Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A knowledge management-driven and DevOps-based method for situational method engineering

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Earlier software development processes (SDPs), such as waterfall processes, were mainly focused on process steps and did not address people- and product-related issues. Emergence of Software development methodologies (SDM) has created a new paradigm for developing software systems. A SDM is a special kind of technically engineered framework for organizing SDPs; this framework is expected to specify three main interwoven elements, namely people, products, and process. It has since become evident that it is impossible to provide a general-purpose SDM for developing all the various kinds of software systems, and it has thus become essential to construct the most appropriate methodology for the system development situation in hand, a practice commonly called Situational Method Engineering (SME). The problem with existing SME methods is lack of adequate attention to the role of people who might seek or possess valuable knowledge about the project situation. This knowledge can be tacit information that is hidden in the developer’s mind, or it might be explicitly available. This paper proposes a knowledge management (KM)-driven and DevOps-based SME method as a new integrated multi-view methodological paradigm that satisfies the need for sharing human experience in engineering SDMs. The method has been proposed by reusing general SME practices and complementing them by embedding appropriate KM and DevOps practices to alleviate the weaknesses of previous SME methods. Furthermore, the proposed method has been evaluated through four case studies and also by conducting a criteria-based comparison with eight prominent SME methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ramsin R, Paige RF (2008) Process-centered review of object oriented software development methodologies. ACM Comput Surv 40:1–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/1322432.1322435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Henderson-Sellers B, Ralyté J, Agerfalk PJ, Rossi M (2014) Situational method engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25:107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jabbari R, bin Ali N, Petersen K, Tanveer B (2016) What is devops?: A systematic mapping study on definitions and practices. In Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop Proceedings of XP 2016. ACM, pp 1–11

  5. Httermann M (2012) DevOps for developers. Apress, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Osterweil L (2011) Software processes are software too. Engineering of Software. Springer, pp 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1145/253228.253440

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Durst S, Zieba M (2019) Mapping knowledge risks: towards a better understanding of knowledge management. Knowl Manag Res Pract 17:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1538603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Durst S, Zieba M (2021) A knowledge management-driven and devops-based method for situational method engineering: supplementary file. Figshare. Journal contribution. https://figshare.com/s/074895e29090a831c8c4. Accessed 28 October 2021

  9. Nehan YR, Deneckere R (2007) Component-based situational methods, In Working Conference on Method Engineering. Springer, Boston. pp 161–175

  10. Ramsin R (2006) Engineering of an object-oriented software development methodology. Dissertation, University of York

  11. Mirbel I, Ralyté J (2006) Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requir Eng 11:58–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0019-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aharoni A, Reinhartz-Berger I (2008) A domain engineering approach for situational method engineering. In: Li Q, Spaccapietra S, Yu E, Olivé A (eds) Conceptual modelling–lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 455–468

    Google Scholar 

  13. Serour MK, Henderson Sellers, B (2004) Introducing agility: a case study of situational method engineering using the OPEN process framework. In: 28th annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC). IEEE, pp 50–57

  14. Seidita V, Cossentino M, Gaglio S (2007) Adapting passi to support a goal oriented approach: a situational method engineering experiment. In: Fifth European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS’07). pp 1–15

  15. Bajec M, Vavpotič D, Krisper M (2007) Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Inf Softw Technol 49:345–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2006.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoppenbrouwers S, van Bommel P, Järvinen A (2008) Method engineering as game design: an emerging HCI perspective on methods and CASE tools. In: Proceedings of EMMSAD. Citeseer, pp 1–15

  17. Kornyshova E, Deneckère R, Salinesi C (2007) Method chunks selection by multicriteria techniques: an extension of the assembly-based approach. In: Working conference on method engineering. Springer, pp 64–78

  18. Karagiannis D, Burzynski P, Utz W, Buchmann RA (2019) A metamodeling approach to support the engineering of modeling method requirements. In: 27th international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, pp 199–210

  19. Janković M, Žitnik S, Bajec M (2019) Reconstructing de facto software development methods. Comput Sci Inf Syst 16:75–104. https://doi.org/10.2298/csis180226038j

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sandkuhl K, Seigerroth U (2019) Method engineering in information systems analysis and design: a balanced scorecard approach for method improvement. Softw Syst Model 18:1833–1857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-018-0692-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Franch X, Ralyté J, Perini A, Abelló A, Ameller D, Gorroñogoitia J, Nadal S, Oriol M, Seyff N, Siena A, Susi A (2018) A situational approach for the definition and tailoring of a data-driven software evolution method. In: Krogstie J, Reijers HA (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91563-0_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Mishra D, Aydin S, Mishra A, Ostrovska S (2018) Knowledge management in requirement elicitation: Situational methods view. Comput Stand Interfac 56:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Park JG, Lee J (2014) Knowledge sharing in information systems development projects: explicating the role of dependence and trust. Int J Project Manage 32:153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pee LG, Kankanhalli A, Kim HW (2010) Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. J Assoc Inform Syst 11:550–575

    Google Scholar 

  25. López L, Costal D, Ralyté J, Franch X, Méndez L, Annosi MC (2016) OSSAP–a situational method for defining open source software adoption processes. In: International conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_32

  26. Mitchell SM, Seaman CB (2016) Could removal of project-level knowledge flow obstacles contribute to software process improvement? A study of software engineer perceptions. Inf Softw Technol 72:151–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Unterkalmsteiner M, Gorschek T, Islam AM, Cheng CK, Permadi RB, Feldt R (2011) Evaluation and measurement of software process improvement—a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans Software Eng 38:398–424. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2011.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee MC, Chang T (2006) Applying TQM, CMM and ISO 9001 in knowledge management for software development process improvement. Int J Serv Stand 2:101–115. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijss.2006.008161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Almomani MA, Basri S, Kamil A (2018) Factors influencing the implementation of software process improvement in small and medium enterprises: an empirical study. Adv Sci Lett 24:1716–1722. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2018.11144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sun Y, Liu XF (2010) Business-oriented software process improvement based on CMMI using QFD. Inf Softw Technol 52:79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Basili VR, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (2002) Experience factory. Encycl Software Eng 1:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471028959.sof110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Basili VR (1993) The experience factory and its relationship to other improvement paradigms. In: Sommerville I, Paul M (eds) Software engineering-lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2008) Design science in information systems research. Manag Inf Syst Q 28:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Clarke P, O’Connor RV (2012) The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inf Softw Technol 54:433–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Khatibian N, Hasan gholoi pourAbedi Jafari TH (2010) Measurement of knowledge management maturity level within organizations. Bus Strateg Ser 11:54–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631011013113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Henderson-Sellers B (2005) Agent-oriented methodologies. IGP, US and UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Silva A, Araújo T, Nunes J, Perkusich M, Dilorenzo E, Almeida H, Perkusich A (2017) A systematic review on the use of definition of done on agile software development projects. In: 21st international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering. ACM. pp 364–373

  38. d Santos FrançaNettodo Carvalho JBJMES et al (2015) KIPO: the knowledge-intensive process ontology. Softw Syst Model 14:1127–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0397-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Object Management Group (OMG) (2008) About the software and systems process engineering metamodel specification version 2.0. https://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/About-SPEM. Accessed 17 September 2020

  40. Riege A (2005) Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. J Knowl Manag 9:18–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Balachandran V (2020) On the need for automatic knowledge management in modern collaboration tools to improve software maintenance. In: IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME). IEEE, pp 722–722

  42. Duffield SM, Whitty SJ (2016) Application of the systemic lessons learned knowledge model for organisational learning through projects. Int J Project Manage 34:1280–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shakeri Hossein Abad Z, Gervasi V, Zowghi D, Far BH (2019) Supporting analysts by dynamic extraction and classification of requirements-related knowledge. In: 41st international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE/ACM, pp 442–453

  44. Ali N, Daneth H, Hong JE (2020) A hybrid DevOps process supporting software reuse: a pilot project. J Softw Evol Process 32:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li Y, Tarafdar M, Rao SS (2012) Collaborative knowledge management practices. Int J Oper Prod Manag 32:398–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211223077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. López-Martínez J, Juárez-Ramírez R, Huertas C, Jiménez S, Guerra-García C (2016) Problems in the adoption of agile-Scrum methodologies: a systematic literature review. In: 4th international conference in software engineering research and innovation. IEEE, pp 141–148

  47. Haumer P (2007) Eclipse process framework composer. https://www.eclipse.org/epf/general/EPFComposerOverviewPart1.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2020

  48. Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Li Z (2008) Using a protocol template for case study planning. In: 12th International conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (EASE). ScienceOpen, pp 1–8

  49. Kitchenham B, Al-Khilidar H, Babar MA, Berry M, Cox K, Keung J, Kurniawati F, Staples M, Zhang H, Zhu L (2008) Evaluating guidelines for reporting empirical software engineering studies. Empir Softw Eng 13:97–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-007-9053-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D (2005) Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In: International symposium on empirical software engineering. IEEE, pp 95–104

  51. Runeson P, Host M, Rainer A, Regnell B (2012) Case study research in software engineering: guidelines and examples. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jeresy and Canada

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Mohapatra S, Bose S (2020) An appraisal of literature for design and implementation of developing a framework for digital twin and validation through case studies. Health Technol 10:1229–1237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-020-00443-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Banerjee SS, Mohapatra S, Saha G (2021) Developing a framework of artificial intelligence for fashion forecasting and validating with a case study. Int J Enterp Netw Manag 12:165–180. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJENM.2021.10039608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mohapatra S (2019) Critical review of literature and development of a framework for application of artificial intelligence in business. Int J Enterp Netw Manag 10:176–185. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14120604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rubin KS (2012) Essential Scrum: a practical guide to the most popular agile process. Addison-Wesley, US

    Google Scholar 

  57. Brown JD (2011) Likert items and scales of measurement. Statistics 15: 10–14. http://hosted.jalt.org/test/bro_34.htm

  58. Thompson MP, Walsham G (2004) Placing knowledge management in context. J Manage Stud 41:725–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00451.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14:396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Avenue, Tehran, Iran

    Razieh Dehghani & Raman Ramsin

Authors
  1. Razieh Dehghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raman Ramsin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raman Ramsin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dehghani, R., Ramsin, R. A knowledge management-driven and DevOps-based method for situational method engineering. Inf Technol Manag 24, 267–291 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-023-00386-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-023-00386-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation