Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tailoring a Constructed Method

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Situational Method Engineering

Abstract

Having constructed a method using an SME approach, the first enactment should follow smoothly, since all situational constraints have been accommodated during its construction. However, on later endeavours, minor ‘tweaking’ may become necessary. Sometimes, management may decide to ‘freeze’ a base method upon which such modifications are to be made. Indeed, this thinking can also be imposed on an ‘off-the-shelf’ method, which requires project-specific customisation. These various kinds of modifications are generically known as ‘tailoring’. For example, Fitzgerald et al. (2003) note, from empirical studies, that ‘off-the-shelf’ methods need to be tailored to fit the needs of a specific project, even if the method appears to be appropriate and suitable for the project in hand (Aydin and Harmsen 2002). Fitzgerald et al. (2003) focus on the usefulness of (a) contingency factors and (b) method engineering and show how this was successful within a Motorola case study. Kokol (1999) argues that the failure of IT in the medical area can be attributed to the inappropriateness of the methodology used—offering method engineering as a remedy. Arni-Bloch et al. (2006) show how a situational method engineering approach to the integration of COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) packages into more traditional information systems can be efficacious.

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.

    Systems engineering method.

  2. 2.

    Recently updated to GOPPRR by including ports.

  3. 3.

    We acknowledge contributions of Dr. Fredrik Karlsson to this section.

References

  • Aharoni A, Reinhartz-Berger I (2008) A domain engineering approach for situational method engineering. In: Li Q, Spaccapietra S, Yu E, Olivé A (eds) ER 2008. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5231. Springer, Berlin, pp 455–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Arni-Bloch N, Ralyté J, Léonard M (2006) Integrating information systems components: a situation-driven approach. In: Latour T, Petit M (eds) CAiSE ’06: 18th conference on advanced information systems engineering—trusted information systems: proceedings of the workshops and doctoral consortium, Luxembourg, 5–9 June 2006. Namur University Press, Namur, pp 433–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Asadi M, Mohabbati B, Gaševic D, Bagheri E (2011) Developing families of method-oriented architecture. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) ME 2011. IFIP AICT, vol 351. IFIP, Paris, pp 168–183

    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 

  • Aydin MN, Harmsen F, van Slooten K, Stegwee RA (2005) A model for a method adaptation process. In: Vasilecas O, Caplinskas A, Wojtkowski G, Wojtkowsi W, Zupanicic J (eds) Information systems development. Advances in theory, practice and education. Kluwer Academic/Springer, New York, NY, pp 477–487

    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 

  • 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 

  • Bekkers W, van de Weerd I, Spruit M, Brinkkemper S (2010) A framework for process improvement in software product management. In: Riel A, O’Connor R, Tichkiewitch S, Messnarz R (eds) EuroSPI 2010, CCIS, vol 99. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Chroust G (2000) Software process models: structure and challenges. In: Feng Y, Notkin D, Gaudel MC (eds) Software: theory and practice—proceedings, IFIP congress 2000. Kluwer, Amsterdam, pp 279–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Etien A, Deneckère R, Salinesi C (2003) Extending methods to express change requirements. In: Ralyté J, Rolland C (eds) Proceedings of the first international workshop on ‘engineering methods to support information systems evolution (EMSISE’03). In conjunction with OOIS’03 (9th international conference on object-oriented information systems), Université de Genève, pp 15–28

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G (2005) A study of the use of agile methods within Intel. In: Baskerville RL, Mathiassen L, Pries-Heje, J, DeGross JI (eds) Business agility and information technology diffusion. Springer, Berlin, pp 187–202

    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 

  • Goldkuhl G (1999) The grounding of usable knowledge: an inquiry in the epistemology of action knowledge. Linköping University, Linköping. CMTO Research Papers 1999:03

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Qumer A (2007) Using method engineering to make a traditional environment agile. Cutter IT J 20(5):30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Serour M (2000) Creating a process for transitioning to object technology. In: Proceedings of the seventh Asia-Pacific software engineering conference. APSEC 2000, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 436–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Serour MK (2005) Creating a dual agility method—the value of method engineering. J Database Manag 16(4):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Serour MK, Gonzalez-Perez C, Qumer A (2007a) Improving agile software development by the application of method engineering practices. In: Hasselbring W (ed) SE'07 Proceedings of the 25th conference on IASTED international multi-conference: software engineering, Innsbruck, 13–15 February 2007. ACTA Press, Anaheim, CA, pp 55–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Henninger S, Ivaturi A, Nuli K, Thirunavukkaras A (2002) Supporting adaptable methodologies to meet evolving project needs. In: Proceedings of the 1st ICSE workshop on iterative, adaptive, and agile processes, Orlando, FL, 25 May 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hurtado Alegria JA (2012) A meta-process for defining adaptable software processes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado Alegria JA, Bastarrica MC, Quispe A, Ochoa SF (2011) An MDE approach to software process tailoring. In: Proceedings of ICSSP ’11, 21–22 May 2011, ACM, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI

    Google Scholar 

  • Joualt F, Allilaire F, Bezivin J, Kurtev I, Valduriez P (2006) ATL: a QVT-like transformation language. In: Companion to the 21st annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on OOPSLA 2006, ACM, pp 719–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F (2002) Bridging the gap—between method for method configuration and situational method engineering. In: Proceedings of promote IT 2002, 22–24 April 2002, Skövde, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F (2005) Method configuration: method and computerized tool support. Linköping studies in information science. Dissertation no. 11, Linköping University. ISBN: 91-85297-48-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2004) Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Inform Software Tech 46:619–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2005) Method-user-centred method configuration. In: Ralyté J, Ågerfalk 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 31–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2009a) Exploring agile values in method configuration. Eur J Inform Syst 18(4):300–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2009b) Towards structured flexibility in information systems development: devising a method for method configuration. J Database Manag 20(3):51–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2012) MC Sandbox: devising a tool for method-user-centered method configuration. Inform Software Tech 54(5):501–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Agerfalk P, Hjalmarsson A (2001) Method configuration with development tracks and generic project types. In: Sixth CAiSE/IFIP8.1 international workshop on evaluation of modeling methods in systems analysis and design

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly S, Rossi M, Tolvanen J-P (2005) What is needed in a MetaCASE environment. Enterprise Modell Inform Syst Architect 1(1):25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokol P (1999) Method engineering and unified paediatric health care encounter design. Int J Healthc Tech Manag 1(3/4):401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornyshova E, Deneckère R, Rolland C (2011) Method families concept: application to decision-making methods. In: Halpin T, Nurcan S, Krogstie J, Soffer P, Proper E, Schmidt R, Bider I (eds) BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011. LNBIP, vol 81. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 413–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruchten PH (1999) The rational unified process: an introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIsaac B (2003) An overview of the RUP as a process engineering platform. In: Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B, Rawsthorne D (eds) Proceedings of the OOPSLA 2003 workshop on process engineering for object-oriented and component-based development, Anaheim, CA, 26–30 October 2003. COTAR, Sydney, pp 43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Ruiz T, Garcia F, Piattini M, Münch J (2011) Modelling software process variability: an empirical study. IET Software 5(2):172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride T (2011) Personal communication to first author

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirandolle D, van de Weerd I, Brinkkemper S (2011) Incremental method engineering for process improvement—a case study. 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 4–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirbel I (2006) Method chunk federation. In: Latour T, Petit M (eds) CAiSE ’06. 18th Conference on advanced information systems engineering—trusted information systems, Luxembourg 5–9 June 2006. Proceedings of the workshops and doctoral consortium. Namur University Press, Namur, pp 407–418

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • OMG (2008) Software & systems process engineering meta-model specification. Version 2.0, OMG document number: formal/2008-04-01

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel C, De Cesare S, Iacovelli N, Merico A (2004) A framework for method tailoring: a case study. In: Serour M (ed) Proceedings of the second workshop on method engineering for object-oriented and component-based development. Centre for Object Technology Applications and Research, Sydney, pp 23–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedreira O, Piattini M, Luaces MR, Brisaboa NR (2007) A systematic review of software process tailoring. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng Notes 32(3):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez G, El Amam K, Madhavji NH (1995) Customising software process models. In: Proceedings of the 4th EWSPT, Leiden, Holland, March 1995, pp 70–78

    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 

  • Rausch A, Höhn R, Höppner S (2005) Das V-modell XT. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Nurcan S (2010) Business process lines to deal with the variability. In: Proceedings of the 43rd HICSS, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombach D (2005) Integrated software process and product lines. In: Li M, Boehm B, Osterweil LJ (eds) ISPW. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3840. Springer, Berlin, pp 83–90

    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 

  • Serour MK, Henderson-Sellers B (2004a) 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Svahnberg M, van Gurp J, Bosch J (2005) A taxonomy of variability realization techniques. Software Pract Ex 35(8):705–754

    Article  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 

  • van de Hoef R, Harmsen AF, Wijers GM (1995) Situatie, Scenario En Succes, Memoranda Informatica, International research report. University of Twente, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Weerd I, Brinkkemper S, Souer J, Versendaal J (2006) A situational implementation method for web-based content management system-applications: method engineering and validation in practice. Software Process Improv Pract 11(5):521–538

    Article  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 

  • Vavpotic D, Bajec M (2009) An approach for concurrent evaluation of technical and social aspects of software development methodologies. Inform Software Tech 51:528–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaanderen K, van de Weerd I, Brinkkemper S (2011) The online method engine: from process assessment to method execution. 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 108–122

    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 

  • Xu P, Ramesh B (2003) A tool for the capture and use of process knowledge in process tailoring. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICSS ’03), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA

    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). Tailoring a Constructed Method. In: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_7

  • 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