Situational Method Quality

  • Liming Zhu
  • Mark Staples
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)

Abstract

Some overall method characteristics, such as agility and scalability, have become increasingly important. These characteristics are different from existing method requirements which focus on the functional purposes of individual method chunks and overall methods. Characteristics like agility and scalability are often not embodied in the function of a single method chunk but are instead reflected in constraints over one or more method chunks, connections between method chunks and cross-cutting aspects of the overall method. We propose the concept of method tactics, which are techniques for achieving certain method quality attributes. We identify a list of method tactics focusing on agility and scalability by considering factors that affect these quality attributes. We validate the feasibility of using method tactics by applying them to traditional software development method chunks and deriving practices for agile development. We examine the effectiveness of the tactics by comparing our derived practices with existing practices for agile development. The comparison results show that most of the derived practices are found in existing agile methods. We also identify new practices that may have potential for use in agile methods. The results demonstrate initial support for our proposal for the use of method tactics, and for the extraction or invention of further cross-cutting primitive method tactics for more flexible situational method engineering.

References

  1. 1.
    M. N. Aydin and F. Harmsen, “Making a Method Work for a Project Situation in the Context of CMM,” in Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES), 2002 pp. 158–171.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Bajec, R. Rupnik, and M. Krisper, “A Framework for Reengineering Software Development Methods” in International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA’06), 2006 p. 28.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Bajec, D. Vavpotič, and M. Krisper, “Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 49(4), pp. 345–365,2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Bass, P. Clements, and R. Kazman, Software Architecture in Practice, 2 ed.: Addison-Wesley, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. W. Boehm and R. Turner, Balancing agility and discipline: a guide for the perplexed. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, “Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering,” in 10th International Conference Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’98), 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Cass and L. Osterweil, “Programming Rework in Software Processes,” Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts UM-CS-2002-025, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Domínguez and M. A. Zapata, “Noesis: Towards a situational method engineering technique,” Information Systems, vol. 32(2), pp. 181–222, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Henderson-Sellers and C. Gonzalez-Perez, “A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 47, pp. 49–65, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Henderson-Sellers and A. Qumer, “An Evaluation of the Degree of Agility in Six Agile Methods and its Applicability for Method Engineering,” Information and Software Technology, vol. In Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Karlsson and P. Agerfalk, “Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets” Information and Software Technology, vol. 46(9), pp. 619–633,2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Leffingwell, Scaling software agility: best practices for large enterprises. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Mirbel and J. Ralyte, “Situational Method Engineering: Combining Assembly-based and Roadmap-driven Approaches,” Requirements Engineering, vol. 11(1), pp. 58–78, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Navarrete, P. Botella, and X. Franch, “Reconciling Agility and Discipline in COTS Selection Processes” in the Sixth International IEEE Conference on Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS)-Based Software Systems (ICCBSS’07), 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Nonaka, L. Zhu, M. A. Barbar, and M. Staples, “Project Delay Variability Simulation in Software Product Line Development,,” in International Conference on Software Process (ICSP’07) co-located with ICSE’07, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Northrop, R. Kazman, M. Klein, D. Schmidt, K. Wallnau, and K. Sullivan, “Ultra-Large Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future,” 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Nuseibeh, A. Finkelstein, and J. Kramer, “Method engineering for multi-perspective software development,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 38(4), pp. 267–274, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Osterweil, “Software Processes Are Software Too,” in International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Ralyte, P. Backlund, H. Kuhn, and M. Jeusfeld, “Method Chunks for Interoperability,” in International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER), 2006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Ralyte, R. Deneckere, and C. Rolland, “Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering,” in International Conference Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’03), 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Rossi, J.-P. Tolvanen, B. Ramesh, K. Lyytinen, and J. Kaipala, “Method Rationale in Method Engineering,” in 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. K. Serour and B. Henderson-Sellers, “Introducing Agility: A Case Study of Situational Method Engineering Using the OPEN Process Framework,” in 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’ 04), 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Tian and K. Cooper, “Agile and Software Product Line Methods: Are They So Different?,” in the First International Workshop on Agile Product Line Engineering (APLE’06), 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. v. d. Weerd, S. Brinkkemper, J. Souer, and J. Versendaal, “A Situational Implementation Method for Web-based Content Management System-applications: Method Engineering and Validation in Practice,” Software Process Improvement and Practice, vol. 11, pp. 521–538, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Wise, “Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report,” Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 2006.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    E. Yu, “Towards Modeling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering,” in the Third International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’97), 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. Zhu, R. Jeffery, M. Huo, and T. T. Tran, “Effects of Architecture and Technical Development Process on Micro-Process,” in International Conference on Software Process (ICSP’07) co-located with ICSE’07, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liming Zhu
    • 1
  • Mark Staples
    • 2
  1. 1.NICTAAustralian Technology ParkEveleighAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations