Advertisement

Software Processes Management by Method Engineering with MESP

  • Masud Fazal-BaqaieEmail author
  • Gregor Engels
Chapter

Abstract

Software process management (SPM) is seen as a key factor for the resulting quality of software. Based on our experience in industrial process improvement projects, we see two major challenges to apply SPM effectively. Thereby, in our work, we focus on the method aspect of software development processes. First, methods have to be tailored consistently to projects by composing agile as well as plan-driven method building blocks. Second, methods have to be enactable to ensure that they are put into practice as intended. In this chapter, we present our assembly-based method engineering approach called Method Engineering with Method Services and Method Patterns (MESP) and explain how it tackles common SPM challenges. MESP follows the service-oriented paradigm to create formally defined composition-based methods. The methods are created specifically for individual projects based on their characteristics. They are composed based on an extensible repository of formally defined method building blocks extracted from agile and plan-driven methods. With our novel notion of method patterns, we allow to restrict the solution space of method compositions to the desired ones. In addition, we provide tooling to define building blocks and to compose them to methods consistently and we support the correct enactment of methods with a workflow engine.

Keywords

Project Team Work Product Situational Factor Object Constraint Language Agile Method 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldazabal, A., Baily, T., Nanclares, F., Sadovykh, A., Hein, C., Esser, M., Ritter, T.: Automated model driven development processes. In: Proceedings of the ECMDA Workshop on Model Driven Tool and Process Integration, pp. 43–54. IRB, Stuttgart (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bekkers, W., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Mahieu, A.: The influence of situational factors in software product management: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Product Management, pp. 41–48. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bendraou, R., Combemale, B., Cregut, X., Gervais, M.P.: Definition of an executable SPEM 2.0. In: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 390–397. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W., Turner, R.: Observations on balancing discipline and agility. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Agile Development, pp. 32–39. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cervera, M., Albert, M., Torres, V., Pelechano, V.: Turning method engineering support into reality. In: Engineering Methods in the Service-Oriented Context. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 351, pp. 138–152. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockburn, A.: Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Softw. 17(4), 64–71 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ellner, R., Al-Hilank, S., Drexler, J., Jung, M., Kips, D., Philippsen, M.: eSPEM – A SPEM extension for enactable behavior modeling. In: Modelling Foundations and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6138, pp. 116–131. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellner, R., Al-Hilank, S., Jung, M., Kips, D., Philippsen, M.: An integrated tool chain for software process modeling and execution. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications, pp. 73–82. Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Copenhagen, Denmark (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Fazal-Baqaie, M.: Situational method engineering research group. http://is.uni-paderborn.de/en/research-group/fg-engels/research/themen/situational-method-engineering.html (2015)
  13. 13.
    Fazal-Baqaie, M.: Project-specific software engineering methods: modularization, composition, enactment, and quality assurance. Ph.D. thesis, Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany (to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fazal-Baqaie, M., Luckey, M., Engels, G.: Assembly-based method engineering with method patterns. In: Proceedings of the German Software Engineering Conference. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 215, pp. 435–444. German Computer Society (GI e.V.) (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fazal-Baqaie, M., Gerth, C., Engels, G.: Breathing life into situational software engineering methods. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8892, pp. 281–284. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    González-Pérez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Metamodelling for Software Engineering. Wiley, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational method engineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Twente, Netherlands (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heijstek, W., Chaudron, M.R.V., Libing Qiu, Schouten, C.C.: A comparison of industrial process descriptions for global custom software development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 277–284. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. J. Univers. Comput.Sci. 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M., Steenweg, R.: Systematic software process development: where do we stand today? In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 166–170. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuhrmann, M., Linssen, O.: Vorgehensmodelle in Deutschland: Nutzung von 2006–2013 im überblick. GI WI-MAW Rundbrief 2015(39), 32–47 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuhrmann, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Tiessler, M.: A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 26(12), 1053–1073 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., Münch, J., García, F., Piattini, M.: Requirements and constructors for tailoring software processes: a systematic literature review. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), 229–260 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nguyen-Duc, A., Cruzes, D.S.: Coordination of software development teams across organizational boundary – an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 216–225. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OASIS: Web Services – Human Task (WS-HumanTask) Specification Version 1.1 - Committee Draft 10 / Public Review Draft 04. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php?wg_abbrev=bpel4people (2010)
  27. 27.
    OMG: Software and systems process engineering metamodel specification (SPEM) 2.0. Omg standard, Object Management Group (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMG: Object Constraint Language 2.4. Technical report, Object Management Group (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 2–13. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (1987)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An assembly process model for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2068, pp. 267–283. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.): Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 244. Springer, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ralyté, J., Mirbel, I., Deneckère, R. (eds.): Engineering methods in the service-oriented context – 4th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Method Engineering. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 351. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rolland, C.: Method engineering: towards methods as services. Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 14(3), 143–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Verhoef, T.F.: On the feasibility of situational method engineering. Inf. Syst. 22(6–7), 401–422 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Versendaal, J.: Concepts for incremental method evolution: empirical exploration and validation in requirements management. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4495, pp. 469–484. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vijayasarathy, L., Butler, C.: Choice of software development methodologies - do project, team and organizational characteristics matter? IEEE Softw. 99, 1ff (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vlaanderen, K., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: The online method engine: from process assessment to method execution. In: Engineering Methods in the Service-Oriented Context. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 351, pp. 108–122. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wise, A., Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., McCall, E.K., Osterweil, L.J., Sutton, S.M.: Using Little-JIL to coordinate agents in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 155–163. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Database and Information Systems Research GroupUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations