Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring agile values in method configuration

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

The Method for Method Configuration (MMC) has been proposed as a method engineering approach to tailoring information systems development methods. This meta-method has been used on a variety of methods, but none of these studies have focused on the ability to manage method tailoring with the intention to promote specific values and goals, such as agile ones. This paper explores how MMC has been used during three software development projects to manage method tailoring with the intention to promote agile goals and values. Through content examples of method configurations we have shown that it is possible to use MMC and its conceptual framework on eXtreme Programming and we report on lessons learned with regard to maintaining coherency with the overall goals of the original method.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ågerfalk PJ (2006) Towards better understanding of agile values in global software development. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (KROGSTIE J, HALPIN T and PROPER E, Eds), Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ and Fitzgerald B (2006a) Exploring the concept of method rationale: a conceptual tool for method tailoring. In Advanced Topics in Database Research (SIAU K, Ed.), pp 63–78, Idea Group, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ and Fitzgerald B (2006b) Flexible and distributed software processes: old petunias in new bowls? Communications of the ACM 49 (10), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin MN, Harmsen F, Van Slooten K and Stegwee RA (2005) On the adaptation of an agile information systems development method. Journal of Database Management 16 (4), 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M, Vavpotič D and Krisper M (2006) Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Information and Software Technology 49 (4), 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili VR and Rombach HD (1987) Tailoring the software process to project goals and environments. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp 345–357, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck K (2000) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresciani P, Perini A, Giorgini P, Giunchiglia F and Mylopoulos J (2004) Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8 (3), 203–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S, Harmsen AF and Han Oei JL (1994) Situational method engineering for informational system project approaches. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle (OLLE TW and VERRIJN-STUART AA, Eds), pp 169–194, Elsevier, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron J (2002) Configurable development processes. Communications of the ACM 45 (3), 72–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G and Conboy K (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (2), 200–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B, Russo NL and O’Kane T (2003) Software development method tailoring at motorola. Communications of the ACM 46 (4), 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Giorgini P and Henderson-Sellers B (2009) Method construction by goal analysis. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems Development (BARRY C, LANG M, WOJTKOWSKI W, WOJTKOWSKI G, WRYCZA S and ZUPANCIC J, Eds), pp 76–88, Springer-Verlag, Galway, Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen AF (1997) Situational Method Engineering. University of Twente, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B and Serour MK (2005) Creating a dual-agility method: the value of method engineering. Journal of Database Management 16 (4), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Serour MK, Gonzalez-Perez C and Ralyté J (2008) Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering. In Proceedings of the 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (HUSSAIN FK, Ed.), pp 479–488, IEEE Computer Society, Perth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F and Ågerfalk PJ (2004) Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology 46 (9), 619–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F and Ågerfalk PJ (2005) Method-user-centred method configuration. In Proceedings of the Situational Requirements Engineering Processes – Methods, Techniques and Tools to Support Situation-Specific Requirements Engineering Processes (SREP’05) (RALYTÉ J, ÅGERFALK PJ and KRAIEM N, Eds), pp 31–43, University of Limerick, Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F and Wistrand K (2006) Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (1), 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpela M, Mursu A, Soriyan A, Eerola A, Häkkinen H and Toivanen M (2004) Information systems research and development by activity analysis and development: dead horse or the next wave? In IFIP International Federation for Information Processing (KAPLAN B, TRUEX III D, WASTELL D, WOOD-HARPER A and DEGROSS J, Eds), pp 453–471, Springer, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruchten P (2004) The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K and Welke R (1992) Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation specific methodology construction. In Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development (COTTERMAN WW and SEEN JA, Eds), pp 257–269, John Wiley & Sons, Washington, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly 13 (1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lings B and Lundell B (2004) Method-in-action and method-in-tool: some implications for CASE. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (SERUCA I, CORDEIRO U, HAMMOUDI S and FILIPE J, Eds), pp 623–628, INSTICC Press, Porto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Liao S, Wang H and Yu E (2001) Exploring alternatives during requirements analysis. IEEE Software 18 (1), 92–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niknafs A and Ramsin R (2008) Computer-aided method engineering: an analysis of existing environments. In The 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (BELLAHSÈNE Z and LÉONARD M, Eds), pp 525–540, Springer, Montepellier, France.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson AG (1999) The business developer's toolbox: chains and alliances between established methods. In Perspectives on Business Modelling: Understanding and Changing Organisations (NILSSON AG, TOLIS C and NELLBORN C, Eds), pp 217–241, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Odell JJ (1996) A primer to method engineering. In method engineering: principles of method construction and tool support. In Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.7/8.2 Working conference on method engineering (BRINKKEMPER S, LYYTINEN K and WELKE RJ, Eds), pp 1–7, Springer, Atlanta, U.S.A..

    Google Scholar 

  • Paige R and Brooke P (2005) Agile formal method engineering. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods (ROMIJN JMT, SMITH GP and VAN DE POL JC, Eds), pp 109–128, Springer, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plihon V (1996) MENTOR: an environment supporting the construction of methods. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Softeware Engineering Conference, p 384, IEEE Computer Society, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qumer A and Henderson-Sellers B (2006) Measuring agility and adaptability of agile methods: a 4-dimensional analytical tool. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Applied Computing 2006 (GUIMARÃES N, ISAIAS P and GIOIKOETXEA A, Eds), pp 503–507, IADIS Press, San Sebastian, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Deneckère R and Rolland C (2003) Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In Proceeedings of 15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (EDER J and MISSIKOFF M, Eds), pp 95–110, Springer, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C and Prakash N (1996) A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering on Method Engineering (BRINKKEMPER S, LYYTINEN K and WELKE R, Eds), pp 191–208, Chapman & Hall, Atlanta, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Ramesh B, Lyytinen K and Tolvanen J-P (2004) Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of Association of Information Systems 5 (9), 356–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Tolvanen J-P, Ramesh B, Lyytinen K and Kaipala J (2000) Method rationale in method engineering. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp 1–10, IEEE Computer Society Press, Maui, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo N, Wynekoop J and Walz DB (1995) The use and adaptation of system development methodologies. In Proceedings of the International Conference of International Resources Management Association (KHOSROWPOUR M, Ed), p 162, Idea Group Publishing, Atlanta, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serour MK and Henderson-Sellers B (2004) Introducing agility: a case study of situational method engineering using the open process framework. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Application Conference, pp 50–57, IEEE Computer Society, Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolterman E and Russo NL (1997) The paradox of information systems methods – public and private rationality. In Proceedings of the British Computer Society 5th Annual Conference on Methodologies. Lancaster, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunyaev A, Hansen M and Krcmar H (2008) Method engineering: A formal description. In Proceedings of the In Information Systems Development: Towards a Service Provision Society (PAPADOPOULUS GA, WOJTOWSKI W, WOJTOWSKI WG, WRYCZA S and ZUPANIC J, Eds), Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen J-P (1998) Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools: Theoretical Principles and Empirical Evidence. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Slooten K and Hodes B (1996) Characterizing IS development projects. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering on Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support (BRINKKEMPER S, LYYTINEN K and WELKE R, Eds), pp 29–44, Chapman & Hall, Atlanta, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistrand K and Karlsson F (2004) Method components – rationale revealed. In The 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE 2004) (Persson A and Stirna J, Eds), Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood J and Silver D (1995) Joint Application Development. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MELAB, Swedish Business School at Örebro University, Sweden

    Fredrik Karlsson

  2. Department of Information Science, Uppsala University, Sweden

    Pär Ågerfalk

Authors
  1. Fredrik Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pär Ågerfalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Karlsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karlsson, F., Ågerfalk, P. Exploring agile values in method configuration. Eur J Inf Syst 18, 300–316 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.20

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.20

Keywords

Search

Navigation