Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Method Families Concept: Application to Decision-Making Methods

  • Conference paper
Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2011, EMMSAD 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 81))

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.

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 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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Firesmith, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rolland C., Cauvet C.: Object-Oriented Conceptual Modelling, CISMOD 1992, International Conf. on Management of Data, Bangalore (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ralyte, J.: Method chunks engineering, PhD thesis, University of Paris 1-Sorbonne (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Rolland, C.: Method engineering: towards methods as services. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 14(3), 143–164 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brinkkemper, S.: Method Engineering: engineering of information systems development method and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(7) (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. Henderson-Sellers, B.: Process meta-modelling and process construction: examples using the OPF. Ann. Software Engineering 14(1-4), 341–362 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. Method fragment definition, FIPA Document (2003), http://www.fipa.org/activities/methodology.html (accessed by November 2003)

  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. 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. Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. Roy, B.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A Cost–Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements. IEEE Software (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rational Unified Process, Electronic Resource (2007), http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rup/ (accessed by June 2007)

  30. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, NY (1980)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Université Paris 1 Pantéhon-Sorbonne, 90 rue de Tolbiac, 75013, Paris, France

    Elena Kornyshova, Rébecca Deneckère & Colette Rolland

Authors
  1. Elena Kornyshova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rébecca Deneckère
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Colette Rolland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. INTI International University, Malaysia

    Terry Halpin

  2. IAE de Paris Sorbonne Graduate Business School, 21, rue Broca, 75005, Paris, France

    Selmin Nurcan

  3. Department of Computer and Information Science (IDI), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    John Krogstie

  4. MIS Department, Faculty of Social Science, Haifa University, Carmel Mountain, 35901, Haifa, Israel

    Pnina Soffer

  5. CRP Henri Tudor, 1855, Luxembourg-Kirchberg, Luxembourg

    Erik Proper

  6. HTW-Aalen, 73430, Aalen, Germany

    Rainer Schmidt

  7. IbisSoft AB, Box 19567, SE-10432, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ilia Bider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Rolland, C. (2011). Method Families Concept: Application to Decision-Making Methods. In: Halpin, T., et al. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS EMMSAD 2011 2011. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 81. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21759-3_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21758-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21759-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation