Enhancing Tool Support for Situational Engineering of Agile Methodologies in Eclipse

  • Zahra Shakeri Hossein AbadEmail author
  • Anahita Alipour
  • Raman Ramsin
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 430)


In recent years, with the growth of software engineering, agile software development methodologies have also grown substantially, replacing plan-driven approaches in many areas. Although prominent agile methodologies are in wide use today, there is no method which is suitable for all situations. It has therefore become essential to apply Situational Method Engineering (SME) approaches to produce agile methodologies that are tailored to fit specific software development situations. Since SME is a complex process, and there is a vast pool of techniques, practices, activities, and processes available for composing agile methodologies, tool support–in the form of Computer Aided Method Engineering (CAME) environments–has become essential. Despite the importance of tool support for developing agile methodologies, available CAME environments do not fully support all the steps of method construction, and the need remains for a comprehensive environment. The Eclipse Process Framework Composer (EPFC) is an open-source situational method engineering tool platform, which provides an extensible platform for assembly-based method engineering in Eclipse. EPFC is fully extensible through provision of facilities for adding new method plug-ins, method packages, and libraries. The authors propose a plug-in for EPFC which enables method engineers to construct agile methodologies through an assembly-based SME approach. The plug-in provides facilities for the specification of the characteristics of a given project, selection of suitable agile process components from the method repository, and the final assembly of the selected method chunks, while providing a set of guidelines throughout the assembly process.


Agile methodology Situational Method Engineering Eclipse Process Framework Composer Computer-Aided Method Engineering 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Niknafs, A., Ramsin, R.: Computer-Aided Method Engineering: An Analysis of Existing Environments. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 525–540. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shakeri Hossein Abad, Z., Hasani Sadi, M., Ramsin, R.: Towards Tool Support for Situational Engineering of Agile Methodologies. In: Proc. Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2010), pp. 326–335 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haumer, P.: Eclipse Process Framework Composer. Eclipse Foundation (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harmsen, A.F.: Situational Method Engineering. Moret Ernest & Young (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saeki, M.: CAME: The first step to automated method engineering. In: Proc. OOPSLA 2003 Workshop on Process Engineering for Object-Oriented and Component-Based Development, pp. 7–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heym, M., Osterle, H.: A semantic data model for methodology engineering. In: Proc. Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering, pp. 143–155 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meta Case Consulting: Method Workbench User’s Guide (2005),
  10. 10.
    Mnkandla, E., Dwolatzky, B.: Agile methodologies selection toolbox. In: Proc. International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2007), pp. 72–72 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cockburn, A.: Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Addison Wesley (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stapleton, J.: DSDM: Business Focused Development, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palmer, S.R., Felsing, J.M.: A practical guide to feature-driven development. Prentice Hall (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Highsmith, J.: Adaptive Software Development: A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems. Dorset House (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme programming explained: Embrace change, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bendraou, R., Combemale, B., Cregut, X., Gervais, M.: Definition of an executable SPEM 2.0. In: Proc. Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2007), pp. 390–397 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slooten, K.V., Hodes, B.: Characterizing IS Development Projects. In: Proc. IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering, pp. 29–44 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J.: Situational Method Engineering: State-of-the-Art Review. Universal Computer Science 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckere, R., Salinesi, R.: Method Chunks Selection by Multicriteria Techniques: An Extension of the Assembly-based Approach. In: Ralyte, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 64–78. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-model View of Process Modeling. Requirements Engineering 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seidita, V., Ralyté, J., Henderson-Sellers, B., Cossentino, M., Arni-Bloch, N.: A comparison of deontic matrices, maps and activity diagrams for the construction of situational methods. In: Proc. CAiSE 2007 Forum, pp. 85–88 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cossentino, M., Seidita, V.: Composition of a New Process to Meet Agile Needs Using Method Engineering. In: Choren, R., Garcia, A., Lucena, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) SELMAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3390, pp. 36–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saeki, M.: Embedding Metrics Into Information Systems Development Methods: An Application of Method Engineering Technique. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 374–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van De Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J., Versendaal, J.: A situational implementation method for web-based content management system-applications: Method engineering and validation in practice. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11(5), 521–538 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): ISO/IEC 9126: Software engineering-Product quality. ISO (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anahita Alipour
    • 1
  • Raman Ramsin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations