Developer Driven Approach to Situational Method Engineering

  • Antero Järvi
  • Harri Hakonen
  • Tuomas Mäkilä
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 244)


This position paper reflects SME into software development. We argue that to apply SME in software development projects, construction of method fragments should also take place during the project by the method users. The topic is current due to two key technologies, EPF and SPEM, that enable illustrative and prompt method construction. The paper looks at the relevant background in both SME and software development processes, identifies four levels of method management work, discusses the method reuse strategy, and presents an example of on-the-fly method construction.


Method Construction Object Management Group Software Development Project Software Process Improvement Method Fragment 
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.


  1. 1.
    Object Management Group. Software Process Engineering Meta-model Specification, v2.0 Final Adopted Specification ptc/07-03-03, 2007.
  2. 2.
    Eclipse process framework project homepage. Accessed on May 31 2007.
  3. 3.
    Mauri Leppänen. Conceptual evaluation of methods for engineering situational ISD methods. Softw. Process Improve. Pract., 11:539–555, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Philippe Kruchten. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction (Second Edition). Addison-Wesley Professional, March 14 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barry Boehm and Richard Turner. Balancing Agility and Discipline, A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alistair Cockburn. Selecting a projects methodology. IEEE Software, pages 64–71, July/August 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Isabelle Mirbel and Jolita Ralyté. Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Engineering, 11:58–78, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ivar Jacobson, Pan-Wei Ng, and Ian Spence. Enough of processes: Let’s do practices part I. Dr.Dobb’s Journal, April 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ivan Aaen. Software process improvement: Blueprints versus receipes. IEEE Software, pages 86–93, October 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antero Järvi, Tuomas Mäkilä, and Harri Hakonen. Changing role of SPI — opportunities and challenges of process modeling. In The Proceedings of the 13th European Conference, EuroSPI 2006, LNCS 4257, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ralph-Johan Back, Luka Milovanov, and Ivan Porres. Software development and experimentation in an academic environment: The Gaudí factory. In Product Focused Software Process Improvement, LNCS 3547, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antero Järvi
    • 1
  • Harri Hakonen
    • 2
  • Tuomas Mäkilä
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUniversity of TurkuFinland
  2. 2.Aginit OyTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations