A Framework for Method Tailoring : A Case Study

Software development methodologies (SDM) have been traditionally defined in a prescriptive manner with an underlying assumption of universal applicability. However, as industrial practice suggests, this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Software development projects very rarely adopt a methodology in such a rigid fashion. Conversely methodologies are normally adapted to meet specific contextual characteristics. This adaptation, known as Method Tailoring (MT), generally occurs implicitly. Implicit adaptation has several drawbacks. Firstly, responsibility and consequences are not attributable to the decisions made during MT. Secondly, MT experience is not captured, thus not being shared and reused within the organization. As a consequence, implicit MT leads to reactive rather than proactive adaptation with negative effects on both productivity and efficient use of resources. In order to alleviate the problems described above, this paper proposes a framework aimed at assisting software development teams and organizations in the elicitation of their Method Tailoring processes. As a result the know-how and experience accumulated during the practice of Method Tailoring is made explicit and organized for the benefit of future projects. The framework has been applied a posteriori to a project carried out by a medium-sized software development company for the Italian national public health service.

[1]  J. Barrie Thompson,et al.  The use, limitations and customization of structured systems development methods in the United Kingdom , 1995, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[2]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering , 1987 .

[3]  Gezinus J. Hidding,et al.  Reinventing methodology: who reads it and why? , 1997, CACM.

[4]  Mark Lycett,et al.  Migrating Agile Methods to Standardized Development Practice , 2003, Computer.

[5]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Software development method tailoring at Motorola , 2003, CACM.

[6]  Jan Stage,et al.  Accommodating Emergent Work Pratices: Ethnographic Choice of Method Fragments , 2001, Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development.

[7]  Doo-Hwan Bae,et al.  Tailoring and verifying software process , 2001, Proceedings Eighth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[8]  Marc I. Kellner,et al.  A method for designing, defining, and evolving software processes , 1996, Proceedings of Software Process 1996.

[9]  Angela Greiling Keane,et al.  NO SILVER BULLET , 2003 .

[10]  Scott Henninger,et al.  Supporting Adaptable Methodologies to Meet Evolving Project Needs , 2002, XP/Agile Universe.

[11]  Scott Henninger,et al.  Turning development standards into repositories of experiences , 2001, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[12]  Tor Guimaraes A study of application program development techniques , 1985, CACM.

[13]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Method engineering for OO systems development , 2003, CACM.

[15]  Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede,et al.  On the Feasibility of Situational Method Engineering , 1997, Inf. Syst..

[16]  Donald Firesmith,et al.  The OPEN process framework , 2001 .

[17]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Formalized systems development methodologies: a critical perspective , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[18]  Marc I. Kellner Connecting reusable software process elements and components , 1996, Proceedings 10th International Software Process Workshop.

[19]  John Cameron,et al.  Configurable development processes , 2002, CACM.

[20]  Juha-Pekka Tolvanen,et al.  Method rationale in method engineering , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.