Towards flexible process support with a CASE shell

  • Pentti Marttiin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 811)


CASE technology for improving information systems development (ISD) is mostly based on the creation and verification of IS models using a fixed set of techniques. However, ISD is a complex activity, which requires well selected and suited methodologies and development practices for different situations. This calls for CASE shells (metaCASE environments) in which the methodologies can be tailored. Further, the quality of produced deliverables (e.g. specifications and models) is dependent on the development process. The focus of this paper is on integrating a flexible process support into a CASE shell. The ISD process is specified using a graphical process model, the purposes of which are the guidance and coordination of various activities, and the management of the IS deliverables produced during the development. In this paper process modeling requirements are discussed, and the methodology engineering — especially the process modeling — process using a CASE shell is described.


information systems development methodology engineering metaCASE process modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Armenise, P., Bandinelli, S., Ghezzi, C., Morzenti, A., “A survey and assessment of software process representation formalisms”, International Journal of Software Engineering And Knowledge Engineering, 3, 3, 1993, pp. 410–426.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaen, I., Siltanen, A., Sorensen, C., Tahvanainen, V.-P., “A Tale of Two Countries — CASE Experiences and Expectations”, The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (Eds. K.E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen and J.I. DeGross), Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1992, pp. 61–93.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, J.M., “Project Management Utilizing an Advanced CASE Environment”, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2, 2, 1992, pp. 251–261.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W., “Software Engineering”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 25, 12, 1976, pp. 1226–1241.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B.W., “A spiral model of software development and enhancement”, IEEE Computer, 21, 5, 1988, pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bots, P.W.G., An environment to Support Problem Solving, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks, F.P. Jr., The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budde, R., Kautz, K., Kuhlenkamp, K., Züllighoven, H., Prototyping — An approach to Evolutionary Systems Development, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charette, R.N., Software Engineering Environments: Concepts and Technology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conclin, J., Begeman, M. L., “GIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Explanatory Policy Discussion”, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6, 4, 1988, pp. 303–331.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J., “Process modeling”, Communications of the ACM, 35, 9, September 1992, pp. 75–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cybulski, J.L., Reed, K., “A Hypertext Based Software Engineering Environment”, IEEE Software, March 1992, pp 62–68.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dowson, M., “Integrated Project Support with IStar”, IEEE Software, November 1987, pp. 6–15.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Edwards, J.M., “The Object-oriented Systems Life Cycle”, Communications of the ACM, 33, 9, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heym, M., Österle, H., “A reference model of information systems development”, The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (Eds. K.E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen and J.I. DeGross), Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1992, pp. 215–240.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huff, C.C., “Elements of a Realistic CASE Tool Adoption Budget”, Communications of the ACM, 35, 4, 1992, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Humphrey, W.S., Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEEE Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. IEEE Std. 720, IEEE, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iivari, J., “Hierarchical Spiral Model for Information System and Software Development”, Information and Software Technology, 32, 6, 1990, pp. 386–399.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iivari, J., “Object-oriented Design of Information Systems: The design process”, Object Oriented Approach in Information Systems, (Eds. F. Van Assche, B. Moulin and C. Rolland), Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, IFIP, 1991, pp. 61–87.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall, T.J., “The quality manual — The applications of BS5750 ISO9001 EN29001”. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jarke, M., “Strategies for Integrating CASE Environments”, IEEE Software, March 1992, pp. 54–61.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross Jeffery, D., “Software Engineering Productivity Models for Management Information Systems Development”, Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (Eds. Boland R.J. jr. and Hirschheim R. A.), John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 1987, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaiser, G.E., Feiler, P.H., Popovich, S.S., “Intelligence Assistant for Software Development and Maintenance”, IEEE Software, May 1988, pp.40–49.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J., “Methodology EngineeringR: A proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Engineering”, Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, (Eds. W.W Cotterman. and J.A. Senn), John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1992, pp. 257–269.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyytinen, K., “Different Perspectives on Information Systems: Problems and Solutions”, ACM Computing Surveys, 19, 1, March 1987, pp. 5–46.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marttiin, P., “Methodology Engineering in CASE Shells: Design Issues and Current Practice”, Licentiate Thesis, Computer Science and Information Systems Reports, Technical Reports TR-4, University of Jyväskylä, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marttiin, P., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M., Smolander, K, Tahvanainen, V.-P., Tolvanen J.-P, “Modeling requirements for future CASE: issues and implementation considerations”, Proceedings of the 13th ICIS, (Eds. J.I. DeGross, J.D. Becker and J.J. Elam), Dallas, USA, 1992, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marttiin, P., Rossi, M., Tahvanainen, V.-P., Lyytinen, K., “A comparative review of CASE Shells: a preliminary framework and research outcomes”, Information and Management, 25, 1993, pp. 11–31.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., “Intermediary hypertext systems in CASE environments”, Licentiate thesis, Research papers SERIES A16, Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Osterweil, L.J., “Software processes are software too”, Procs. of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey, California, 1987, pp. 2–13.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (Eds.), Information Systems Design Methodologies: A comparative review, North-Holland, 1982.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Persson, U., and Wangler, B., “A Specification of Requirements for an Advanced Information Systems Development Tool.”, Procs. of the workshop on the Next Generation of CASE Tools, (Eds. S. Brinkkemper and G. Wijers), SERC, Netherlands, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rai, A., Howard, G.S., “An Organizational Context for CASE Innovation”, Information Resources Management Journal, 6, 3, 1993, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M., “Planning Problems are Wicked Problems”, Policy Sciences, 4, 1973, 155–169.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rask, R., Laamanen, P., Lyytinen, K., “A comparison of Abrecht's Function Points and Symons' Mark II Metrics”, Proceedings of the 13th ICIS, (Eds. DeGross J.I., Becker J.D. and Elam J.J.), Dallas, USA, 1992, pp. 207–221.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Simon, H., “The Structure of Ill-structured Problems”, Artificial Intelligence, 4, 1973, pp. 181–200.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Slooten, K., Brinkkemper, B., “A Method Engineering Approach to Information Systems Development”, Information Systems Development Process, (Eds. N. Prakash, C. Rolland, B. Pernici), Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, 1993, pp. 167–186.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smolander, K., “OPRR — A Model for Methodology Modeling”, Next Generation of CASE Tools, (Eds. K. Lyytinen and V.-P. Tahvanainen), Studies in Computer and Communication Systems, IOS press, 1992, pp. 224–239.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smolander, K., “GOPRR — a proposal for a meta level model”, MetaPHOR internal technical document, Dept. of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, 1993.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Smolander, K., Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V.-P., Marttiin P., “MetaEdit — A flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling”, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, (Eds. R. Andersen, J. Bubenko and A. Solvberg), LNCS #498, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 168–193.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sol, H.G., “A Feature Analysis of Information Systems Design Methodologies: Methodological Considerations”, Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis, (Eds. T. W. Olle, H. G. Sol and C. J. Tully), Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sorensen, C., Introducing CASE Tools into Software Organizations, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Institute of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University, Denmark, 1993.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sorenson, P. G., Tremblay, J-P., McAllister, A. J., “The Metaview system for many specification environments.” IEEE Software, 30, 3, 1988, pp. 30–38.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Turner, J.A., “Understanding the Elements of System Design”, Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (Eds. R.J. Boland jr. and R. A. Hirschheim), John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 1987, pp. 97–112.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Verhoef, T.F., “Structuring Yourdon's Modern Structured Analysis”, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on The Next Generations of CASE Tools, (Eds. V.-P. Tahvanainen and K. Lyytinen), Technical Reports TR-1, Jyväskylä, 1991.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S., Tractinsky, N., “Evaluation of Vendor Products: CASE Tools as Methodology Companions”, Communications of the ACM, 35, 4, 1992, pp. 90–105.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Welke, R.J., “The CASE Repository: More Than Another Database Application”, Meta Systems Ltd., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1988.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wijers, G., van Dort, H., “Experiences with the use of CASE tools in the Netherlands”, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, (Eds. Steinholz, S0lvberg, Bergman), LNCS#436, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wijers, G., Modeling Support in Information Systems Development, Ph.D. Thesis, Thesis publishers, Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yourdon, E., Modern Structured Analysis, Yourdon Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pentti Marttiin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations