Examining the quality of evaluation frameworks and metamodeling paradigms of is development methodologies

Measuring Information Systems Delivery Quality

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 265-289

  Berki, Eleni ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900167570     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-857-4.ch012     Document Type: Chapter

References (79)

1. Abran, A., Khelifi, A., & Suryn, W. (2003). Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards. Software Quality Journal, 11, 325-338.
2. Allen, P., & Frost, S. (1998). Component-based development for enterprise systems. Applying the SELECT perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (1995). Information systems development: Methodologies, techniques and tools. Maidenhead; Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
4. th International Conference & Exposition on Testing Computer Software. Washington, DC.
5. Bergsten, P., Bubenko, J. A., Jr., Dahl, R., Gustafsson, M., & Johansson, L. (1989). RAMATIC: A CASE shell for implementation of specific CASE tools (Tech. Rep. No. S-7). Swedish Institute for Systems Development (SISU), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
6. Berki, E. (1999). Systems development method engineering, the formal NEWS: The formal notation for expressing a wide-range of specifications, the construction of a formal specification metamodel (Mphil/PhD Transfer Report). University of North London, Faculty of Science, Computing & Engineering, London.
7. Berki, E. (2001). Establishing a scientific discipline for capturing the entropy of systems process models. CDM-FILTERS: A computational and dynamic metamodel as flexible and integrated language for the testing, expression and re-engineering of systems. PhD thesis. University of North London, Faculty of Science, Computing & Engineering, London.
8. st Balkan Conference in Informatics), SEERC, Thessaloniki (Proceedings published in 2004) (pp. 170-188).
9. th International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, Jerusalem, Israel. Conference proceedings available on CD-ROM.
10. Berki, E., Georgiadou, E., & Holcombe, M. (2004, April). Requirements engineering and process modelling in software quality management - Towards a generic process metamodel. The Software Quality Journal, 12, 265-283.
11. Berki, E., Georgiadou, E., & Siakas, K. (1997, March). A methodology is as strong as the user involvement it supports. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Software Engineering in Universities, Rovaniemi Polytechnic, Rovaniemi (pp. 36-51).
12. Berki, E., Isomäki, H., & Jäkälä, M. (2003, June). Holistic communication modeling: Enhancing human-centred design through empowerment. In D. Harris, V. Duffy, M. Smith, & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Cognitive, social and ergonomic aspects (Vol. 3, pp. 1208-1212). Proceedings of the HCI International Conference, Heraklion, Crete. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. th International Conference on Software Quality Management, British Computer Society, SQM, Limerick.
14. Brinkkemper, S. (1996, April). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275-280.
15. Brinkkemper, S. (2000, June). Method engineering with Web-enabled methods. In S. Brinkkemper, Lindencrorna, E., & Solvberg, A. (Eds.), Information systems engineering, state of the art and research themes (pp. 123-134). London: Springer-Verlag.
16. Burst, A., Wolff, M., Kuhl, M., & Muller-Glaser, K. D. (1999, June). Using CDIF for concept-oriented rapid prototyping of electronic systems. University of Karlsruhe, Institute of Information Processing Technology, ITIV. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www-itiv.etec.unikarlsruhe.de
17. CCTA. (1994). Euromethod overview. Author.
18. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Chisholm, R. M. (1982). The problem of criterion. The foundations of knowing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20. th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. DESMET. (1991). State of the art report (workpackage 1). NCC Publications.
22. Dorling, A. (1993). SPICE: Software process improvement and capacity determination. Information and Software Technology, 35(6/7), 404-406.
23. th International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, Jerusalem, Israel.
24. th International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, Jerusalem, Israel (pp. 467-474).
25. rd International Conference on Software Quality Management, Seville, Spain (Vol. 2, pp. 35-46).
26. Georgiadou, E., Siakas, K., & Berki, E. (2003, December 10-12). Quality improvement through the identification of controllable and uncontrollable factors in software development. In R. Messnarz (Ed.), Proceedings of EuroSPI 2003: European Software Process Improvement, Graz, Austria (pp. IX 31-45).
27. Graham, I. (1991). Object-oriented methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28. nd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (pp. 54-64).
29. Holcombe, M., & Ipate, F. (1998). Correct systems - building a business process solution. London: Springer-Verlag.
30. Huotari, J., & Kaipala, J. (1999). Review of HCI research - focus on cognitive aspects and used methods. In T. Kakola (Ed.), IRIS 22 Conference: Enterprise Architectures for Virtual Organisations. Keurusselka, Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskyla University Printing House.
31. Iivari, J., & Kerola, P. (1983, July 5-7). A sociocybernetic framework for the feature analysis of information systems design methodologies. In T. W. Olle, H. G. Sol, & C. J. Tully (Eds.), Information systems design methodologies: A feature analysis. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies. York.
32. th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE'01, Interlaken (Lecture Notes in Computer Science [LNCS] 2068, pp. 234-250). Springer.
33. Ince, D. (1995). Software quality assurance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Ipate, F., & Holcombe, M. (1998). Specification and testing using generalized machines: A presentation and a case study. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 8, 61-81.
35. Jarke, M., Gallersdorfer, R., Jeusfeld, M. A., Staudt, M., & Eherer, S. (1995). ConceptBase - a deductive objectbase for meta data management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 4(2), 167-192.
36. Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Rolland, C., & Schmitt, J.-R. (1994). Experience-based method evaluation and improvement: A process modeling approach. In T. W. Olle & A. A. Verrijin-Stuart (Eds.), IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference CRIS'94. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
37. Jarzabek, S. (1990, March). Specifying and generating multilanguage software development environments. Software Engineering Journal, 5(2), 125-137.
38. Jayaratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies. NIMSAD: A systemic approach. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
39. Jenkins, T. (1994, Summer). Report back on the DMSG sponsored UK Euromethod forum '94. Data Management Bulletin, 11, 3.
40. th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE '97 (LNCS 1250, pp. 217-230). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
41. Kelly, S. (1997). Towards a comprehensive MetaCASE and CAME environment, conceptual, architectural, functional and usability advances in MetaEdit+. PhD thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.
42. th International Conference CAiSE'96, Heraklion, Crete, Greece (LNCS, pp. 1-21). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
43. Kitchenham, B. A., Linkman, S. G., & Law, D. T. (1994, March). Critical review of quantitative assessment. Software Engineering Journal, 9(2), 43-53.
44. Kopetz, H. (1979). Software reliability. New York: Springer-Verlag.
45. Koskinen, M. (2000). Process metamodeling: Conceptual foundations and application. PhD thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla Studies in Computing-7, Finland.
46. Kronlof, K. (Ed.). (1993). Method integration, concepts and case studies. Wiley Series on Software Based Systems, Wiley, Chichester.
47. Law, D. (1988). Methods for comparing methods: Techniques in software development. NCC Publications.
48. Law, D., & Naeem, T. (1992, March). DESMET: Determining an evaluation methodology for software methods and tools. Proceedings of the Conference on CASE - Current Practice, Future Prospects. Cambridge: British Computer Society.
49. Lewis, H. R., & Papadimitriou, C. H. (1998). Elements of the theory of computation. Prentice Hall International Editions.
50. Manninen, A., & Berki, E. (2004, April). An evaluation framework for the utilisation of requirements management tools - maximising the quality of organisational communication and collaboration. In M. Ross & G. Staples (Eds.), Software Quality Management 2004 Conference, University of KENT, Canterbury.
51. Marttiin, P. (1988). Customisable process modelling support and tools for design environment. PhD thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
52. Marttiin, P., Rossi, M., Tahvanainen, V.-P. & Lyytinen, K.A. (1993). Comparative review of CASE shells - a preliminary framework and research outcomes. Information and Management, 25, 11-31.
53. Mohamed W. A., & Sadler, C. J. (1992, April). Methodology evaluation: A critical survey. Eurometrics'92 Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Software & Systems, Brussels (pp. 101-112).
54. Musa J. D., Iannino, A., & Okumoto, K. (1987). Software reliability measurement, prediction, application. New York: McGraw-Hill.
55. Myers, G. (1976). Software reliability principles and practices. John Wiley & Sons.
56. Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., & Koubarakis, M. (1990). TELOS: A language for representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(4).
57. Nielsen, P. (1990). Approaches to appreciate information systems methodologies. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 9(2), 43-60.
58. Olle, T. W., Sol, H. G., & Verrijin-Stuart, A. A. (Eds). (1982, May 10-14). Information systems design methodologies: A comparative review. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
59. Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993, July). The capability maturity model: version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18-27.
60. Rantapuska, T., Siakas, K., Sadler, C. J., & Mohamed, W.-E. (1999, September). Quality issues of end-user application development. In C. Hawkins, E. Georgiadou, L. Perivolaropoulos, M. Ross, & G. Staples (Eds), The BCS INSPIRE IV Conference: Training and Teaching for the Understanding of Software Quality, University of Crete, Heraklion.
61. Rossi, M. (1998). Advanced computer support for method engineering: Implementation of CAME environment in MetaEdit+. PhD thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics, Finland.
62. Rossi, M., & Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Information Systems, 21(2), ISSN: 0306-4379.
63. Saadia, A. (1999). An investigation into the formalization of software design schemata. MPhil thesis, University of North London, Faculty of Science, Computing and Engineering.
64. Sadler, C., & Kitchenham, B. A. (1996). Evaluating software engineering methods and tools. Part 4: The influence of human factors. SIGSOFT, Software Engineering Notes, 21(5), 11-13.
65. Shapiro, J., & Berki, E. (1999). Encouraging effective use of CASE tools for discrete event modelling through problem-based learning. In C. Hawkins, E. Georgiadou, L. Perivolaropoulos, M. Ross, & G. Staples (Eds.), The BCS INSPIRE IV Conference: Training and Teaching for the Understanding of Software Quality, University of Crete, Heraklion (pp. 313-327). British Computer Society.
66. Siakas, K., Berki, E., & Georgiadou, E. (2003, December 10-12). CODE for SQM: A model for cultural and organisational diversity evaluation. In R. Messnarz (Ed.), EuroSPI 2003:European Software Process Improvement, Graz, Austria (pp. IX 1-11).
67. th World Congress on Total Quality Management. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill.
68. th International Conference. Heraklion, Crete, Greece, (LNCS 1080, pp. 22-43). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
69. nd Conference in Advanced Information Systems Engineering (LNCS 436, pp. 195-214). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
70. Sol, H. G. (1983, July 5-7). A feature analysis of information systems design methodologies: Methodological considerations. In T. W. Olle, H. G. Sol, & C. J. Tully (Eds.), Information systems design methodologies: A feature analysis. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies. York.
71. Sorenson, P. G., Tremblay, J.-P., & McAllister, A. J. (1988). The MetaView system for many specification environments. IEEE Software, 30(3), 30-38.
72. Tolvanen, J.-P. (1998). Incremental method engineering with modeling tools. PhD thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
73. Tudor, D. J., & Tudor, I. J. (1995). Systems analysis and design - a comparison of structured methods. NCC Blackwell.
74. Van Hillegersberg, J. (1997). Metamodelling-based integration of objectoriented systems development. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Thesis Publishers.
75. Vassiliou, G. (2000). Developing data warehouses with quality in mind. In S. Brinkkemper, E. Lindencrorna, & A. Solvberg (Eds.), Information systems engineering, state of the art and research themes. London: Springer-Verlag.
76. Whittaker, J. (2000, January/February). What is software testing? And why is it so hard? IEEE Software, 17(1), 70-79.
77. Wood, D. (1987). Theory of computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
78. Wood-Harper, A. T., Antill, L., & Avison, D. E. (1985). Information systems definition: The multiview approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
79. Zhang, Z. (2004). Model component reuse. Conceptual foundations and application in the metamodeling-based system analysis and design environment. PhD thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla Studies in Computing, Finland.