Method Chunks for Interoperability

  • Jolita Ralyté
  • Per Backlund
  • Harald Kühn
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


Interoperability is a key property of enterprise applications, which is hard to achieve due to the large number of interoperating components and semantic heterogeneity. Platform-based approaches such as service-oriented architectures address the technical integration of systems. However, a deep integration needs to cover the whole lifecycle of the interoperable system. We propose method engineering as a means for encoding situated knowledge about achieving interoperability in the form of method chunks. We analysed the field of interoperability for enterprise applications and propose that a tool modelling the business- and ICT-related choices in the form of method chunks is needed for a knowledge-based solution of interoperability problems. An industrial case is included to back our claims.


Business Process Business Actor Customer Data Enterprise Application Business Domain 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P.-A., Grabot, B.: A survey on the recent research literature on ERP systems. Computers in Industry (56), 510–522 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering with Web-enabled Methods. In: Brinkkemper, S., Lindencrona, E., Sölvberg, A. (eds.) Information Systems Engineering: State of the Art and Research Themes, pp. 124–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Chen, D., Doumeingts, G.: European initiatives to develop interoperability of enterprise applications — basic concepts, framework and roadmap. Annual Reviews in Control (27), 153–162 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domínguez, E., Zapata, M.A.: Mappings and Interoperability: A Meta-modelling Approach. In: Yakhno, T. (ed.) ADVIS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1909, pp. 352–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Firesmith, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garlan, D., Allen, R., Ockerbloom, J.: Architectural mismatch or why it’s hard to build systems out of existing parts. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 179–185. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hasselbring, W.: Information system integration. Communications of the ACM 43(6), 32–38 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.: Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4, 237–293 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    INTEROP (2005) Interop Network of Excellence IST – 508011 Presentation of the Project 2005, (last accessed November 02, 2005)
  11. 11.
    Iivari, J.: Information Systems Development as Knowledge Work: The body of systems development process knowledge. In: Kawaguchi, E., Hamid, I.A., Jaakkola, H., Kangassalo, H. (eds.) Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XI, pp. 41–56. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: Design principles for application integration. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, p. 212. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Method Engineering, A Proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Construction. In: Cotterman, Senn (eds.) Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Agenda, pp. 257–268. Wiley, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kühn, H., Murzek, M.: Interoperability in Metamodelling Platforms. In: Konstantas, D., Bourrières, J.-P., Léonard, M., Boudjlida, N. (eds.) Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications, pp. 215–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mak, K.-T., Ramaprasad, A.: An Interpretation of the Changing IS/IT-Standard Game, Circa 2001. Knowledge, Technology & Policy (14), 20–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational Method Engineering: Combining Assembly-Based and Roadmap-Driven Approaches. Requirements Engineering 11(1), 58–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ottoson, A.: An Analysis of a Content of a Method Chunk Repository concerning Interoperability Problems. Master Thesis HS-EA-DVA-2005-001, University of Skövde (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal 10, 334–350 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ralyté, J.: Reusing Scenario Based Approaches in Requirement Engineering Methods: CREWS Method Base. In: 10th Int. Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 1999), pp. 305–309. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An Approach for Method Reengineering. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 471–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An Assembly Process Model for Method Engineering. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 267–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulz, K., et al.: A Gap Analysis; Required Activities in Research, Technology and Standardisation to close the RTS Gap; Roadmaps and Recommendations on RTS activities. Deliverables D 3.4, D 3.5, D 3.6. IDEAS Thematic Network - No.: IST-2001-37368 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu, X.W., Newman, S.T.: Making CNC machine tools more open, interoperable and intelligent—a review of the technologies. Computers in Industry 57(2), 141–152 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wainwright, D., Waring, T.: Three domains for implementing integrated information systems: redressing the balance between technology, strategic and organisational analysis. International Journal of Information Management 24(2004), 329–346 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Wendel de Joode, R., Tineke, E.M.: Handling variety: the tension between adaptability and interoperability of open source software. Computer Standards and Interfaces (28), 109–121 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Troux Technologies, Metis by Troux (March 30, 2006), Online:
  27. 27.
    BOC Information Technologies Consulting, Adonis by BOC Online (March 30, 2006),
  28. 28.
    ConceptBase Team, ConceptBase Online (March 30, 2006),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jolita Ralyté
    • 1
  • Per Backlund
    • 2
  • Harald Kühn
    • 3
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
    • 4
  1. 1.CUIUniversity of GenevaGenève 4Switzerland
  2. 2.University of SkövdeSkövdeSweden
  3. 3.BOC Information Systems GmbHViennaAustria
  4. 4.CRISM/InfolabTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations