Towards Structured Flexibility in Information Systems Development: Devising a Method for Method Configuration

Method configuration is a specific type of Method Engineering (ME) that takes an existing organization-wide Information Systems Development Method (ISDM) as its point of departure. Existing assembly-based ME approaches are not well suited to this task. As an alternative, this article suggests a metamethod approach to tailoring organization-wide ISDMs. We refer to this approach as the Method for Method Configuration (MMC). MMC takes into account the need to combine structure, which is one reason for choosing an organization-wide ISDM in the first place, with flexibility, which is essential for making the chosen ISDM fit actual projects. The metamethod is built using a three-layered reuse model comprising method components, configuration packages, and configuration templates. These concepts are combined efficiently to produce a situational method and thereby to facilitate the work of method engineers.

[1]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  How to Develop a Multi-Grounded Theory: the evolution of a business process theory , 2007, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Components of Software Development Risk: How to Address Them? A Project Manager Survey , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[3]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Situational Requirements Engineering Processes: reflecting on method engineering and requirements practice , 2006, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

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

[5]  John S. Hares.  Information Engineering for the Advanced Practitioner , 1991 .

[6]  Anders G. Nilsson,et al.  The Business Developer’s Toolbox: Chains and Alliances between Established Methods , 1999 .

[7]  Leon J. Osterweil,et al.  Engineering Software Design Processes to Guide Process Execution , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Method intergration: the need for a learning perspective , 1998, IEE Proc. Softw..

[10]  Fredrik Karlsson,et al.  Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method component concept , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Kristin Braa,et al.  Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research , 1999 .

[12]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Explaining Software Developer Acceptance of Methodologies: A Comparison of Five Theoretical Models , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[13]  Colette Rolland,et al.  A Multi-Model View of Process Modelling , 1999, Requirements Engineering.

[14]  Ken Schwaber,et al.  Agile Software Development with SCRUM , 2001 .

[15]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Creating a Dual-Agility Method: The Value of Method Engineering , 2005, J. Database Manag..

[16]  Kees van Slooten,et al.  Characterizing IS development projects , 1996 .

[17]  Mark L. Gillenson.  INDUSTRY AND PRACTICE: Object-Oriented Database: How Wide is the Application Range? , 1995 .

[18]  Marko Bajec,et al.  Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[19]  Isabelle Mirbel,et al.  Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches , 2005, Requirements Engineering.

[20]  Juha-Pekka Tolvanen,et al.  Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[22]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Systems Development Method Rationale: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis , 2003, ICEIS.

[23]  Alistair Cockburn,et al.  Selecting a Project 's Methodology , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[24]  Colette Rolland,et al.  An Approach for Defining Ways-of-Working , 1995, Inf. Syst..

[25]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[26]  A. F. Harmsen,et al.  Situational Method Engineering , 1997 .

[27]  J. J. Odell,et al.  A primer to method engineering , 1996 .

[28]  Fredrik Karlsson,et al.  MC Sandbox - Tool Support for Method Configuration , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[29]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools , 1996, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[30]  Meng Wang,et al.  Active Video Annotation: To Minimize Human Effort , 2009 .

[31]  Fredrik Karlsson,et al.  Method Configuration — A Systems Development Project Revisited , 2005 .

[32]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  The Use of Subtypes and Stereotypes in the UML Model , 2002, J. Database Manag..

[33]  R. Kelly Rainer,et al.  Factors that Impact Implementing a System Development Methodology , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[34]  Fredrik Karlsson,et al.  Method Components - Rationale Revealed , 2004, CAiSE.

[35]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  Using UML - software engineering with objects and components, Second Edition , 2006, Addison Wesley object technology series.

[36]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Flexibile Processes and Method Configuration: Outline of a Joint Industry-Academia Research Project , 2003, ICEIS.

[37]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering , 2003, CAiSE.

[38]  Xuelong Li,et al.  Semantic Mining Technologies for Multimedia Databases , 2009 .

[39]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme programming and the unified process , 2002 .

[40]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Process Metamodelling and Process Construction: Examples Using the OPEN Process Framework (OPF) , 2002, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[41]  Erik Stolterman,et al.  Designarbetets dolda rationalitet en studie av metodik och praktik inom systemutveckling , 1991 .

[42]  Michael Hirsch,et al.  Making RUP agile , 2002, OOPSLA '02.

[43]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[44]  Gary Evans.  Agile RUP for non-object-oriented projects , 2003 .

[45]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice , 1999 .

[46]  John S. Erickson.  Database Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4 Volumes) , 2009, Database Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications.

[47]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Collaborative Practice Research , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[48]  William E. McCarthy,et al.  Agility---: the key to survival of the fittest in the software market , 2003, CACM.

[49]  James C. Wetherbe,et al.  Key Issues in Information Systems Management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi Results , 1996, MIS Q..

[50]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets , 2004, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[51]  Colette Rolland,et al.  A proposal for context-specific method engineering , 1996 .

[52]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[53]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Modularization Constructs in Method Engineering: Towards Common Ground? , 2007, Situational Method Engineering.

[54]  Guy De Tré,et al.  An Overview of Fuzzy Approaches to Flexible Database Querying , 2009, Database Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications.

[55]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Exploring the Concept of Method Rationale: A Conceptual Tool to Understand Method Tailoring , 2006 .

[56]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Diversity in information systems action research methods , 1998 .