Computer-Aided Method Engineering: An Analysis of Existing Environments

  • Ali Niknafs
  • Raman Ramsin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5074)


Analogous to Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE), which aims to facilitate Software Engineering through specialized tools, Computer-Aided Method Engineering (CAME) strives to support a wide range of activities carried out by method engineers. Although there is consensus on the importance of tool support in method engineering, existing CAME environments are incomplete prototypes, each covering just a few steps of the method engineering process. This paper summarizes the history and the state of the practice in CAME technology, and provides criteria-based critique on existing CAME environments, thus highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.


Software Development Methodologies Method Engineering Computer- Aided Method Engineering Criteria-Based Analysis 


  1. 1.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering. Moret Ernst & Young, Utrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolland, C.: A Primer for Method Engineering. In: Proceedings of the INFormatique des ORganisations et Systèmes d’Information et de Décision (INFORSID 1997), Toulouse (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saeki, M.: CAME: The First Step to Automated Method Engineering. In: Workshop on Process Engineering for Object-Oriented and Component-Based Development, Anaheim, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arni-Bloch, N.: Towards a CAME Tools for Situational Method Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, Geneva (2001) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dahanayake, A.N.W.: Computer-Aided Method Engineering: Designing CASE Repositories for the 21st Century. Idea Group Publishing, Delft (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, W.W., Senn, J.A. (eds.) Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Agenda, pp. 257–268. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MetaCase Consulting: Method Workbench User’s Guide, MetaCase Consulting, Jyväskylä, Finland (2005),
  8. 8.
    Saeki, M., Wenyin, K.: Specifying software specification and design methods. In: Wijers, G., Wasserman, T., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) CAiSE 1994. LNCS, vol. 811, pp. 353–366. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: A Method Engineering Language for the Description of Systems Development Methods. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 473–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., Rolland, C.: Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 95–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta, D., Prakash, N.: Engineering Methods from Method Requirements Specifications. J. Requirements Engineering 6(3), 135–160 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leppanen, M.: Conceptual Analysis of Current ME Artifacts in Terms of Coverage: A Contextual Approach. In: 1st Workshop on Situational Engineering Processes, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakash, N., Goyal, S.B.: Towards a Life Cycle for Method Engineering. In: 12th Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramsin, R.: The Engineering of an Object-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Ph.D. Thesis, University of York (2006),
  15. 15.
    Tekinerdoğan, B.: Synthesis-Based Software Architecture Design. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heym, M., Osterle, H.: A Semantic Data Model for Methodology Engineering. In: 5th Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering, pp. 142–155. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit+ A Fully Configurable Multi-User and Multi-Tool CASE and CAME Environment. In: Constantopoulos, P., Vassiliou, Y., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tolvanen, J.P.: Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jyväskylä (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koskinen, M., Marttiin, P.: Process Support in MetaCASE: Implementing the Conceptual Basis for Enactment Process Models in MetaEdit+. In: Ebert, J., Lewerentz, C. (eds.) Software Engineering Environments, pp. 110–123. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koskinen, M.: Beyond Process Modelling Languages: A Metamodelling Approach to Customizable Concepts and Enactability in MetaCASE. In: Proceedings of the 4th Doctoral Consortium on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Barcelona (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brinkkemper, S., Harmsen, F.: Design and Implementation of a Method Base Management System for a Situational CASE Environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 430–438. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Si-Said, S., Rolland, C., Grosz, G.: MENTOR: A Computer Aided Requirements Engineering Environment. In: Constantopoulos, P., Vassiliou, Y., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, pp. 22–43. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Plihon, V., Rolland, C.: Genericity in Method Construction. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 302–311. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolland, C., Plihon, V.: Using Generic Method Chunks to Generate Process Model Fragments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE 1996), pp. 173–181. IEEE Computer Society, Colorado (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plihon, V.: MENTOR: An Environment Supporting the Construction of Methods. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 384–392. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saeki, M.: Configuration Management in a Method Engineering Context. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 384–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): ISO/IEC: 9126: Software engineering - Product quality; Parts 1-4. Geneva (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cugola, G., Ghezzi, C.: Software processes: a retrospective and a path to the future Software Process. J. Improvement and Practice 4(3), 101–123 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zamli, K.Z., Lee, P.A.: Taxonomy of process modeling languages. In: ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, pp. 435–437. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zamli, K.Z.: Process Modeling Languages: A Literature Review. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science 14(2), 26–37 (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harmsen, A.F., Saeki, M.: Comparison of Four Method Engineering Languages. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on method engineering: principles of method construction and tool support, pp. 209–231. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: Meta-modeling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. J. Information Systems 24(3), 209–228 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Niknafs
    • 1
  • Raman Ramsin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations