A Domain Engineering Approach for Situational Method Engineering

  • Anat Aharoni
  • Iris Reinhartz-Berger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5231)

Abstract

Methodologies are one of the most significant key factors to the success of project development. Since there is no single methodology that can be uniquely pointed as “the best", the discipline of situational method engineering (SME) promotes the idea of creating method components, rather than complete methodologies, and tailoring them to specific situations at hand. In this paper we present a holistic approach, called ADOM-SME, for representing method components and tailoring them into situational methodologies. This approach, whose roots are in the area of domain engineering (also known as product line engineering), supports specifying the five main methodological aspects (products, work units, stages, producers, and model units), as well as instantiating them into endeavour concepts, using a single frame of reference. Furthermore, the proposed approach enriches the standard metamodel for development methodologies, ISO/IEC 24744, by supporting the creation of valid situational methodologies and guiding their tailoring.

Keywords

Method Engineering Situational Method Engineering Meta-modeling ISO/IEC 24744 Domain Engineering Product Line Engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ankolekar, A., Martin, D.L., Zeng, H.J.R., Sycara, K., Burstein, P.M., Lassila, O., Mcilraith, S.A., Narayanan, S., Payne: DAML-S: Semantic markup for web services. In: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Workshop (SWWS), pp. 411–430 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: Assembly techniques for method engineering. In: Pernici, B., Thanos, C. (eds.) CAiSE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1413, pp. 381–400. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic System Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Extreme Programming Web Site (2006), http://www.extremeprogramming.org
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Supporting Situational Method Engineering with ISO/IEC 24744 and the Work Product Pool Approach. In: Proceedings on Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 7–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A work product pool approach to methodology specification and enactment. J. Syst. Software (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.10.001Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A metamodel for assessable software development methodologies. Software Qual. J (in press, 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graham, I., Henderson-Sellers, B., Younessi, H.: The OPEN Process Specification. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grundmann, M.: A CMMI Maturity Level 2 assessment of RUP, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/dec05/grundmann/
  11. 11.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: SPI – A Role for Method Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. MA.ISO/IEC, 2004. ISO/IEC 15504-1. Software Process Assessment – Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 24744, Software Engineering – Metamodel for Development Methodologies, 1st edn. (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mirbel, I., de Rivieres, V.: Adapting Analysis and Design to Software Context: the JECKO Approach. In: Bellahsène, Z., Patel, D., Rolland, C. (eds.) OOIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2425, pp. 223–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Engineering 11(1), 58–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mirbel, I.: Rethinking ISD methods: Fitting project team members profiles. I3S technical report I3S/RR-2004-13-FR (2004), http://www.i3s.unice.fr/~mirbel/publis/im-isd-04.pdf
  17. 17.
    Mirbel, I.: Method chunk federation (2006), http://www.i3s.unice.fr/~mh/RR/2006/RR-06.04-I.MIRBEL.pdf
  18. 18.
    OMG, Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, Version 1.1 (2005), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05-01-06.pdf
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    OPEN Process Framework (OPF) Web Site, http://www.opfro.org/
  22. 22.
    Punter, H.T., Lemmen, K.: The MEMA-model: towards a new approach for Method Engineering. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 295–305 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ralyté, J., Deneckere, 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
  24. 24.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D.: A Reflective Metamodel of Object-Process Methodology: The System Modeling Building Blocks. In: Green, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies, pp. 130–173. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A.: Enhancing UML Models: A Domain Analysis Approach. Journal on Database Management (JDM) 19(1), 74–94 (2007); special issue on UML TopicsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schach, S.R.: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with UML and the Unified Process. McGraw-Hill/Irwin (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soffer, P., Golany, B., Dori, D., Wand, Y.: Modelling Off-the-Shelf Information Systems Requirements: An Ontological Approach. Requirements Engineering 6(3), 183–199 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Soffer, P., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A.: Facilitating Reuse by Specialization of Reference Models for Business Process Design. In: The 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (BPMDS 2007), in conjunction with CAiSE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Software Engineering Institute, CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1, Continuous. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Continuous Representation, version 1.1 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sturm, A., Reinhartz-Berger, I.: Applying the Application-based Domain Modeling Approach to UML Structural Views. In: Atzeni, P., Chu, W., Lu, H., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 766–779. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Toch, E., Gal, A., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D.: A Semantic Approach to Approximate Service Retrieval. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 8(1) (2007), OPOSSUM is available at: http://dori.technion.ac.il/
  32. 32.
    Zowghi1, D., Firesmith, D.G., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Using the OPEN Process Framework to Produce a Situation-Specific Requirements Engineering Method. In: Proceedings of SREP 2005, pp. 29–30 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anat Aharoni
    • 1
  • Iris Reinhartz-Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations