Requirements Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 58–78 | Cite as

Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches

  • Isabelle Mirbel
  • Jolita Ralyté
Original Article


Because the engineering situation of each information system development (ISD) project is different, engineering methods need to be adapted, transformed or enhanced to satisfy the specific project situation. Contributions, in the field of situational method engineering (SME), aim at providing techniques and tools allowing to construct project-specific methods instead of looking for universally applicable ones. In addition to the engineering method tailoring, necessary to fit the project situation, a customization of the engineering method for each engineer participating in the project is also required. Such a configuration allows a better understanding of the method by focusing on guidelines related to the project engineer’s daily tasks. It also increases his/her involvement in the ISD method realization. To achieve this twofold objective (ISD method tailoring and customization), we propose a framework for SME combining an assembly-based approach for project-specific method construction and a roadmap-driven approach for engineer-specific method configuration. The first step of our process provides support to build a new method that is most suitable for the current ISD project situation, whereas the second step aims at choosing the most adapted path (roadmap) to satisfy the requirements of a particular project engineer within the project-specific method. The two core elements of our SME framework are the method chunks repository and the reuse frame. The former concerns reusable method components definition and storage whereas the latter deals with the characterization of the project situation and the project engineer’s profile. In this paper we start first by presenting our SME framework and its core elements: the method chunk repository and the reuse frame. Then we show how to take advantage of them through our two-step process combining assembly-based method construction and roadmap-driven method configuration.


Crew Member Problem Context Requirement Elicitation Information System Development Method Engineer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material


  1. 1.
    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) Houghton Mifflin CompanyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bajec M, Vavpotic D, Kirsper M (2004) The scenario and tool-support for constructing flexible, people-focused system developement methodologies. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems development, ISD 2004. Vilnius, LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (1998) Assembly techniques for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, CAiSE’98. Pisa, Italy, LNCS 1413. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cauvet C, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (2001) Ingénierie des systèmes d’information. HermesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deneckère R, Souveyet C (1998) Patterns for extending an OO model with temporal features. In: Proceedings of the international conference on object-oriented information systems, OOIS’98. Springer, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Firesmith DG, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) The OPEN process framework—an introduction Addison-Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzgerald B (1997) The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Inf Sys J 7(3):201–212CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham I, Henderson-Sellers B, Younessi H (1997) The OPEN process specification. Addison-Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta D, Prakash N (2001) Engineering methods from method requiremnets specifications. Requirments Eng J 6(3):135–160CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harmsen AF (1997) Situational method engineering. Moret Ernst & Young, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harmsen AF, Brinkkemper S, Oei H (1994) Situational method engineering for information system projects. In: Olle TW, Verrijn Stuart AA (eds) Methods and associated tools for the information systems life cycle, Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference CRIS ’94. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 169–194Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iivari J, Maansaari J (1998) The usage of systems development methods: are we stuck to old practice? Inf Sys Technol 40(9):501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Introna LD, Whitley EA (1997) Against methodism: exploring the limits of method. Inf Technol People 10(1):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobson I, Christenson M, Jonsson P, Oevergaard G (1992) Object oriented software engineering a use case driven approach. Addison-Wesley, HarlowMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jarke M, Rolland C, Sutcliffe A, Domges R (1999) The NATURE requirements Engineering. Shaker Verlag, AachenGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2004) Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Inf Softw Technol 46(9):619–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khayati O (2002) Components retrieval systems reuse in object-oriented information systems design. OOIS workshop, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar K, Welke RJ (1992) Method engineering, a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman W, Senn J (eds) Systems analysis and design: a research agenda. Wiley, New York, pp 257–268Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lings B, Lundell B (2004) Method-in-action and method-in-tool: some implications for case. In: Seruca I et al (eds) Proceeedings of the 6th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2004). Insticc Press, pp 623–628Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maiden NAM, Jones SV, Manning S, Greenwood J, Renou L (2004) Model-driven requirements engineering: synchronising models in an air traffic management case study, Proceedings CAISE’04. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, LNCS 3084, pp 368–383Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mili H, Valtchev P, Di-Sciullo A, Gabrini P (2001) Automating the indexing and retrieval of reusable software components. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop NLDB, June 28–29, Madraid, Spain, pp 75–86Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mirbel I, de Rivieres V (2002) Adapting analysis and design to software context: the JECKO approach. In: Proceedings of the international conference on object-oriented information systems (OOIS’02), Montpellier, France, pp 223–22Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mirbel I, de Rivieres V (2003) Conciliating user interface and business domain analysis and design. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on object-oriented information systems, OOIS’03, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mirbel I, de Rivieres V (2003) Towards a UML profile for building on top of running software. In: UML and the Unified Process. IRMA Press, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mirbel I (2004) A polymorphic context frame to support scalability and evolvability of information system development processes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on enterprise information systems, ICEIS’04, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mirbel I (2004) Rethinking ISD methods: fitting project team members profiles. I3S technical report I3S/RR-2004-13-FRGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nilsson A, (2004) Information systems development—past, present and future trends. In: Invited talk in the international conference on information systems development, ISD’04. Vilnius, LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Plihon V, Ralyté J, Benjamen A, Maiden NAM, Sutcliffe A, Dubois E, Heymans P (1998) A reuse-oriented approach for the construction of scenario based methods. In: Proceedings of the international software process association’s 5th international conference on software process (ICSP’98), Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prakash N (1999) On method statics and dynamics. Inf Syst 34(8):613–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prat N (1997) Goal formalisation and classification for requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on requirements engineering: foundations of software quality REFSQ’97, Barcelona, pp 145–156Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pujalte V, Ramadour P (2004) Réutilisation de composants: un processus interactif de recherche. Majecstic’05 CalaisGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Punter HT, Lemmen K (1996) The MEMA model: towards a new approach for method engineering. Inf Softw Technol 38(4):295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ralyté J, Rolland C (2001a) An assembly process model for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE’01), Interlaken, Switzerland, LNCS 2068. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 267–283Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ralyté J, Rolland C (2001b) An approach for method reengineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER2001), Yokohama, Japan, LNCS 2224. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 471–484Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ralyté J (2002) Requirements definition for the situational method engineering. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 working conference on engineering information systems in the internet context (EISIC’02). Kluwer, Kanazawa, pp 127–152Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ralyté J, Rolland C, Deneckère R (2004) Towards a Meta-tool for change-centric method engineering: a typology of generic operators. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference CAISE’04, Riga, Latvia. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ralyté J, Rolland C, Plihon V (1999a) Method enhancement with scenario based techniques. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on advanced information system engineering (CAISE’99), LNCS 1626. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, Germany, pp 103–118Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ralyté J (1999b) Reusing scenario based approaches in requirement engineering methods: CREWS method base. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on database and expert systems applications (DEXA’99), 1st international workshop on the requirements engineering process—innovative techniques, models, tools to support the RE process (REP’99), Florence, Italy. IEEE Computer Society, pp 305–309Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rolland C, Plihon V (1996) Using generic chunks to generate process models fragments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, ICRE ’96, Colorado SpringGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rolland C, Prakash N (1996) A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 conference on method engineering. Chapman & Hall, Atlanta, pp 191–208Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rolland C, Nurcan S, Grosz G (2000) A decision making pattern for guiding the enterprise knowledge development process. J Inf Softw Technol 42:313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rolland C, Plihon V, Ralyté J (1998) Specifying the reuse context of scenario method chunks. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on advanced information system engineering (CAISE’98), Pisa, Italy, LNCS 1413. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 191–218Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rolland C, Souveyet C, Ben Achour C (1998a) Guiding goal modelling using scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1055–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rolland C, Ben Achour C (1998b) Guiding the construction of textual use case specifications. Data Knowl Eng J 25(1):125–160CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rolland C, Prakash N, Benjamen A (1999) A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Eng J 4(4):169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rossi M, Ramesh B, Lyytinen K, Tolvanen J (2004) Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(9):356–391Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saeki M, Iguchi K, Wen-yin K, Shinohara M, (1993) A meta-model for representing software specification & design methods. In: Proceedings of the IFIP¨WG8.1 conference on information systems development process, Come, pp 149–166Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    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. Elsevier, North-Holand, pp 167–186Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    van Slooten K, Hodes B (1996) Characterizing IS development projects. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 conference on method engineering. Chapman and Hall, pp 29–44Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sugumaran V, Storey VC (2003) A semantic-based approach to component retrieval. The database for advances in information systems, vol.34, No 3Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tawbi M, Souveyet C, Rolland C (1998) L’ECRITOIRE a tool to support a goal-scenario based approach to requirements engineering. Inf Softw Technol JGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Object Management Group (2004) Unified modelling language (UML), version 1.5. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire I3SLes AlgorithmesSophia Antipolis CedexFrance
  2. 2.Centre Universitaire d’InformatiqueUniversité de GenèveGenève 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations