Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 361–390 | Cite as

Enhancing the OPEN Process Framework with service-oriented method fragments

  • Mahdi Fahmideh Gholami
  • Mohsen SharifiEmail author
  • Pooyan Jamshidi
Regular Paper


Service orientation is a promising paradigm that enables the engineering of large-scale distributed software systems using rigorous software development processes. The existing problem is that every service-oriented software development project often requires a customized development process that provides specific service-oriented software engineering tasks in support of requirements unique to that project. To resolve this problem and allow situational method engineering, we have defined a set of method fragments in support of the engineering of the project-specific service-oriented software development processes. We have derived the proposed method fragments from the recurring features of 11 prominent service-oriented software development methodologies using a systematic mining approach. We have added these new fragments to the repository of OPEN Process Framework to make them available to software engineers as reusable fragments using this well-known method repository.


Service-oriented software development OPEN Process Framework OPF repository Method fragment Situational method engineering 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Di Nitto E., Ghezzi C., Metzger A., Papazoglou M., Pohl K.: A journey to highly dynamic, self-adaptive service-based applications. Autom. Softw. Eng. 15(3–4), 313–341 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papazoglou P., Traverso P., Dustdar S., Leymann F.: Service-oriented computing: state of the art and research challenges. IEEE Comput. 40(11), 38–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsai, W.T.: Service-oriented system engineering: a new paradigm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), pp. 3–6, Beijing, China, 2005Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Qing. G., Lago, P.: Guiding the selection of service-oriented software engineering methodologies. Service Oriented Comput. Appl. 1–21 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s11761-011-0080-0
  5. 5.
    Kumar K., Welke R.J.: Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, W.W., Senn, J.A. (eds) Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, pp. 257–269. Wiley, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinkkemper S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ralyte, J.: Towards situational methods for information systems development: engineering reusable method chunks. In: Proceedings of the 13th Int. Conf. on Information Systems Development. Advances in Theory, Practice and Education, pp. 271–282, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ralyté J., Rolland C.: An assembly process model for method engineering. In: Dittrich, K.L., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 267–283. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Firesmith D.G., Henderson-Sellers B.: The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen, V.P., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Towards automated support for method engineering with the OPEN approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th IASTED SEA Conference, pp. 691–696. ACTA Press, Anaheim (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harmsen, A.F., Brinkkemper, S., Oei, H.: Situational method engineering for information systems projects. In: Olle, T.W., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (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 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An approach for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER2001). LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 471–484. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Ralyté, J.: Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 19th Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC2008), pp. 479–488, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Firesmith D.G., Henderson-Sellers B.: The OPEN Process Framework. Addison-Wesley, London (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham I., Henderson-Sellers B., Younessi H.: The OPEN Process Specification, pp. 314–465. Addison-Wesley, London (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fahmideh, M., Jamshidi, P., Shams, F.: A procedure for extracting software development process patterns. In: Proceedings of the 5th UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation (EMS), pp. 75–83 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen, V.P., Henderson-Sellers, B.: OPENPC: a tool to automate aspects of method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software and Systems Engineering and Their Applications, ICSSEA 2003, Paris, France (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar K., Welke R.J.: Method engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, W.W., Senn, J.A. (eds) Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Agenda, pp. 257–268. Wiley, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson-Sellers B., Ralyté J.: Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hofstede A.H.M., Verhoef T.F.: On the feasibility of situational method engineering. Inf. Syst. J. 22(6/7), 401–422 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saeki, M.: Toward automated method engineering: supporting method assembly in CAME. In: Workshop on Engineering Methods to Support Information Systems Evolution EMSISE’03, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serour, M.K., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The Role of Organization Culture on the Adoption and Diffusion of Software Engineering Process: An Empirical Study Pearson/IFIP, pp. 76–88, Sydney, Australia, 2002Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henderson-Sellers B., Edwards J.M.: BOOKTWO of Object-Oriented Knowledge: The Working Object, pp. 594–634. Prentice-Hall, Sydney (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graham I.: Migrating to Object Technology. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO/IEC Software Engineering: Metamodel for Development Methodologies, ISO/IEC 24744, International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Informational Website on the OPEN Process Framework (OPF).
  27. 27.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Hutchison, J.: (2003) Usage-centered design (UCD) and the OPEN process framework (OPF). In: Constantine, L.L. (ed.) Performance by Design. Proceedings of USE2003, Second International Conference on Usage-Centered Design, pp. 171–196. Ampersand Press, Rowley (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMG: OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.4, OMG Documents Formal/01-09-68 through 80 (13 Documents), 2001.
  29. 29.
    Firesmith D., Henderson-Sellers B., Graham I.: OPEN Modeling Language (OML): Reference Manual, pp. 276–285. SIGS Books, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nguyen, V.P., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Towards automated support for method engineering with the OPEN approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th IASTED Sea Conference, pp. 691–696. Acta Press, Anaheim (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bass L., Clements P., Kazman R.: Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, London (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Henderson-Sellers B., Simons A.J.H., Younessi H.: The OPEN Toolbox of Techniques. Pearson Education Limited, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Henderson-Sellers B.: An OPEN process for component-based development. In: Heineman, G.T., Councill, W. (eds) Component-Based Software Engineering: Putting the Pieces Together, pp. 321–340. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haire, B., Henderson-Sellers, B., Lowe, D.: Supporting web development in the OPEN process: additional tasks. In: Proceedings of 25th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. COMPSAC 2001, pp. 383–389. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henderson-Sellers B., Haire B., Lowe D.: Using OPEN’s Deontic matrices for e-business. In: Rolland, C., Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M. (eds) Engineering Information Systems in the Internet Context, pp. 9–30. Kluwer, Boston (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henderson-Sellers B., France R.B., Georg G., Reddy R.: A method engineering approach to developing aspect-oriented modeling processes based on the open process framework. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49(7), 761–773 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Debenham J., Henderson-Sellers B.: Designing agent-based process systems—extending the OPEN process framework. In: Plekhanova, V. (ed) Chapter VIII in Intelligent Agent Software Engineering, pp. 160–190. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Debenham, J.: Towards OPEN methodological support for agent-oriented systems development. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agent-Based Technologies and Systems, pp. 14–24. University of Canada, Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Low G., Mouratidis H., Henderson-Sellers B.: Using a situational method engineering approach to identify reusable method fragments from the secure TROPOS methodology. J. Object Technol. 9(4), 93–125 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    BrescianiP. Giorgini P., Giunchiglia F., Mylopoulos J., Perini A.: TROPOS: an agent oriented software development methodology. J. Autono. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Penserini L., Perini A., Susi A., Mylopoulos J.: High variability design for software agents: extending Tropos. ACM Trans. Autonom. Adapt. Syst. 2(4), 16–27 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Serour, M.: Creating a Process for Transitioning to Object Technology. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2000, pp. 436–440. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2004Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Serour M., Henderson-Sellers B., Hughes J., Winder D., Chow L.: Organizational transition to object technology: theory and practice. In: Bellahse‘ne, Z., Patel, D., Rolland, C. (eds) Object-Oriented Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 2425, pp. 229–241. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Henderson-Sellers B., Hutchison J.: Usage-Centered Design (UCD) and the OPEN Process Framework (OPF). In: Constantine, L.L. (ed) Performance by Design. Proceedings of USE2003, Second International Conference on Usage-Centered Design, pp. 171–196. Ampersand Press, Rowley (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fahmideh, M., Shams, M., Jamshidi, P: Toward a methodological knowledge for service-oriented development based on open meta-model. In: 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Computer Systems (ICSECS2011), Pahang, Malaysia, 2011Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Papazoglou M.P., Traverso P., Dustdar S., Leymann F.: Service-oriented computing: state of the art and research challenges. IEEE Comput. 40(11), 38–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lane, S., Richardson, I.: Process models for service based applications: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.005
  48. 48.
    Ramollari, E., Dranidis, D., Simons, A.J.H.: A Survey of service-oriented development methodologies. In: The 2nd European Young Researchers Workshop on Service-Oriented Computing, Leicester, UK, June 2007Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fahmideh, M., Habibi, J., Shams, F., Khoshnevis, S.: Criteria-based evaluation framework for service-oriented methodologies, UKSim. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation, pp. 122–130. Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Graham, S.: Building Web Services with Java, 2nd edn. SAMS Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Papazoglou M.P., Heuvel W.V.D.: Service-oriented design and development methodology. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 2(4), 412–442 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Arsanjani A., Ghosh S., Allam A., Abdollah T., Ganapathy S., Holley K.: SOMA: a method for developing service-oriented solutions. IBM Syst. J. 47(3), 377–396 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    SUN Microsystems: SOA RQ Methodology—A Pragmatic Approach.
  54. 54.
    Kruchten P.: Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Beck K., Andres C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Abrahamsson P., Salo O., Ronkainen J., Warsta J.: Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications, Finland (2002)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    Erl T.: Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Keith M.: SOMA, RUP and RMC: The Right Combination for Service-Oriented Architecture. \({{\rm IBM}^{\circledR}{\rm WebSphere}^{\circledR}}\) User Group, Bedfont (2008)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zimmermann, O., Krogdahl, P., Gee, C.: Elements of Service-Oriented Analysis and Design. IBM Corporation (2004).
  61. 61.
    Mittal. K.: Service-Oriented Unified Process (SOUP) (2006).
  62. 62.
    Chang, S., Kim, S.: A systematic approach to service-oriented analysis and design. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFESS 2007), pp. 374–388. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jones, S.: A Methodology for Service Architectures. Capgemini UK Plc, UK (2005).
  64. 64.
    Erradi, A.: SOAF: An architectural framework for service definition and realization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 151–158, Chicago, USA, September 2006Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ralyté, J.: Towards situational methods for information systems development: engineering reusable method chunks. In: Proceedings of ISD 2004, pp. 271–282, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2004Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ambler S.W.: Process Patterns Building Large-Scale Systems using Object Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fahmideh, M., Sharifi, M., Jamshidi, P., Shams, F., Haghighi, H.: Process Patterns for Service-Oriented Software Development. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS’2011), Guadeloupe, French West Indies, France, 2011Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Meier, F.: Service-Oriented Architecture Maturity Models: A Guide to SOA Adoption, Meier Fabian, Student Thesis (2006)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
  70. 70.
    Almonaies, A., Cordy, J.R., Dean, T.R.: Legacy System Evolution Towards Service-Oriented Architecture. In: Proceedings of SOAME 2010, International Workshop on SOA Migration and Evolution, pp. 53–62, Madrid, Spain, March 2010Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    McBride, G.: The Role of SOA Quality Management in SOA Service Lifecycle Management (2007).
  72. 72.
    Johnston, S.: UML 2.0 Profile for Software Services, IBM, Software Group.
  73. 73.
    Perepletchikov, M., Ryan, C., Frampton, K., Tari, Z.: Coupling metrics for predicting maintainability in service-oriented designs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC’07), pp. 329–340, Melbourne, Australia, (2007)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Perepletchikov, M., Ryan, C., Frampton, K.: Cohesion Metrics for Predicting Maintainability of Service-Oriented Software, pp. 328–335. QSIC, Portland (2007)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Garlan D.: Software Architecture. In: Finkekstein, A. (ed) A Roadmap in the Future of Software Engineering, ACM Press, NY (2000)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Canfora, G., Fasolino, A.R., Frattolillo, G., Tramontana, P.: Migrating Interactive Legacy Systems to Web Services. In: CSMR, pp. 24–36 (2006)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Canfora G., Fasolino A.R., Frattolillo G., Tramontana P.: A wrapping approach for migrating legacy system interactive functionalities to service oriented architectures. J. Syst. Softw. 81(4), 463–480 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stroulia, E., El-Ramly, M., Sorenson, P.G., Penner, R.: Legacy Systems Migration in CelLEST. In: ICSE Posters (2000)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Stroulia, E., El-Ramly, M., Sorenson, P.G.: From Legacy to Web through Interaction Modeling. In: ICSM, pp. 320–329. Montreal, QC, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sneed, H.M.: Wrapping Legacy Software for Reuse in SOA, Technical Report (2005).
  81. 81.
    Business Process Modeling Initiative: Business Process Modeling Language.
  82. 82.
    Leymann, F.: Web Service Flow Language (2001).
  83. 83.
    Andrews, T., Curbera, F., Dholakia, H., Goland, Y.: Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, Version 1.0.31. (2002).
  84. 84.
    Rao, J., Su., X.: A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Semantic Web Services and Web Process Composition, SWSWPC 2004, San Diego, CA, USA, 6 July 2004Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dustdar S., Schreiner W.: A survey on web services composition. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 1, 1–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Henderson-Sellers B., Qumer A.: Using method engineering to make a traditional environment agile. Cutter IT J. 20(5), 61–74 (2007)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    IK Relief Foundation.
  88. 88.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Towards the use of granularity theory for determining the size of atomic method fragments for use in situational method engineering. In: IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Method Engineering—ME’11, Paris, France, 2011 (in press)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Boehm, B.: Software Engineering Economic, p. 37. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pressman R.: Software Engineering. A practitioner’s approach, 6th edn, pp. 388. McGraw-Hill, NY (2005)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mili H., Mili F., Mili A.: Reusing software: issues and research directions. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(6), 528–562 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Maiden N.A., Sutcliffe A.G.: Exploiting reusable specifications through analogy. Commun. ACM 35(4), 55–64 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Purao, S., Storey, V.: APSARA: a web-based tool to automate system design via intelligent pattern retrieval and synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Information Technologies & Systems, pp. 180–189, Atlanta, GA, 1997Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Han T., Purao S., Storey V.C.: Generating large-scale repositories of reusable artifacts for conceptual design of information systems. Decis. Support Syst. 45(4), 665–680 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ramsin R., Paige R.F.: Process-centered review of object-oriented software development methodologies. ACM Comput. Surv. 40(1), 1–89 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kenzi, A., El Asri, B., Nassar, M., Kriouile, A.: A model driven framework for multiview service oriented system development. In: International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, pp. 404–411. IEEE Computer Society, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Object Management Group, MDA Guide Version 1.0.1. OMG (2000)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ralyté, J., Brinkkamper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.): Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, September 12–14. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 244. Springer, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Koch, N., Mazzanti, F.: Formal verification of an automotive scenario in service-oriented computing. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’08), Leipzig, Germany, pp. 613–622. ACM Press, NY (2008)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Perry D.E., Porter A.A., Votta L.G.: Empirical studies of software engineering: a roadmap. In: Finkelstein, A. (ed) Proceedings of the Conference on Future of Software Engineering, ACM Press, NY (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahdi Fahmideh Gholami
    • 1
  • Mohsen Sharifi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pooyan Jamshidi
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.School of Computing, Lero-The Irish Software Engineering Research CentreDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations