Advertisement

Abstract

The role of variability in Software engineering grows increasingly as it allows developing solutions that can be easily adapted to a specific context and reusing existing knowledge. In order to deal with variability in the method engineering (ME) domain, we suggest applying the notion of method families. Method components are organized as a method family, which is configured in the given situation into a method line. In this paper, we motivate the concept of method families by comparing the existing approaches of ME. We detail then the concept of method families and illustrate it with a family of decision-making (DM) methods that we call MADISE.

Keywords

Situational Method Engineering Method Family Method Line Decision-Making Methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Firesmith, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolland C., Cauvet C.: Object-Oriented Conceptual Modelling, CISMOD 1992, International Conf. on Management of Data, Bangalore (1992) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ralyte, J.: Method chunks engineering, PhD thesis, University of Paris 1-Sorbonne (2001) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mirbel, I., De Rivieres, V.: Adapting Analysis and Design to Software Context: The jecko Approach. In: 8th International Conference on Object Orirented Information Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An approach for method reengineering. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, p. 471. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolland, C.: Method engineering: towards methods as services. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 14(3), 143–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: engineering of information systems development method and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(7) (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harmsen, A.F., Brinkkemper, J.N., Oei, J.L.H.: Situational Method Engineering for information Systems Project Approaches. In: nt. IFIP WG8. 1 Conference in CRIS Series: Methods and associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, vol. (A-55), pp. 169–194. North Holland (Pub.), Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.: A method engineering language for the description of systems development methods (Extended abstract). In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, p. 473. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Slooten, K., Hodes, B., Characterising, I.S.: development projects. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Method Engineering (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlsson, F., Agerfalk, P.J.: Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology 46(9) (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wistrand, K., Karlsson, F.: Method components – rationale revealed. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 189–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agerfalk, P.J.: Information systems actability: Understanding Information Techology as a Tool for Business Action and Communication. Doctoral dissertation. Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Process meta-modelling and process construction: examples using the OPF. Ann. Software Engineering 14(1-4), 341–362 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., McBride, T.: A meta-model for assessable software development methodologies. Software Quality Journal 13(2) (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guzélian, G., Cauvet, C.: SO2M: Towards a Service-Oriented Approach for Method Engineering. In: The 2007 World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing, in the Proceedings of the International Conference IKE 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deneckère, R.: Approche d’extension de méthodes fondée sur l’utilisation de composants génériques, PhD thesis (in French), University of Paris 1-Sorbonne (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Terracina, G., Garro, A., Ursino, D.: A multi-agent system for supporting the predition of protein structures. In: ICAE, vol. 11(3), pp. 256–280. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Method fragment definition, FIPA Document (2003), http://www.fipa.org/activities/methodology.html (accessed by November 2003)
  22. 22.
    Cossentino, M., Gaglio, S., Henderson-Sellers, B., Seidita, V.: A metamodelling approach for method fragment comparison, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD), Luxembourg (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckere, R.: A Framework for Comparing SME Approaches, Working paper, Centre de Recherche en Informatique, University of Paris 1 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deneckère, R., Kornyshova, E.: Process line configuration: An indicator-based guidance of the intentional model MAP. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 50, pp. 327–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A Multi-Model View of Process Modelling. In: Requirements Engineering, vol. 4, Springer-Verlag London Ltd., London (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roy, B.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A Cost–Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements. IEEE Software (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rational Unified Process, Electronic Resource (2007), http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rup/ (accessed by June 2007)
  30. 30.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, NY (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Kornyshova
    • 1
  • Rébecca Deneckère
    • 1
  • Colette Rolland
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de Recherche en InformatiqueUniversité Paris 1 Pantéhon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations