Specification and Management of Methods - A Case for Multi-level Modelling

  • Ulrich FrankEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 352)


The digital transformation creates an increasing demand for projects to prepare and realize change. The professional management of projects demands for methods. In particular, there is not only need for method engineering, but also for managing the use of methods and for method maintenance. In this paper, it will be shown that traditional approaches to method engineering are not only limited with respect to reuse, they also do not support the integration of method engineering and method management. The approach presented in this paper addresses these limitations. It is based on a mult-level language architecture, which enables the common representation of models and code.


Multi-level modelling Language engineering Method engineering 


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC 42010:2007: Systems and software engineering - recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kennel, B.: A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(6), 742–755 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borges Ruy, F., Perini Barcellos, M., de Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G.: An ontological analysis of the ISO/IEC 24744 metamodel. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Superlanguages: developing languages and applications with XMF. Ceteva (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, T., Willans, J.: Software language engineering with XMF and XModeler. In: Mernik, M. (ed.) Formal and Practical Aspects of Domain-Specific Languages, pp. 311–340. Information Science Reference (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D.: On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the adoxx meta modelling platform. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Architectures 8(1), 4–25 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, U.: The flexible multi-level modelling language (fmmlx): Version 2.0: Analysis of requirements and technical terminology. ICB research report, no. 66, university of duisburg-essen (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modelling: Background and terminological foundation. ICB research report, no. 46, university of duisburg-essen (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank, U.: Domain-specific modeling languages - requirements analysis and design guidelines. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Wand, Y., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds.) Domain Engineering: Product Lines, Conceptual Models, and Languages, pp. 133–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frank, U.: Multilevel modeling: toward a new paradigm of conceptual modeling and information systems design. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 319–337 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    González-Pérez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J. Syst. Software 80(11), 1778–1796 (2007). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., González-Pérez, C., Ralyté, J.: Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering. In: Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lyytinen, K., Smolander, K., Tahvanainen, V.-P.: Modelling case environments in systems development. In: Proceedings of CASE 1989, Stockholm (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M., Tolvanen, J.P.: Metaedit+ at the age of 20. In: Bubenko, J. (ed.) Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, pp. 131–137. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Salinesi, C.: Method chunks selection by multicriteria techniques: an extension of the assembly-based approach. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. ITIFIP, vol. 244, pp. 64–78. Springer, Boston, MA (2007). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neumayr, B., Grün, K., Schrefl, M.: Multi-level domain modeling with m-objects and m-relationships. In: Link, S., Kirchberg, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modeling (APCCM), pp. 107–116. Australian Computer Society, Wellington (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rolland, C.: A primer for method engineering (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations