Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Method Chunks, Method Fragments and Method Components

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Situational Method Engineering

  • 914 Accesses

Abstract

In Chap. 1, we used the name ‘method part’ to refer generically to some piece of a methodology smaller than the whole methodology. In the research literature, many names have been used, sometimes with the same semantics, sometimes the same name with different semantics. However, the bulk of the literature talks of (1) method fragments, (2) method chunks or (3) method components. These three different concepts are then utilised in SME approaches based on their focal utilisation. In each case, the overall definition must depend upon an appropriate metamodel. In this chapter, only fleeting reference will be made to these underpinning metamodels, which will themselves be a major focus of Chap. 4.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This term is used in much of the SME literature and should not be confused with the term ‘component’ as used in, for instance, component-based software engineering (e.g., Heineman and Councill 2001).

  2. 2.

    Information Systems.

  3. 3.

    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, now an IEEE Computer Society standards organisation.

  4. 4.

    For instance, a pair of overlapping chunks (with a fragment in common) might appear to be a solution but introduces significant and difficult new problems from a conceptual viewpoint.

  5. 5.

    Although the name method here more closely aligns with the Metamodel domain rather than Method domain in ISO/IEC 24744.

  6. 6.

    Guidelines are discussed in more detail in Chap. 4 and, together with other process construction advice, in Chap. 6.

  7. 7.

    This is hard to comprehend since the meta class to class relationship is that of Type–Instance whereas a descriptor is on the same meta level as a class and linked to it via a regular association.

  8. 8.

    The details are commercially confidential at the time of writing, made available to the authors under a non-disclosure agreement.

References

  • Ågerfalk PJ (1999) Pragmatization of information systems: a theoretical and methodological outline. Licentiate thesis. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University. Printed in Sweden by Linköping University. ISBN: 91-7373-628-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ (2003) Information systems actability: understanding information technology as a tool for business action and communication. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Printed in Sweden by UniTryck, ISBN: 91-7373-628-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ, Åhlgren K (1999) Modelling the rationale of methods. In: Khosrowpour M (ed) Managing information technology resources in organizations in the next millennium. Proceedings of the 10th information resources management association international conference. IDEA Group, Hershey, PA, pp 184–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk P, Fitzgerald B (2006) Exploring the concept of method rationale: a conceptual tool for method tailoring. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced topics in database research, vol 5. IGI, Hershey, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk PJ, Brinkkemper S, Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B, Karlsson F, Kelly S, Ralyté J (2007) Modularization constructs in method engineering: towards common ground? In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Springer, New York, NY, pp 359–368

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bajec M, Vavpotič D, Krisper M (2007b) Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Inform Software Tech 49(4):345–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Janiesch C, Pfeiffer D (2007) Reuse mechanisms in situational method engineering. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, 12–14 September 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 79–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inform Software Tech 38(4):275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (1998) Assembly techniques for method engineering. In: Pernici B, Thanos C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Proceedings of the 10th international conference, CAiSE ’98, Pisa, Italy, June 8–12 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1413. Springer, Berlin, pp 381–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (1999) Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. Inform Syst 24(3):209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckl S, Ernst AM, Lankes J, Schneider K, Schweda CM (2007) A pattern based approach for constructing enterprise architecture management information models. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik 2007. Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, pp 145–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckl S, Matthes F, Schweda CM (2011) A method base for enterprise architecture management. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 34–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Buschmann F, Meunier R, Rohnert H, Sommerlad P (1996) Pattern-oriented software architecture volume 1: a system of patterns. Wiley, Chichester, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervera M, Albert M, Torres V, Pelechano V (2011) Turning method engineering support into reality. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 138–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossentino M, Gaglio S, Henderson-Sellers B, Seidita V (2006a) A metamodelling-based approach for method fragment comparison. In: Latour T, Petit M (eds) CAiSE ’06. 18th Conference on advanced information systems engineering—trusted information systems, Luxembourg, 5–9 June 2006. Proceedings of the workshops and doctoral consortium. Namur University Press, Namur, pp 419–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossentino M, Gaglio S, Garro A, Seidita V (2007) Method fragments for agent design methodologies: from standardization to research. Int J Agent-Oriented Software Eng 1(1):91–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulin C, Zowghi D, Sahraoui A-E-K (2006) A situational method engineering approach to requirements elicitation workshops in the software development process. A situational approach to requirements elicitation workshops. Software Process Improv Pract 11(5):451–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Antonellis V, Pernici B, Samarati P (1991) F-ORM METHOD: a methodology for reusing specifications. In: van Assche F, Moulin B, Rolland C (eds) Object-oriented approach in information systems, North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Deneckère R, Souveyet C (1998) Patterns for extending an OO model with temporal features. In: Rolland C, Grosz G (eds) Proceedings of OOIS ’98. Springer, London, pp 201–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eberle H, Unger T, Leymann F (2009) Process fragments. In: Meersman R, Dillon T, Herrero P (eds) OTM 2009, part I. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5870. Springer, Berlin, pp 398–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith DG, Henderson-Sellers B (1999) Improvements to the OPEN process metamodel. JOOP/ROAD 12(7):30–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith DG, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) The OPEN process framework. An introduction. Addison-Wesley, London, p 330

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B, Russo NL, Stolterman E (2002) Information systems development: methods in action. McGraw-Hill, Berkshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C, Henderson-Sellers B (1991) OLMS—an object library management support system. In: Potter J, Tokoro M, Meyer B (eds) TOOLS 6. Prentice Hall, Sydney, pp 175–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides JM (1994) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G, Lind M, Seigerroth U (1998) Method integration: the need for a learning perspective. IEE Proc Software 145(4):113–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C (2005) Tools for an extended object modelling environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE international conference on engineering of complex computer systems. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 20–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2005) Templates and resources in software development methodologies. J Object Tech 4(4):173–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2006b) An ontology for software development methodologies and endeavours. In: Calero C, Ruiz F, Piattini M (eds) Ontologies in software engineering and software technology. Springer, New York, NY, pp 123–152

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2008a) A work product pool approach to methodology specification and enactment. J Syst Software 81(8):1288–1305. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2008b) Metamodelling for software engineering. Wiley, Chichester, p 210

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham I, Henderson-Sellers B, Younessi H (1997) The OPEN process specification. Addison-Wesley, London, p 314

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen AF (1997) Situational method engineering. Moret Ernst & Young, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen AF, Brinkkemper S, Oei H (1994) Situational method engineering for information systems projects. In: Olle TW, Verrijn-Stuart AA (eds) Methods and associated tools for the information systems life cycle. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 working conference CRIS/94, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 169–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Heineman GT, Councill W (eds) (2001) Component-based software engineering: putting the pieces together. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B (2007) On the challenges of correctly using metamodels in method engineering, keynote paper. In: Fujita H, Pisanelli D (eds) New trends in software methodologies, tools and techniques. Proceedings of the sixth SoMeT_07. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 161. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2005a) The rationale of powertype-based metamodelling to underpin software development methodologies. In: Hartmann S, Stumptner M (eds) Conferences in research and practice in information technology 43. Australian Computer Society, pp 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2005b) A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic “standard”. Inform Software Tech 47(1):49–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2010) Granularity in conceptual modelling: application to metamodels. In: Proceedings of ER 2010. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6412. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2011) Towards the use of granularity theory for determining the size of atomic method fragments for use in situational method engineering. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of the 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 49–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Qumer A (2007) Using method engineering to make a traditional environment agile. Cutter IT J 20(5):30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Ralyte J (2010) Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. J Univers Comput Sci 16(3):424–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Serour MK (2005) Creating a dual agility method—the value of method engineering. J Database Manag 16(4):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Simons AJH, Younessi H (1998) The OPEN toolbox of techniques. Addison-Wesley, London, p 426 + CD

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C, Ralyté J (2007b) Situational method engineering: chunks or fragments? In: Eder J, Tomassen SL, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Proceedings of the CAiSE Forum, pp 89–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C, Ralyté J (2008) Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering. In: Proceedings 19th Australian software engineering conference. ASWEC2008, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 479–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Hruby P (2000) Designing customizable methodologies. JOOP 2000:22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacovelli A (2011) Personal communication to first author

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacovelli A, Souveyet C (2011) Towards common ground in SME: an ontology of method descriptors. In: Ralyté J, Mirbel I, Deneckère R (eds) Engineering methods in the service-oriented context. Proceedings of 4th IFIP WG8.1 working conference on method engineering, ME 2011, Paris France, April 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (1995) Software life cycle processes. ISO/IEC 12207. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2007) Software engineering: metamodel for development methodologies. ISO/IEC 24744. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2008) Systems and software engineering—software life cycle processes. ISO/IEC 12207:2008. International Standards Organization/ International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC (2010a) Software engineering: metamodel for development methodologies. Annex A—notation. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson I, Christerson M, Jonsson P, Övergaard G (1992) Object-oriented software engineering: a use case driven approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, p 524

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jarke M, Pohl K (1992) Information systems quality and quality information systems. In: Proceedings of the IFIP 8.2 working conference on the impact of computer-supported techniques on information systems development, Minneapolis, MN, June 1992

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F (2005) Method configuration: method and computerized tool support. Linköping studies in information science. Dissertation no. 11, Linköping University. ISBN: 91-85297-48-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2007) Multi-grounded action research in method engineering: the MMC case. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 12–14 September 2007. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2009a) Exploring agile values in method configuration. Eur J Inform Syst 18(4):300–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2009b) Towards structured flexibility in information systems development: devising a method for method configuration. J Database Manag 20(3):51–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson F, Wistrand K (2006) Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept. Eur J Inform Syst 15:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy MD (1968) Mass produced software components. Paper presented at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) conference on software engineering, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer B (1997) Object-oriented software construction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mirbel I (2006) Method chunk federation. In: Latour T, Petit M (eds) CAiSE ’06. 18th Conference on advanced information systems engineering—trusted information systems, Luxembourg 5–9 June 2006. Proceedings of the workshops and doctoral consortium. Namur University Press, Namur, pp 407–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirbel I, De Rivieres V (2002) Adapting analysis and design to software context: the JECKO approach. In: Bellahsène Z, Patel D, Rolland C (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on object-oriented information systems (OOIS ’02), Montpellier, France, 2–5 September 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2425. Springer, Berlin, pp 223–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirbel I, Ralyté J (2006) Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requir Eng 11:58–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehan Y-R, Deneckère R (2007) Component-based situational methods. A framework for understanding SME. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 12–14 September 2007. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 161–175

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (1997) UML semantics. Version 1.1, 15 September 1997, OMG document ad/97-08-04

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2001) OMG Unified Modelling Language specification, version 1.4. OMG documents formal/01-09-68 through 80 (13 documents). http://www.omg.org. Accessed 12 July 2002

  • OMG (2002) Software process engineering metamodel specification, formal/2002-11-14. Object Management Group

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2005a) Software process engineering metamodel specification, version 1.1. formal/05-01-06. Object Management Group

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG (2008) Software & systems process engineering meta-model specification. Version 2.0, OMG document number: formal/2008-04-01

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnas DL (1972) A technique for software module specification with examples. Comm ACM 15(5):330–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plihon V, Ralyté J, Benjamen A, Maiden NAM, Sutcliffe A, Dubois E, Heymans P (1998) A reuse-oriented approach for the construction of scenario based methods. In: 5th International conference on software process (ICSP ’98), Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Prat N (1997) Goal formalisation and classification for requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on requirements engineering: foundations of software quality REFSQ ’97, Barcelona, pp 145–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Diaz R, Freeman P (1987) Classifying software for reusability. IEEE Software 4(1):6–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J (1999) Reusing scenario based approaches in requirements engineering methods: CREWS method base. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on database and expert systems applications (DEXA ’99), 1st international REP ’99 workshop, Florence, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J (2001) Ingénierie des methods par assemblage de composants. Thèse de doctorat en informatique de l’Université Paris 1, Janvier 2001, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J (2004) Towards situational methods for information systems development: engineering reusable method chunks. In: Vasilecas O, Caplinskas A, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG, Zupancic J, Wrycza S (eds) Proceedings of the 13th international conference on information systems development. Advances in theory, practice and education. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania, pp 271–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Rolland C (2001a) An assembly process model for method engineering. In: Dittrich KR, Geppert A, Norrie MC (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2068. Springer, Berlin, pp 267–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralyté J, Rolland C (2001b) An approach for method engineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on conceptual modelling (ER2001). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2224. Springer, Berlin, pp 471–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C (1998) A comprehensive view of process engineering. In: Pernici B, Thanos C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: proceedings of the 10th international conference, CAiSE ’98, Pisa, Italy, June 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1413. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Plihon V (1996) Using generic chunks to generate process models fragments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, ICRE ’96, Colorado Springs

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Prakash N (1996) A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyytinen K, Welke RJ (eds) Method engineering. Principles of method construction and tool support. Proceedings of IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on method engineering, 26–28 August 1996, Atlanta, USA. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 191–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Souveyet C, Moreno M (1995) An approach for defining ways-of-working. Inform Syst 20(4):295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Plihon V, Ralyté J (1998) Specifying the reuse context of scenario method chunks. In: Pernici B, Thanos C (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: proceedings of the 10th international conference, CAiSE ’98, Pisa, Italy, 8–12 June 1998. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1413. Springer, Berlin, pp 191–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Prakash N, Benjamen A (1999) A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir Eng 4(4):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland C, Nurcan S, Grosz G (2000) A decision making pattern for guiding the enterprise knowledge development process. J Inf Software Technol 42:313–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röstlinger A, Goldkuhl G (1994) Generisk flexibilitet—På väg mot en komponentbaserad metodsyn. In Swedish: “Generic flexibility—towards a component-based view of methods”. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumbaugh J, Blaha M, Premerlani W, Eddy F, Lorensen W (1991) Object-oriented modelling and design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p 500

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupprecht C, Funffinger M, Knublauch H, Rose T (2000) Capture and dissemination of experience about the construction of engineering processes. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1789. Springer, Berlin, pp 294–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Standards Australia (2004) Standard metamodel for software development methodologies, AS 4651-2004. Standards Australia, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens P, Pooley R (2006) Using UML: software engineering with objects and components. Addison Wesley, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunyaev A, Hansen M, Krcmar H (2008) Method engineering: a formal description. In: Proceedings ISD 2008, 17th international conference on information systems development, Paphos, Cyprus, 25–27 August 2008. Also in: information systems development—towards a service provision society, Springer, pp 645–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasharofi S, Ramsin R (2007) Process patterns for agile methodologies. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B (eds) Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 working conference, 12–14 September 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. IFIP series, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, pp 222–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Hofstede AHM, Verhoef TF (1997) On the feasibility of situational method engineering. Inform Syst 22(6/7):401–422

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen J-P (1998) Incremental method engineering with modeling tools. Dissertation, Jyväskylä studies in computer science, economics and statistics, vol 47, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, p 301

    Google Scholar 

  • Unhelkar B, Henderson-Sellers B (1995) ODBMS considerations in the granularity of a reusable OO design. In: Mingins C, Meyer B (eds) TOOLS 15. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 229–234

    Google Scholar 

  • van Slooten K, Brinkkemper S (1993) A method engineering approach to information systems development. In: Prakash N, Rolland C, Pernici B (eds) Information systems development process. Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.1. Elsevier Science B.V., North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistrand K (2009) Method rationale revealed: communication of knowledge in systems development methods. Doctoral dissertation. Örebro University. Intellecta Infolog, V. Frölunda: Sweden. ISBN 978-91-7668-659-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistrand K, Karlsson F (2004) Method components—rationale revealed. In: Persson A, Stirna J (eds) Advanced information systems engineering: proceedings of the 16th international conference, CAiSE 2004, Riga, Latvia, 7–11 June 2004. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3084. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–201

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Software, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia

    Brian Henderson-Sellers

  2. CUI, Battelle - bâtiment A, University of Geneva, Carouge, Switzerland

    Jolita Ralyté

  3. Dept. of Informatics and Media, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Pär J. Ågerfalk

  4. Aalto University, Aalto, Finland

    Matti Rossi

Authors
  1. Brian Henderson-Sellers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jolita Ralyté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pär J. Ågerfalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matti Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M. (2014). Method Chunks, Method Fragments and Method Components. In: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41466-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41467-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation