Advertisement

Using Contextual Goal Models for Constructing Situational Methods

  • Jolita RalytéEmail author
  • Xavier Franch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11157)

Abstract

Situation and intention are two fundamental notions in situational method engineering (SME). They are used to assess the context of an ISD project and to specify method requirements in this context. They also allow defining the goals of the method chunks and the conditions under which they can be applied. In this way, the selection and assembly of method chunks for a particular ISD project is driven by matching situational method requirements to method chunks’ goals and context descriptions. In this paper we propose the use of contextual goal models for supporting all SME steps. Our approach is based on iStar2.0 modeling language that we extend with contextual annotations.

Keywords

Situational Method Engineering Contextual goal model iStar2.0 

References

  1. 1.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolland, C.: Method engineering: towards methods as services. Softw. Process Improve. Pract 14, 143–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A method assessment framework. In: Ralyté, J., Mirbel, I., Deneckère, R. (eds.) ME 2011. IAICT, vol. 351, pp. 64–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19997-4_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ralyté, J.: Requirements definition for the situational method engineering. In: Rolland, C., Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) Engineering Information Systems in the Internet Context. ITIFIP, vol. 103, pp. 127–152. Springer, Boston (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35614-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requir. Eng. J. 11(1), 58–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dalpiaz, F., Franch, X., Horkoff, J.: iStar 2.0 Language Guide. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07767
  7. 7.
    van Slooten, K., Hodes, B.: Characterizing IS development projects. In: Brinkkemper, S., Lyytinen, K., Welke, R.J. (eds.) Method Engineering. ITIFIP, pp. 29–44. Springer, Boston (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35080-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Claudepierre, B.: Contextualization of method components. In: RCIS 2010, pp. 235–246. IEEE Computer Society Press (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franch, X., et al.: A situational approach for the definition and tailoring of a data-driven software evolution method. In: Krogstie, J., Reijers, Hajo A. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10816, pp. 603–618. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91563-0_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir. Eng. J. 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Rolland, C.: Method families concept: application to decision-making methods. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD-2011. LNBIP, vol. 81, pp. 413–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    López, L., Costal, D., Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Méndez, L., Annosi, M.C.: OSSAP – a situational method for defining open source software adoption processes. In: Nurcan, S., Soffer, P., Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9694, pp. 524–539. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, E.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An approach for method reengineering. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 471–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45581-7_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohl, K.: Requirements engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carrizo, D., Dieste, O., Juristo, N.: Systematizing requirements elicitation technique selection. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(6), 644–669 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations