Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Quality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Situational Method Engineering

  • 891 Accesses

Abstract

One of the least understood aspects of situational method engineering is quality assessment. Here, we are concerned firstly about the quality of individual method parts (fragments, chunks, components) as they are stored in the method base, the overall quality of the method base itself in terms primarily of cohesion and the quality of the method that is constructed from these parts, extracted from the method base. This last concern has two aspects: (1) whether the overall method is cohesive and complete (i.e., it is a full method and not just a partial method) and that it contains no unrequired elements such as work products created but not used nor has any missing method elements; and (2) whether the constructed process is the right one for the industry application for which it is targeted. The quality of all these can be assessed statically. There is an additional, dynamical, quality concern: how well the method works in practice. Each of these aspects is covered in the succeeding subsections of this chapter, starting with a discussion of a framework into which all these aspects fit.

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.

    For further details on rationality, see, e.g., Oinas-Kukkonen (1996) and Rossi et al. (2000).

  2. 2.

    Brinkkemper et al.’s use of the word contradiction here is perhaps too strong since inconsistencies reflect suboptimal selection rather than actual contradictions.

  3. 3.

    This is a different meaning to the use of the word ‘tactic’ earlier in the book—especially in Chap. 4.

  4. 4.

    The use of the word ‘process’ in software engineering is problematical—as we noted in Sect. 1.3. Here, it is used in the same sense as the ISO/IEC software engineering standards such as 12207 and 15504 where it can be taken as a synonym for ‘method fragment’ as defined in earlier chapters.

References

  • Aggarwal KK, Singh Y, Kaur A, Malhotra R (2007a) Software design metrics for object-oriented software. J Object Tech 6(1):121–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal KK, Singh Y, Kaur A, Malhotra R (2007b) Investigating effect of design metrics on fault proneness in object-oriented systems. J Object Tech 6(10):127–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Andres HP, Zmud RW (2002) A contingency approach to software project coordination. J Manag Inform Syst 18(3):41–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson C, Kühne T, Henderson-Sellers B (2003) Systematic stereotype usage. Software Syst Model 2(3):153–163

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M (2012) Personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier F, Aretxandieta X (2008) State-based composition in UML 2. Int J Software Eng Knowl Eng 18(7):1–25

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcellos M, Falbo R, Rocha AR (2012) Using a reference domain ontology for developing a software measurement strategy for high maturity organizations, presented at VORTE 2012 workshop, Beijing, 11 September 2012. Available from the IEEE Xplore Digital Library

    Google Scholar 

  • Basili VR, Rombach HD (1988) The TAME project: towards improvement-orientated software environments. IEEE Trans Software Eng 14(6):758–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Basili VR, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (1994) The goal-question-metric approach, encyclopedia of software engineering. Wiley, Chichester, NY, pp 528–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoa MF, Vallecillo A (2010) Quality attributes for software metamodels. In: Proceedings of QAOOSE 2010, Malaga, Spain, 2 July 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoa MF, Troya JM, Vallecillo A (2006) Measuring the usability of software components. J Syst Software 79:427–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogg P, Low G, Henderson-Sellers B, Beydoun G (2010) Work product-driven software development methodology improvement, ICSOFT 2010. In: Cordeiro J, Virvou M, Shishkov B (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international conference on software and data technologies, 22–24 July 2010, Athens, Greece, vol 2. SciTePress, Lisbon, pp 5–13

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (1998) Assembly techniques for method engineering. In: Pernici B, Thanos C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Proceedings of the 10th international conference, CAiSE ’98, Pisa, Italy, June 8–12 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1413. Springer, Berlin, pp 381–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (2001) A method engineering language for the description of systems development methods (extended abstract). In: Dittrich KR, Geppert A, Norrie MC (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: proceedings of the 13th international conference, CAiSE 2001, Interlaken, Switzerland, 4–8 June 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2068. Springer, Berlin, pp 473–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke R (2003) Project management: planning and control techniques. Burke Publishing, Tokai

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Development Institute International (2005) Capability maturity model for business development, version 1.0. Business Development Institute International, Phoenix, AZ

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatfield C (1975) The analysis of time series: an introduction. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherniavsky JC, Smith CH (1991) On Weyuker’s axioms for software complexity measures. IEEE Trans Software Eng 17(6):636–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidamber S, Kemerer C (1994) A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Trans Software Eng 20(6):476–493

    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 

  • Cleland DI, Ireland LR (2002) Project management: strategic design and implementation. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn A (2004) http://alistair.cockburn.us/crystal/crystal.html

  • Cockburn A (2006) Agile software development: the cooperative game, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Connallen J (2002) Building web applications with UML, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA

    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 

  • Coulin C, Zowghi D, Sahraoui A-E-K (2006) A situational method engineering approach to requirements elicitation workshops in the software development process. A situational approach to requirements elicitation workshops. Software Process Improv Pract 11(5):451–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis N (2005) Secure software development life cycle processes: a technology scouting report (CMU/SEI-2005-TN-024)

    Google Scholar 

  • de los Angeles Martin M, Olsina L (2003) Towards an ontology for software metrics and indicators as the foundation for a cataloguing web system. In: Proceedings of the first conference on Latin American web congress, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 103–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Derby E, Larsen D, Schwaber K (2006) Agile retrospectives: making good teams great. Pragmatic Bookshelf, Raleigh, NC, p 200

    Google Scholar 

  • du Bois B, Lange CFJ, Demeyer S, Chaudron MRV (2007) A qualitative investigation of UML modelling conventions. In: Kühne T (ed) MoDELS 2006 workshops. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4364. Springer, Berlin, pp 91–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy-Chessa S (2009) Quality in ubiquitous information system design. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on research challenges in information sciences 2009 (RCIS 2009). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 343–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle H, Unger T, Leymann F (2009) Process fragments. In: Meersman R, Dillon T, Herrero P (eds) OTM 2009, part I. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5870. Springer, Berlin, pp 398–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manage Rev 14(1):57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Elssamadisy A, Schalliol G (2002) Recognizing and responding to “bad smells” in extreme programming. In: 24th International conference on software engineering, pp 617–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Esperanza Manso M, Cruz-Lemus JA, Genero M, Piattini M (2009) Empirical validation of measures for UML class diagrams: a meta-analysis study. In: Chaudron MRV (ed) MODELS 2008 workshops. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5421. Springer, Berlin, pp 303–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenkrog S, Abrams F, Haeck WP, Whelbourn D (2004) Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3). Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton N (1991) Software metrics: a rigorous approach. Chapman and Hall, London, p 337

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton N (1994) Software measurement: a necessary scientific basis. IEEE Trans Software Eng 20:199–206

    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 

  • Fitzgerald B (1997) The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Inform Syst J 7(3):201–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Franch X (2009) A method for the definition of metrics over i* models. In: van Eck P, Gordijn J, Wieringa R (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Proceeding of the 21st international conference, CAiSE2009. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5565. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes-Fernandez R, Gomez-Sanz JJ, Pavon J (2007) Integration in agent-oriented development. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 1(1):2–27

    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 

  • Fung KH, Low G (2009) A methodology evaluation framework for dynamic evolution in composition-based distributed applications. J Syst Software 82(12):1950–1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia F, Bertoa MF, Calero C, Vallecillo A, Ruiz F, Piattini M, Genero M (2006) Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement. Inform Software Tech 48:631–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Genero M, Piattini M, Calero C (eds) (2005) Metrics for software conceptual models. Imperial College Press, London

    MATH  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

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Glinz M, Fricker S (2013) On shared understanding in software engineering. In Proceedings of GI conference on software engineering, Aachen, Germany, 2013. GI lecture notes in informatics, vol 213, pp 19–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogolla M, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Analysis of UML stereotypes within the UML metamodel. In: Jezequel J-M, Hussman H, Cook S (eds) «UML»2002, Dresden, Germany, 30 September–4 October 2002 UML 2002—the Unified Modeling Language. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2460. Springer, Berlin, pp 84–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G, Lind M (2008) Coordination and transformation in business processes: towards an integrated view. Bus Process Manag J 14:761–777

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2006a) A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Software Syst Model 5(1):72–90. doi:10.1007/210270-005-0099-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2008a) A work product pool approach to methodology specification and enactment. J Syst Software 81(8):1288–1305. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.10.001

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimán A, Pérez M, Mendoza L, Losavio F (2006) Feature analysis for architectural evaluation methods. J Syst Software 79(6):871–888

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassine L, Ben Ghazala H (2004) Une approche pour la definition de methods situationelle d’assurance de la qualité logicielle. Génie Logiciel 70:29–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes P, Henderson-Sellers B (1996) Cost estimation of OO projects: empirical observations, practical applications. Am Program 9(7):35–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (1996) Object-oriented metrics. Measures of complexity. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p 234

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Edwards JM (1994) BOOKTWO of object-oriented knowledge: the working object. Prentice-Hall, Sydney, p 594 + xxvii

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Freeman C (1992) Cataloguing and classification for object libraries. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng Notes 17(1):62–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2005c) Connecting powertypes and stereotypes. J Object Tech 4(7):83–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2006b) Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML1.4 and 2.0. In: Nierstrasz O, Whittle J, Harel D, Reggio G (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems, 9th international conference, MoDELS 2006, Genoa, Italy, October 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4199. Springer, Berlin, pp 16–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2010) Granularity in conceptual modelling: application to metamodels. In: Proceedings of ER 2010. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6412. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2011) Towards the use of granularity theory for determining the size of atomic method fragments for use in situational method engineering. 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 49–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Nguyen VP (2004) Un outil d’aide à l’ingénierie de méthodes reposant sur l’approche OPEN. Génie Logiciel 70:17–28

    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, Constantine LL, Graham IM (1996) Coupling and cohesion (towards a valid metrics suite for object-oriented analysis and design). Object Oriented Syst 3:143–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Dué RT, Graham I, Collins G (2001) A qualitative comparison of two processes for object-oriented software development. Inform Software Tech 43(12):705–724

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C, Ralyté J (2008) Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering. In: Proceedings 19th Australian software engineering conference. ASWEC2008, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 479–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Qureshi MA, Gonzalez-Perez C (2012) Towards an interoperable metamodel suite: size assessment as one input. Int J Softw Inform 6(2):111–124 (special issue)

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry S, Kafura D (1981) Software structure metrics based on information flow. IEEE Trans Software Eng 7(5):510–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs J (1985) Granularity. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-85)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong S, van den Goor G, Brinkkemper S (1993) A formal approach to the comparison of object-oriented analysis and design methodologies. In: Proceedings of the 26th Hawaii international conference on system science, vol IV. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 689–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes B, Cotterell M (1999) Software project management. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey WS (1988) Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework. IEEE Software 5(2):73–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey WS (1989) Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J, Kerola P (1983) A sociocybernetic framework for the feature analysis of information systems design methodologies. In: Olle TW, Sol H, Tully C (eds) Information system design methodologies: a feature analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 87–140

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2000) Quality management systems—requirements. ISO/IEC 9001. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2001) Software engineering—product quality—part 1. Quality model. ISO/IEC 9126–1. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC 15504-1 (2004a) Software process assessment—part 1: concepts and vocabulary. ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC 15504-2 (2004b) Information technology—software process assessment—a reference model for processes and process capability. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC 15504-3 (2004c) Information technology—process assessment—part 3: guidance on performing an assessment. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2005) Unified Modeling Language (UML) version 1.4.2. ISO/IEC 19501. International Organization for Standardization/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 

  • ISO/IEC (2008) Systems and software engineering—software life cycle processes. ISO/IEC 12207:2008. International Standards Organization/ International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2010b) Information technology—process assessment—part 10: safety extension. ISO/IEC 15504–10. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2011) Systems and software engineering—systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—system and software quality models. FDIS 25010. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2012) OMG Unified Modeling Language (UML2.1.2)—part 1 infrastructure and part 2 superstructure. ISO/IEC 19505. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ITGI (2007) COBIT 4.1. IT Governance Institute, Rolling Meadows

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerth NL (2001) Project retrospectives: a handbook for team reviews. Dorset House, New York, NY, p 268

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham BA (1996) Evaluating software engineering methods and tool part 1: the evaluation context and evaluation methods. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng Notes 21(1):11–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut RE, Streeter LA (1995) Coordination in software development. Comm ACM 38(3):69–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie J, Sølvberg A (2003) Information systems engineering—conceptual modeling in a quality perspective. Kompendiumforlaget, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Laarman A, Kurtev I (2010) Ontological metamodelling with explicit instantiation. In: van den Brand M, Gašević D, Gray J (eds) Software language engineering, second international conference, SLE 2009, revised selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5969. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 174–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G (1987) Fire, women, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanza M, Marinescu R (2006) Object-oriented metrics in practice. Springer, Berlin, p 205

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lepmets M, McBride T, Ras E (2012) Goal alignment in process improvement. J Syst Software 85(6):1440–1452

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindland OI, Sindre G, Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2):42–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma H, Shao W, Zhang L, Ma Z, Jiang Y (2004) Applying OO metrics to assess UML meta-models. In: Baar T, Strohmeier A, Moreira A, Mellor SJ (eds) UML 2004. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3273. Springer, Berlin, pp 12–26

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormack A, Verganti R (2003) Managing the sources of uncertainty: matching process and context in software development. J Prod Innovat Manag 20(3):217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani I (1998) A theory of granularity and its application to problems of polysemy and underspecification of meaning. In: Cohn AG, Schubert LK, Shapiro SC (eds) Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the sixth international conference (KR ’98). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp 245–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer T, Hall T (1999) A critical analysis of current OO design metrics. Software Qual J 8:97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride T (2008) The mechanisms of project management of software development. J Syst Software 81(12):2386–2395

    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 

  • McBride T, Henderson-Sellers B, Zowghi D (2006) Managed outsourced software development: does organisational distance demand different project management? In: Proceedings of UKAIS 2006, Cheltenham, 10–11 April 2006, CD

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor JD, Korson T (1993) Supporting dimensions of classification in object-oriented design. J Object-Orient Prog 5(9):25–30

    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 

  • Mohagheghi P, Aagedal J (2007) Evaluating quality in model-driven engineering, international workshop on modeling in software engineering (MISE ’07), IEEE Computer Society

    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 

  • Monarchi D, Puhr GI (1992) A research typology for object-oriented analysis and design. Comm ACM 35(9):35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 55:243–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody D, van Hillegersberg J (2008) Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: an analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: Software language engineering, SLE 2008, revised selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5452. Springer, Berlin, pp 16–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Nidumolu SR (1996) A comparison of the structural contingency and risk-based perspectives on coordination in software development projects. J Manag Inform Syst 13(2):77–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugroho A, Chaudron MRV (2009) Evaluating the impact of UML modeling on software quality: an industrial case study. In: Schürr A, Selic B (eds) MoDELS 2009. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5795. Springer, Berlin, pp 181–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein A, Kramer J (1996) Method engineering for multi-perspective software development. Inform Software Tech 38(4):267–274

    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 

  • Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manag 42(1):15–29

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (1997) UML semantics. Version 1.1, 15 September 1997, OMG document ad/97-08-04

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2001) OMG Unified Modelling Language specification, version 1.4. OMG documents formal/01-09-68 through 80 (13 documents). http://www.omg.org. Accessed 12 July 2002

  • OMG (2005b) Unified Modeling Language: superstructure, version 2.0, formal/05-07-04, p 709

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2006) Unified Modeling Language: infrastructure. Version 2.0. formal/05-07-05, p 218

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2009a) Business process model and notation (BPMN) FTF beta 1 for version 2.0, OMG document no dtc/2009-08-14

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2009b) Architecture-driven modernization (ADM): software metrics meta-model (SMM) FTF—beta 1. OMG document no ptc/2009-03-03

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2009c) Ontology definition metamodel version 1.0, OMG document no formal/2009-05-01

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2009d) Organization structure metamodel (OSM) 3rd initial submission. OMG document no bmi/09-08-02

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2010) OMG Unified Modeling Language™ (OMG UML), superstructure. Version 2.3, OMG document formal/2010-05-05

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdahl A, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) Ontological evaluation of the UML using the Bunge-Wand-Weber model. Software Syst Model 1(1):43–67

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira EB, Bastos RM, da C Mora M, Oliveria TC (2011) Improving the consistency of SPEM-based software processes. In: Zhang R, Cordeiro J, Li X, Zhang Z, Zhang J (eds) Proceedings of the 13th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2011), volume 3, Beijing, China, 8–11 June 2011. SciTePress, Beijing, pp 76–86

    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 

  • Pfleeger SL (1999) Albert Einstein and empirical software engineering. Computer 32(10):32–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Qumer A, Henderson-Sellers B (2006) Measuring agility and adoptability of agile methods: a 4-dimensional analytical tool. In: Guimarães N, Isaias P, Goikoetxea A (eds) Proceedings of IADIS international conference applied computing 2006, IADIS Press, pp 503–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Qumer A, Henderson-Sellers B (2008) An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Inform Software Tech 50(4):280–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi MA (2012) Interoperability of software engineering metamodels. In: Kienzle J (ed) Models in software engineering. Workshops and symposia at MODELS 2011, Wellington, New Zealand, 16–21 October 2011, reports and revised selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7167. Springer, Berlin, pp 12–19

    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 

  • Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) (2007) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Springer, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Mirbel I, DeneckèreR (eds) (2011) 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinertsen DG (2009) The principles of product development flow: second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing, Redondo Beach

    Google Scholar 

  • Rising L, Janoff NS (2000) The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Software 17(4):26–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers B, Henderson-Sellers B (2014) Applying a test for atomicity of method fragments. In: Grossmann G, Saeki M (eds) 10th Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling (APCCM 2014), Auckland, New Zealand, 20–23 January 2014. Conferences in research and practice in information technology (CRPIT), vol 154

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C (2009) Method engineering: towards methods as services. Software Process Improv Pract 14(3):143–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Brinkkemper S (1996) Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Inform Syst 21(2):209–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Tolvanen J-P, Ramesh B, Lyytinen K, Kaipala J (2000) Method rationale in method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICSS-33), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeki M (2003a) Embedding metrics into information systems development methods: an application of method engineering technique. In: Eder J, Missikoff M (eds) Proceedings of CAiSE ’03. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2681. Springer, Berlin, pp 374–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber K (1997) Scrum development process. In: Sutherland J, Patel D, Casanave C, Miller J, Hollowell G (eds) Business object design and implementation: proceedings of OOPSLA ’95 workshop. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • SEI (2001) Standard CMMI appraisal method for process improvement (SCAMPI). CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001

    Google Scholar 

  • SEI (2005) Process maturity profile—CMMI 2005 year-end update

    Google Scholar 

  • SEI (2006) CMMI® for development, version 1.2. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008

    Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Rossi M (1998) Information modeling methods and methodologies—evaluation techniques. Proceedings of HICSS, vol 5, pp 312–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Siau K, Tan X (2005) Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data Knowl Eng 55:343–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolander K (1992) OPRR—a model for modeling systems development methods. In: Lyytinen K, Tahvanainen V-P (eds) Next generation CASE tools. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 224–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens WP, Myers GJ, Constantine LL (1974) Structured design. IBM Syst J 13(2):115–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovic Z, Dahanayake A, Sol H (2004) An evaluation framework for component-based and service-oriented system development methodologies. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced topics in database research, vol 3. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 45–68

    Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman E (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev 55:189–208

    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 Q-NN, Low G (2005) Comparison of ten agent-oriented methodologies, chapter XII. In: Henderson-Sellers B, Giorgini P (eds) Agent-oriented methodologies. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp 341–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran Q-NN, Low G (2008) MOBMAS: a methodology for ontology-based multi-agent systems development. Inform Software Tech 50(7–8):697–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Unhelkar B (2005) Verification and validation for quality of UML 2.0 models. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Unhelkar B, Henderson-Sellers B (2005) Applying syntax, semantics and aesthetic checks to verifying and validating the quality of UML models. In: Proceedings of IRMA 2005. Idea Group, Hershey, PA

    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 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyuker E (1988) Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Trans Software Eng 14(9):1357–1365

    MathSciNet  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 

  • Yang J, Unhelkar B (2010) Iterative class diagram construction in consideration of modeling granularity. In: Proceedings of RCIS 2010, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Yap L-M, Henderson-Sellers B (1993) A semantic model for inheritance in object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of ASWEC ’93, IREE, Sydney, pp 28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu L, Staples M (2007) Situational method quality. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Springer, New York, NY, pp 193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuse H (1994) Software complexity: measures and methods. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, p 605

    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). Assessing Quality. In: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_8

  • 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