Advertisement

A Method Assessment Framework

Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 351)

Abstract

Situational method engineering is used to create methods for use on projects. It is vital that such constructed methods be of good quality and relevant to the software development project in hand. Current capability assessment approaches cannot readily be applied to such SME-constructed methods since they do not differentiate between the three “phases” of method construction and enactment: method design, method enactment and method performance. Here, we clearly differentiate the kind of quality assessment activities that need to be performed in these three different situations.

Keywords

constructed methods method design method enactment method performance quality assessment situational method engineering 
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyte, J.: Situational Method Engineering: A state of the art review. Journal of Universal Computer Science 16(3) (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Methodology Engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Challenges and Strategies For Research in Systems Development, pp. 257–269. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ågerfalk, P., Brinkkemper, S., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Karlsson, F., Kelly, S., Ralyté, J.: Modularization Constructs in Method Engineering: Towards Common Ground? In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, vol. 244, pp. 359–368. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Metamodelling for Software Engineering. Wiley Publishing, Chichester (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method engineering for OO systems development, vol. 46, pp. 73–78. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karlsson, F., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology 46(9), 619–633 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Salinesi, C.: Method Chunks Selection by Multicriteria Techniques: an Extension of the Assembly-based Approach. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, vol. 244, pp. 64–78. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Nguyen, V.P.: Un outil d’aide à l’ingénierie de méthodes reposant sur l’approche OPEN. Génie Logiciel (70), 12 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    DeLoach, S., Garcia-Ojeda: O-MaSE: An Customizable Approach to Designing and Building Complex, Adaptive Multiagent Systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 4(3) (in Press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method Engineering: Theory and Practice. In: Information Systems Technology and Its Applications. In: 5th International Conference ISTA, p. 84. Gesellschaft Für Informatik (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004 - Information Technology - Process Assessment - Part 1: Concepts and VocabularyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    SEI. CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Royce, W.W.: Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Proceedings of IEEE WESCON. IEEE Computer Society Press, Monterey (1970)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boehm, B.W.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21(5), 61–72 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Highsmith, J., Cockburn, A.: Agile software development: the business of innovation. Computer 34(9), 120–127 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sutherland, J.: Scrum software development process. In: OOPSLA (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bajec, M., Vavpotic, D., Krisper, M.: Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Information and Software Technology 49(4), 345–365 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graham, I.: Object-Oriented Methods: Principles and Practice, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland, C.: Method engineering: Towards Methods as Services. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 14, 143–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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. 1029–1029. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M.: Coordination and transformation in business processes: Towards an integrated view. Business Process Management Journal (14), 761–777 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kraut, R.E., Streeter, L.A.: Coordination in software development. Communications of the ACM 38(3), 69–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nidumolu, S.R.: A comparison of the structural contingency and risk-based perspectives on coordination in software development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 13(2), 77–113 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McBride, T.: The mechanisms of project management of software development. Journal of Systems and Software 81(12), 2386–2395 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reinertsen, D.G.: The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development. Celeritas Publishing, Redondo Beach (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Elssamadisy, A., Schalliol, G.: Recognizing and responding to “bad smells” in extreme programming. In: 24rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 617–622 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andres, H.P., Zmud, R.W.: A Contingency Approach to Software Project Coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(3), 41–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B., Zowghi, D.: Managing outsourced software development: Does organisational distance demand different project management? In: UKAIS 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    MacCormack, A., Verganti, R.: Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20(3), 217–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57–74 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davis, N.: Secure Software Development Life Cycle Processes: A Technology Scouting Report. CMU/SEI-2005-TN-024 (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    ISO/IEC 15504-10:2010 - Information technology — Process assessment — Part 10: Safety extensionGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    SEI. Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI). CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001 (2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    ISO/IEC 15504-3:2004 - Information technology - Process assessment - Part 3: Guidance on performing an assessmentGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ISO/IEC 9001:2000 - Quality Management Systems - RequirementsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burke, R.: Project Management: Planning and Control Techniques. Burke Publishing, Tokai (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cleland, D.I., Ireland, L.R.: Project management: Strategic Design and Implementation. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hughes, B., Cotterell, M.: Software Project Management. McGraw-Hill, London (1999)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    ISO/IEC 15504-2:2004 - Information technology - Software process assessment - A reference model for processes and process capabilityGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rising, L., Janoff, N.S.: The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Software 17(4), 26–32 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fitzgerald, B.: The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Information Systems Journal 7(3), 201–212 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    SEI. Process Maturity Profile - CMMI 2005 Year-end Update (2005)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pérez, G., El Emam, K., Madhavji, N.: Customising software process models. In: Schäfer, W. (ed.) EWSPT 1995. LNCS, vol. 913, pp. 70–78. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    van Slooten, K., Hodes, B.: Proceedings of IFIP TC8 Working Conference on Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, pp. 29–44. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1996)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    van de Hoef, R., Harmsen, A.F., Wijers, G.M.: Situatie, Scenario & Succes (1995)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Henninger, S., Ivaturi, A., Nuli, K., Thirunavukkaras, A.: Supporting Adaptable Methodologies to Meet Evolving Project Needs. In: Wells, D., Williams, L. (eds.) XP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2418, pp. 33–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kherraf, S., Cheikhi, L., Abran, A., Suryn, W., Lefebvre, E.: The Need to Evaluate Strategy and Tactics before the Software Development Process Begins. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications 3(7), 644 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    ISO/IEC 9126:2001 - Software engineering - Product quality - Part 1: Quality modelGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gericke, A., Fill, H.-G., Karagiannis, D., Winter, R.: Situational method engineering for governance, risk and compliance information systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. ACM, Philadelphia (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Niknafs, A., Asadi, M.: Towards a Process Modeling Language for Method Engineering Support. In: WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, pp. 674–681 (2009)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Aydin, M.: Examining Key Notions for Method Adaptation. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences, vol. 244, pp. 49–63. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Software, Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper