm ACM 46(10):73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2005) Creating a comprehensive agent-oriented methodology—using method engineering and the OPEN metamodel. In: Henderson-Sellers B, Giorgini P (eds) Agent-oriented methodologies. Idea Group, Hershey, PA, pp 368–397

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2006a) Method engineering: theory and practice. In: Karagiannis D, Mayr HC (eds) Information systems technology and its applications. Proceedings of the 5th international conference ISTA, 30–31 May 2006, Klagenfurt, Austria. Lecture notes in informatics (LNI), vol P-84. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, pp 13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2007) On the challenges of correctly using metamodels in method engineering, keynote paper. In: Fujita H, Pisanelli D (eds) New trends in software methodologies, tools and techniques. Proceedings of the sixth SoMeT_07. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 161. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2009) Agent-oriented methods and method engineering, chapter 8. In: Chiang R, Siau K, Hardgrave B (eds) Systems analysis and design: techniques, methodologies, approaches, and architectures. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp 118–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2011a) Random thoughts on multi-level conceptual modelling. In: Delcambre L, Kaschek R (eds) The evolution of conceptual modeling. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6520. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2011b) Bridging metamodels and ontologies in software engineering. J Syst Software 84(2):301–313. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.10.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2012) On the mathematics of modelling, metamodelling, ontologies and modelling languages (SpringerBriefs in computer science). Springer, Heidelberg, p 106

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Graham IM with additional input from Atkinson C, Bézivin J, Constantine LL, Dué R, Duke R, Firesmith D, Low G, Mckim J, Mehandjiska-Stavrova D, Meyer B, Odell JJ, Page-Jones M, Reenskaug T, Selic B, Simons AJH, Swatman P, Winder R (1996) OPEN: toward method convergence? IEEE Comput 29(4):86–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Ralyte J (2010) Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. J Univers Comput Sci 16(3):424–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Unhelkar B (2000) OPEN modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, Harlow, p 245

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Simons AJH, Younessi H (1998) The OPEN toolbox of techniques. Addison-Wesley, London, p 426 + CD

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Serour M, McBride T, Gonzalez-Perez C, Dagher L (2004b) Process construction and customization. J Univers Comput Sci 10(4):326–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, France R, Georg G, Reddy R (2007c) A method engineering approach to developing aspect-oriented modelling processes based on the OPEN process framework. Inform Software Tech 49(7):761–773. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2006.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Eriksson O, Gonzalez-Perez C, Ågerfalk PJ (2013) Ptolemaic metamodelling? The need for a paradigm shift. In: Cueva Lovelle JM, Pelayo García-Bustelo C, Sanjuán Martínez O (eds) Progressions and innovations in model-driven software engineering. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 90–146

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse W (2008a) Engineers discovering the “real world”—from model-driven to ontology-based software engineering. In: Kaschek R, Kop C, Steinberger C, Fliedl G (eds) UNISCON 2008. LNBIP vol. 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 136–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse W (2008b) From conceptual models to ontologies—a software engineering approach, paper presented at Dagstuhl seminar on conceptual modelling, 27–30 April 2008 (preprint on conference website: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2008/1598)

  • Hoppenbrouwers S, Zoet M, Versendaal J, van de Weerd I (2011) Agile service development: a rule-based method engineering approach. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 184–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Hruby P (2000) Designing customizable methodologies. JOOP 2000:22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (1995) Software life cycle processes. ISO/IEC 12207. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (1998) TR15504—information technology: software process assessment. Technical report. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2007) Software engineering: metamodel for development methodologies. ISO/IEC 24744. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarke M, Pohl K, Weidenhaupt K, Lyytinen K, Marttiin P, Tolvanen J-P, Papazoglou M (1998) Meta modelling: a formal basis for interoperability and adaptability. In: Krämer B, Schmidt H-W (eds) Information systems interoperability. Research Studies Press Ltd./Wiley, Chichester, pp 229–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvi A, Hakonen H, Mäkilä T (2007) Developer driven approach to situational method engineering. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 12–14 September 2007. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 94–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaratna N (1994) Understanding and evaluating methodologies, NIMSAD: a systemic approach. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery DR, Basili VR (1988) Validating the TAME resource data model. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on software engineering, Singapore, 11–15 April 1988

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen KA (2004) Modelling on multiple abstraction levels. In: Proceedings of the 7th workshop on product structuring—product platform development, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 24–25 March 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Wistrand K (2006) Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept. Eur J Inform Syst 15:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keet M (2007) Enhancing comprehension of ontologies and conceptual models through abstractions. In: Basili R, Pazienza MT (eds) AI*IA 2007. LNAI, vol 4733. Springer, Berlin, pp 813–821

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly S, Lyytinen K, Rossi M (1996) MetaEdit+: a fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment. In: Vassiliou Y, Mylopoulos J (eds) Proceedings of the 8th conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornyshova E, Deneckère R, Claudepierre B (2010) Contextualization of method components. In: Proceedings of RCIS, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 235–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne T (2006) Matters of (meta-) modelling. Software Syst Model 5:369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K, Welke RJ (1992) Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman WW, Senn JA (eds) Challenges and strategies for research in systems development. Wiley, Chichester, pp 257–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K (1987) Different perspectives on information systems: problems and solutions. ACM Comput Surv 19(1):5–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Kerola P, Kaipala J, Kelly S, Lehto J, Liu H, Marttiin P, Oinas-Kukkonen H, Pirhonen J, Rossi M, Smolander K, Tahvanainen V-P, Tolvanen J-P (1994) MetaPHOR: metamodeling, principles, hypertext, objects and repositories. Computer science and information systems reports, technical report TR-7. Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean A, Young RM, Bellotti VME, Moran TP (1991) Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Hum Comput Interact 6(3/4):201–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavji NH (1991) The process cycle. Software Eng J 6(5):234–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez LG, Castro JR, Licea G, Rodríguez-Díaz A, Alvarez CF (2011) Knowing software engineer’s personality to improve software development. In: Escalona MJ, Shishkov B, Cordeiro J (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on software and database technologies (ICSOFT 2011), vol 2, Seville, Spain, 18–21 July 2011. SciTePress, Lisbon, pp 99–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttiin P, Koskinen M (1998) Similarities and differences of method engineering and process engineering approaches. In: Khosrowpour M (ed) Effective utilization and management of emerging information technologies. IRMA international conference, pp 420–424

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride T, Henderson-Sellers B (2011) A method assessment framework. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, April 2011, Paris France. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 64–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirbel I (2007) Connecting method engineering knowledge: a community based approach. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, 12–14 September 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 176–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan K, Ahlemann F (2011a), Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: a review and assessment of existing literature. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zurich, Switzerland, 16–18 February 2011, AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), paper 41, http://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2011/41

  • Mohan K, Ahlemann F (2011b) A theory of user acceptance of IS project management methodologies: understanding the influence of psychological determinism and experience. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zurich, Switzerland, 16–18 February 2011, AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), paper 24, http://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2011/24

  • Mohan K, Ahlemann F (2011c) What methodology attributes are critical for potential users? Understanding the effect of human needs, In: Mouratidis H, Rolland C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. 23rd International conference, CAiSE 2011, London, UK, June 2011. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6741. Springer, Berlin, pp 314–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Monarchi D, Booch G, Henderson-Sellers B, Jacobson I, Mellor S, Rumbaugh J, Wirfs-Brock R (1994) Methodology standards: help or hindrance? Proceedings of the ninth annual OOPSLA conference, ACM SIGPLAN, vol 29, no. 10, pp 223–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen VP, Henderson-Sellers B (2003a) Towards automated support for method engineering with the OPEN approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th IASTED SEA conference. ACTA Press, Anaheim, CA, pp 691–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Niknafs A, Ramsin R (2008) Computer-aided method engineering: an analysis of existing environments. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on information systems engineering (CAiSE ’08). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5074. Springer, Berlin, pp 525–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell JJ (1995) Introduction to method engineering. Object Magazine 5(5):69–72, 91

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell JJ (1996) Keynote paper: a primer to method engineering. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke RJ (eds) Method engineering. Principles of method construction and tool support. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Oinas-Kukkonen H (1996) Method rationale in method engineering and use. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke RJ (eds) Method engineering. Principles of method construction and too support. Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on method engineering, Atlanta, USA, 26–28 August 1996. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 87–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Oivo M, Basili VR (1992) Representing software engineering models: the TAME goal oriented approach. IEEE Trans Software Eng 18(10):886–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2003) MDA guide version 1.0.1, OMG document omg/03-06-01

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2007) Unified Modeling Language: superstructure. Version 2.1.1, OMG document formal/07-02-03

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk MC, Curtis B, Chrissis MB, Weber CV (1993) The capability maturity model: version 1.1. IEEE Software 10(4):18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash N, Goyal SB (2007) Towards a life cycle for method engineering. In: Proper HA, Halpin TA, Krogstie J (eds) Proceedings of the 12th workshop on exploring modeling methods for systems analysis and design (EMMSAD ’07), held in conjunction with the 19th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE ’07), Trondheim, Norway, pp 27–36. CEUR workshop proceedings

    Google Scholar 

  • Puviani M, Cabri G, Leonardi L (2009) The future of AOSE: exploiting SME for a new conception of methodologies. In: Proceedings of WOA09

    Google Scholar 

  • Qumer A, Henderson-Sellers B (2007) Construction of an agile software product enhancement process by using an agile software solution framework (ASSF) and situational method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual international computer software and applications conference, Beijing, China, 23–27 July 2007, vol 1, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 539–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J (1999) Reusing scenario based approaches in requirements engineering methods: CREWS method base. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on database and expert systems applications (DEXA ’99), 1st international REP ’99 workshop, Florence, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J (2001) Ingénierie des methods par assemblage de composants. Thèse de doctorat en informatique de l’Université Paris 1, Janvier 2001, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J (2004) Towards situational methods for information systems development: engineering reusable method chunks. In: Vasilecas O, Caplinskas A, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG, Zupancic J, Wrycza S (eds) Proceedings of the 13th international conference on information systems development. Advances in theory, practice and education. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania, pp 271–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Rolland C (2001a) An assembly process model for method engineering. In: Dittrich KR, Geppert A, Norrie MC (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2068. Springer, Berlin, pp 267–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Rolland C (2001b) An approach for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on conceptual modelling (ER2001). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2224. Springer, Berlin, pp 471–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Deneckère R, Rolland C (2003) Towards a generic method for situational method engineering. In: Eder J, Missikoff M (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Proceedings of the 15th international conference, CAiSE 2003, Klagenfurt, Austria, 16–18 June 2003. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2681. Springer, Berlin, pp 95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C (2002) A user centric view of Lyee requirements. In: Fujita H, Johannesson P (eds) New trends in software methodologies, tools and techniques. IOS Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Prakash N (1996) A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke RJ (eds) Method engineering. Principles of method construction and tool support. Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on method engineering, 26–28 August 1996, Atlanta, USA. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 191–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Souveyet C, Moreno M (1995) An approach for defining ways-of-working. Inform Syst 20(4):295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Plihon V, Ralyté J (1998) Specifying the reuse context of scenario method chunks. In: Pernici B, Thanos C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: proceedings of the 10th international conference, CAiSE ’98, Pisa, Italy, 8–12 June 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1413. Springer, Berlin, pp 191–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Prakash N, Benjamen A (1999) A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir Eng 4(4):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M (1995) The MetaEdit CAME environment. In: Proceedings of MetaCase 95, University of Sunderland Press, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M (1998) Advanced computer support for method engineering—implementation of CAME environment in MetaEdit+ dissertation, Jyväskylä studies in computer science, economics and statistics, vol 42. University of Jyväskylä, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Ramesh B, Lyytinen K, Tolvanen J-P (2004) Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. J Assoc Inform Syst 5(9):356–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupprecht C, Funffinger M, Knublauch H, Rose T (2000) Capture and dissemination of experience about the construction of engineering processes. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1789. Springer, Berlin, pp 294–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeki M (2003b) CAME: the first step to automated method engineering. In: Gonzalez-Perez CA, Henderson-Sellers B, Rawsthorne D (eds) Process engineering for object-oriented and component-based development. Proceedings of the OOPSLA 2003 workshop. Centre for Object Technology and Applications, University of Technology, Sydney, pp 7–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeki M, Iguchi K, Wen-yin K, Shinohara M (1993) A meta-model for representing software specification & design methods. In: Proceedings of IFIP WG8.1 conference on information systems development process, Come, pp 149–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer AW (2000) ARIS—business process modeling. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott L, Carvalho L, Jeffery R, D’Ambra J (2001) An evaluation of the Spearmint approach to software process modelling. In: Ambriola V (ed) Software process technology. Proceedings of the 8th European workshop, EWSPT 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2077. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidewitz E (2003) What models mean. IEEE Software 20(5):26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serour MK (2003) The effect of intra-organisational factors on the organisational transition to object technology. Ph.D. Thesis, University Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Serour MK, Henderson-Sellers B (2004b) Introducing agility: a case study of situational method engineering using the OPEN process framework. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual international computer software and applications conference. COMPSAC 2004, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 50–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Serour M, Henderson-Sellers B, Hughes J, Winder D, Chow L (2002) Organizational transition to object technology: theory and practice. In: Bellahsène Z, Patel D, Rolland C (eds) Object-oriented information systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2425. Springer, Berlin, pp 229–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Serour MK, Dagher L, Prior J, Henderson-Sellers B (2004) OPEN for agility: an action research study of introducing method engineering into a government sector. In: Vasilecas O, Caplinskas A, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG, Zupancic J, Wrycza S (eds) Proceedings of the 13th international conference on information systems development. Advances in theory, practice and education. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania, pp 105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Rossi M (2007) Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods—a review and comparative analysis. Inform Syst J 21:249–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simidchieva BJ, Clarke LA, Osterweil LJ (2007) Representing process variation with a process family. In: Wang Q, Pfahl D, Raffo DM (eds) ICSP 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4470. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolander K, Tahvanainen V-P, Lyytinen K (1990) How to combine tools and methods in practice—a field study. In: Steinholtz B, Sølvberg A, Bergman L (eds) Proceedings of the second Nordic conference CAiSE ’90. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton J (1997) DSDM: the method in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stőrrle H (2001) Describing process patterns with UML (position paper). In: Ambriola V (ed) Software process technology. Proceedings of the 8th European workshop, EWSPT 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2077. Springer, Berlin, pp 173–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Hofstede AHM, Verhoef TF (1997) On the feasibility of situational method engineering. Inform Syst 22(6/7):401–422

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen J-P (1998) Incremental method engineering with modeling tools. Dissertation, Jyväskylä studies in computer science, economics and statistics, vol 47, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, p 301

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen J-P, Rossi M, Liu H (1996) Method engineering: current research directions and implications for future research. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke RJ (eds) Method engineering. Principles of method construction and too support. Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on method engineering, Atlanta, USA, 26–28 August 1996. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 296–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran HN, Boulette B, Dong BT (2005) A classification of process patterns. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software development, Reykjavik, Iceland, 27 May–1 June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran N, Henderson-Sellers B, Hawryszkiewycz I (2007) Method fragments to support collaborative teamwork for software development projects. In: Proceedings of EMCIS 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran QNN, Henderson-Sellers B, Hawyrszkiewycz IT (2008a) Some method fragments for agile software development, chapter XVI. In: Syed MR, Syed SN (eds) Handbook of research on modern systems analysis and design technologies. IGI, Hershey, PA, pp 235–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran QNN, Henderson-Sellers B, Hawyrszkiewycz IT (2008b) Agile method fragments and construction validation, chapter XVII. In: Syed MR, Syed SN (eds) Handbook of research on modern systems analysis and design technologies. IGI, Hershey, PA, pp 256–283

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Weerd I, Souer J, Versendaal J, Brinkkemper S (2005) Situational requirements engineering of web content management implementation. In: Ralyté J, Agerfalk PJ, Kraiem N (eds) Proceedings of the first international workshop on situational requirements engineering processes: Methods, techniques and tools to support situation-specific requirements engineering processes (SREP ’05), Paris France, August 2005. In conjunction with the Thirteenth IEEE requirements engineering conference (RE ’05), pp 13–30

    Google Scholar 

  • van Slooten K, Brinkkemper S (1993) A method engineering approach to information systems development. In: Prakash N, Rolland C, Pernici B (eds) Information systems development process. Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.1. Elsevier Science B.V., North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • van Slooten K, Hodes B (1996) Characterizing IS development projects, In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke R (eds) Proceedings of IFIP TC8 working conference on method engineering: principles of method construction and tool support. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I, Glass RL (1994) Application-based methodologies: development by application domain. Inform Syst Manag 11(pt 4):53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller V, Johnston RB, Milton SK (2006) Development of a situation information systems analysis and design methodology: a health care setting. In: Irani Z, Sarikas OD, Llopis J, Gonzalez, R, Gasco J (eds) Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean conference on information systems 2006 (EMCIS2006), CD, Brunel University, West London, paper C94, p 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Welke R, Kumar K (1991) Method engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman WW, Senn JA (eds) Systems analysis and design: a research agenda. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter R (2011) Design solution analysis for the construction of situational design methods, In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistrand K, Karlsson F (2004) Method components—rationale revealed. In: Persson A, Stirna J (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: proceedings of the 16th international conference, CAiSE 2004, Riga, Latvia, 7–11 June 2004. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3084. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyssusek B, Klaus H (2005) Ontological foundations of information systems analysis and design: extending the scope of the discussion. In: Green P, Rosemann M (eds) Business systems analysis with ontologies. IGI Group, Hershey, PA, pp 322–344

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yourdon E (1999) Software process for the 21st century. Cutter IT Journal 12(9):12–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Zowghi D, Firesmith DG, Henderson-Sellers B (2005) Using the OPEN process framework to produce a situation-specific requirements engineering method. In: Ralyté J, Agerfalk PJ, Kraiem N (eds) Proceedings of the first international workshop on situational requirements engineering processes: methods, techniques and tools to support situation-specific requirements engineering processes (SREP ’05), Paris France, August 2005. In conjunction with the thirteenth IEEE requirements engineering conference (RE ’05), pp 59–74

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Software, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia

    Brian Henderson-Sellers

  2. CUI, Battelle - bâtiment A, University of Geneva, Carouge, Switzerland

    Jolita Ralyté

  3. Dept. of Informatics and Media, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Pär J. Ågerfalk

  4. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland

    Matti Rossi

Authors
  1. Brian Henderson-Sellers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jolita Ralyté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pär J. Ågerfalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matti Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M. (2014). Introduction. In: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41466-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41467-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation