Conceptual evaluation of methods for engineering situational ISD methods

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 539-555

  Leppänen, Mauri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Contextual framework; Information systems development; Method engineering; Perspective; Software engineering; Software process improvement

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK; INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT (ISD); METHOD ENGINEERING (ME); PERSPECTIVE; SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 33750368807     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: 10991670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.292     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Atkinson C, Kühne T. 2003. Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Software 20(5): 36-41.
2. Bandinelli S, Fugett A, Ghezzi C. 1993. Software process model evolution in the SPADE environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19(12): 1128-1144.
3. SM Model. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 9(3): 123-132.
4. Chen P. 1976. The entity-relationship model-toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(3): 9-36.
5. Christie A. 1993. A graphical process definition language and its application to a maintenance project. Information and Software Technology 25(6-7): 364-374.
6. SM for systems engineering and software engineering (CMMI-SE/SW). Staged Representation Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-002, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute: Pittsburgh, PA.
7. Conrath D, Dumas P (eds). 1989. Office Support Systems and Design (OSSAD)-a Manual. IOT: Munich, Germany.
8. Deiters W, Gruhn V. 1994. The funsoft net approach to software process management. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 4(2): 229-256.
9. Dogru A. 2003. A process model for component-oriented software engineering. IEEE Software 20(2): 34-41.
10. Dutton J. 1993. Commonsense approach to process modelling. IEEE Software 10(4): 56-64.
11. Engeström Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit: Helsinki, Finland.
12. Fillmore C. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Bach E, Harms RT (eds). Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York.
13. Freeman M, Layzell P. 1994. A meta-model of information systems to support reverse engineering. Information and Software Technology 36(5): 283-294.
14. Fitzgerald B, Russo N, Stolterman E. 2002. Information Systems Development-Methods in Action. McGraw Hill: London, England.
15. Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B. 2005. A powertype-based metamodeling framework. Software and System Modeling 5(1): 72-90, 1-19, online.
16. Grundy J, Venable J. 1996. Towards an integrated environment for method engineering. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG 8.1/8.2 Working Conference an Method Engineering-Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, Lyytinen K, Brinkkemper S, Welke R (eds). Chapman & Hall: London, England, 45-62.
17. Graham I, Henderson-Sellers B, Younessi H. 1997. The OPEN Process Specification. Addison-Wesley: London, England.
18. Gupta D, Prakash N. 2001. Engineering methods from method requirements specifications. Requirements Engineering 6(3): 135-160.
19. Harmsen F. 1997. Situational method engineering. PhD Thesis, University of Twente, Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants: The Netherlands.
20. Harmsen F, Saeki M. 1996. Comparison of four method engineering languages. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG 8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering-Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support Lyytinen K, Brinkkemper S, Welke R (eds). Chapman & Hall: London, England, 209-231.
21. Henderson-Sellers B. 2003. Method engineering for OO systems development. Communications of the ACM 46(10): 73-78.
22. Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C. 2005. A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard. Information and Software Technology 47(1): 49-65.
23. Heym M, Österle H. 1992. A reference model for information systems development. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on the Impacts on Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development Kendall K, Lyytinen K, DeGross J (eds), Eisevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 215-240.
24. Iivarij. 1989. Levels of abstraction as a conceptual framework for an information system. In Information System Concepts: An In-Depth Analysis, Falkenberg E, Lindgren P (eds), Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 323-352.
25. ISO. 1996. Information Technology-Open Distributed Processing-Reference Model: Overview, 10746-1. International Organization for Standardization.
26. ISO 9000-3. 1997. Guidelines for the Application of ISO 9001:1994 to the Development, Supply, Installation and Maintenance of Computer Software. International Organization for Standardization.
27. ISO/IEC 15504. 1998. Information technology-Software Process Assessment, in 9 parts. International Organization for Standardization.
28. Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J. 1999. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley: Reading, PA.
29. Jarke M, Gallensdörfer R, Jeusfeld M, Staudt M, Eherer S. 1995. ConceptBase: a deductive object base for meta data management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 4(2): 167-192.
30. Kaiser G, Popovich S, Ben-Shaul I. 1993. A bi-level language for software process modeling. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press: Washington, DC, 132-143.
31. Karlsson F, Ågerfalk P. 2004. Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology 46(9): 619-633.
32. Kelly S, Lyytinen K, Rossi M. 1996. MetaEdit+: a fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'96), Vassiliou Y, Mylopoulos J (eds). Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1-21.
33. Kinnunen K, Leppänen M. 1996. O/A matrix and a technique for methodology engineering. Journal of Systems and Software 33(2): 141-152.
34. Kirchmer M. 1999. Business Process-Oriented Implementation of Standard Software. Springer: Berlin, Germany.
35. Kruchten P. 1995. The 4 + 1 view model of architecture. IEEE Software 12(6): 42-50.
36. Kumar K, Welke RJ. 1992. Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation specific methodology construction. In Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, Kottermann WW, Senn JA (eds). John Wiley and Sons: Washington, DC, 257-269.
37. Leppänen M. 2000. Toward a method engineering (ME) method with an emphasis on the consistency of ISD methods. In Proceedings of the Fifth CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'OO), Siau K (ed.). Stockholm, Sweden.
38. Leppänen M. 2005. An ontological framework and a methodical skeleton for method engineering: A contextual approach. PhD Thesis, Jyväskylä Studies in Computing No: 52, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems: University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
39. Leppänen M, Lyytinen K, Halrtunen V. 1991. Strategic Planning of Information Technology and Services, the SPITS Method. Publications of Department of Computer Science, TU-10, University of Jyväskylä: Finland, (in Finnish).
40. Levinson S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
41. Lowell A. 1993. Improving Software Quality - An Insider's Guide to TQM. John Wiley: New York.
42. SM A user's guide for software process improvement, Handbook, CMU/SEI-96-HB-001. Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
43. Nijssen G, Halpin T. 1989. Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design: A Fact Oriented Approach. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
44. Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein A, Kramer J. 1996. Method engineering for multi-perspective software development. Information and Software Technology 38(4): 267-274.
45. Oei J. 1995. A meta model transformation approach towards harmonization in information system modeling. In Proceedings of IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Information System Concepts - Towards a Consolidation of Views, Falkenberg E, Olive A (eds). Chapman & Hall: London, England, 106-127.
46. OMG. 2005. Software process engineering metamodel specification, Version 1.1, January 2005. Available at URL: http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/ formal/spem.htm.
47. Paulk M, Weber C, Garcia S, Chrissis M, Bush M. 1993. Key practices of the capability maturity model, Version 1.1. CMU/SEI-93-TR-25, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburg, PA.
48. Peirce C. 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce, Buchle J (ed.). Dover: New York.
49. Plihon V, Ralyté J, Benjamen A, Maiden N, Sutcliffe A, Dubois E, Heymans P. 1998. A re-use-oriented approach for the construction of scenario based methods. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Process (ICSP'98), Chicago, IL, 14-17.
50. Prakash N. 1997. Towards a formal definition of methods. Requirements Engineering 2(1): 23-50.
51. Prakash N. 1999. On method statics and dynamics. Information Systems 24(8): 613-637.
52. Punter T, Lemmen K. 1996. The MEMA-model: towards a new approach for methods engineering. Journal of Information and Software Technology 38(4): 295-305.
53. Ralyté J, Denecker R, Rolland C. 2003. Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'03), LNCS 2681, Eder J, Missikoff M (eds). Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 95-110.
54. Rolland C, Prakash N. 1996. A proposal for context-specific model engineering. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG 8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering-Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, LyytinenK, Brinkkemper S, Welke R (eds). Chapman & Hall: London, England, 191-208.
55. Rolland C, Prakasah N, Benjamen N. 1999. A multi-model view of process modeling. Requirements Engineering 4(4): 169-187.
56. Rosemann M, Green P. 2002. Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs. Information Systems 27(2): 75-91.
57. Saeki M. 1998. A meta-model for method integration. Information and Software Technology 39(14): 925-932.
58. Saeki M. 2003. Embedding metrics into information systems development methods: an application of method engineering technique. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2003), LNCS 2681, Eder J, Missikiff M (eds). Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 374-389.
59. Saeki M, Wen-Yin K. 1994. Specifying software specification & design methods. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'94), Wijers G, Brinkkemper S, Wasserman S (eds). Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 353-366.
60. Shepard T, Wortley C, Sibbald S. 1992. A visual software process language. Communications of the ACM 35(4): 37-44.
61. van Slooten K, Brinkkemper S. 1993. A method engineering approach to information systems development. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems Development Process, Prakash N, Rolland C, Pernici B (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 167-188.
62. Sol H. 1992. Information systems development: a problem solving approach. In Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, Cotterman WW, Senn JA (eds). John Wiley and Sons: Washington, DC, 151-161.
63. Song X. 1997. Systematic integration of design methods. IEEE Software 14(2): 107-117.
64. Sowa J, Zachman J. 1992. Extending and formalizing the framework for information system architecture. IBM Systems Journal 31(3): 590-616.
65. Standards Australia. 2004. Australian Standard-Standard Metamodel for Software Development Methodologies, AS 4651-2004. Australian Standards International: Sydney, Australia.
66. Söderström E, Andersson B, Johannesson P, Perjons E, Wangler B. 2002. Towards a framework for comparing process modeling languages. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'2002), Banks Pidduck A, Mylopoulos J, Woo C, Ozsu T (eds). Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 600-611.
67. Tolvanen J-P. 1998. Incremental method engineering with modeling tools-Theoretical principles and empirical evidence. PhD Thesis, Jyväskylä Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics, No. 47, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
68. Venable J. 1993. CoCoA: A conceptual data modeling approach for complex problem domains. PhD Thesis, State University of New York: Binghampton, NY.
69. Vlasblom G, Rijsenbrij D, Glastra M. 1995. Flexibilization of the methodology of system development. Information and Software Technology 37(11): 595-607.
70. Wastell D. 1996. The fetish of technique: methodology as a social defence. Information Systems Journal 6(1): 25-40.
71. Welke R. 1977. Current information system analysis and design approaches: framework, overview, comments and conclusions for large-complex information system education. In Education and Large Information Systems, Buckingham R (ed.). Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 149-166.