Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Metamodel for Assessable Software Development Methodologies

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software development methodologies usually contain guidance on what steps to follow in order to obtain the desired product. At the same time, capability assessment frameworks usually assess the process that is followed on a project in practice in the context of a process reference model, defined separately and independently of any particular methodology. This results in the need for extra effort when trying to match a given process reference model with an organisation’s enacted processes. This paper introduces a metamodel for the definition of assessable methodologies, that is, methodologies that are constructed with assessment in mind and that contain a built-in process reference model. Organisations using methodologies built from this metamodel will benefit from automatically ensuring that their executed work conforms to the appropriate assessment model.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbier, F. and Henderson-Sellers, B. 2000. The whole-part relationship in object modelling: A definition in cOlOr, Information and Software Technology 43:19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradi, R., Fernström, C., and Fuggetta, A. 1994. Concepts for evolving software processes, In Software Process Modelling and Technology, eds. A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, pp. 9–31, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B., Kellner, M. I., and Over, J. 1992. Process modelling, Communications of the ACM. 35(9): 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith, D. G. and Henderson-Sellers, B. 2002. The OPEN Process Framework, The OPEN Series. Addison-Wesley, London.

  • Gonzalez-Perez, C. 2003. OPEN/Metis White Paper (PDF). Accessed on 18th February 2003. underline http://www.openmetis.com

  • Gonzalez-Perez, C. and Henderson-Sellers, B. 2005. A Powertype-Based Metamodelling Framework, Software and Systems Modelling. {[submitted]}.

  • Gonzalez-Perez, C. and Henderson-Sellers, B. 2005. Templates and resources in software development methodologies, Journal of Object Technology 4(3).

  • Graham, I., Henderson-Sellers, B., and Younessi, H. 1997. {The OPEN process specification}, The OPEN Series, Harlow (Essex), Addison-Wesley Longman, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers, B., Bohling, J., and Rout, T. 2002. Creating the OOSPICE model architecture—a case of reuse, In SPICE 2002. Venice, Italy, pp. 13–15 March 2003. Qualital.

  • Henderson-Sellers, B. and Bulthuis, A. 1997. Object-Oriented Metamethods, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-Sellers, B., Stallinger, F. and Lefever, B. 2002. Bridging the Gap from Process Modelling to Process Assessment: The OOSPICE Process Specification for Component-Based Software Engineering. In 28th EUROMICRO Conference. Dortmund, Germany, 4–6 September 2002. IEEE Computer Society: Los Alamos, CA.

  • Humphrey, W. S. 1989. Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO, 1998. Software Process Assessment. ISO/IEC 15504: 1998. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission.

  • ISO, 2002. Software Life Cycle Processes, Amendment 1. ISO/IEC 12207: 1995 / Amd 1: 2002. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission.

  • Martin, J. and Odell, J. J. 1992. Object-Oriented Analysis & Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

  • Odell, J. J. 1994. Power types, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 7(2): 8–12.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • OMG, 2001. Unified Modelling Language Specification. formal/01-09-68 through 80 (13 documents). Object Management Group.

  • OMG, 2002. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification. formal/2002-11-14. Object Management Group.

  • SEI, 2002. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Continuous Representation. CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1, Continuous. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.

  • Supply-Chain Council, 2003. Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (website). Accessed on 9th October 2003. underline http://www.supply-chain.org

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia

    Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, Tom McBride & Brian Henderson-Sellers

Authors
  1. Cesar Gonzalez-Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom McBride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian Henderson-Sellers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesar Gonzalez-Perez.

Additional information

Cesar Gonzalez-Perez is a post-doctoral research fellow in the Faculty of Information Technology at UTS, where he is currently researching with Professor Henderson-Sellers in object-oriented methodologies, with particular emphasis on metamodelling and component-based, assessable methodologies. He is the founder and former technical director of Neco, a company based in Spain specializing in software development support services, which include the deployment and use of the OPEN/Metis methodology at small and mid-sized organizations. He has also worked for the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain as a researcher in computing & archaeology, and received his Ph.D. in this topic in 2000.

Tom McBride has more than twenty years in the computer industry in positions ranging from computer operator, developer, project manager to QA manager. He is significantly involved in standards development, both locally in Australia and internationally for the International Standards Organisation. Tom is Chairman of the Australian Computer Society National Standards Committee and is assisting the development of the OOSPICE Component Based Development methodology. He is also a lecturer in software development-related subjects at the University of Technology, Sydney and is currently enrolled as a Ph.D.student investigating coordination in software development.

Brian Henderson-Sellers is Director of the Centre for Object Technology Applications and Research and Professor of Information Systems at UTS. He is author of eleven books on object technology and is well-known for his work in OO methodologies (MOSES, COMMA, OPEN, OOSPICE) and in OO metrics.

Brian has been Regional Editor of Object-Oriented Systems, a member of the editorial board of Object Magazine/Component Strategies and Object Expert for many years and is currently on the editorial board of Journal of Object Technology and Software and Systems Modelling. He was the Founder of the Object-Oriented Special Interest Group of the Australian Computer Society (NSW Branch) and Chairman of the Computerworld Object Developers’ Awards committee for ObjectWorld 94 and 95 (Sydney). He is a frequent, invited speaker at international OT conferences. In 1999, he was voted number 3 in the Who’s Who of Object Technology (Handbook of Object Technology, CRC Press, Appendix N). He is currently a member of the Review Panel for the OMG’s Software Process Engineering Model (SPEM) standards initiative and is a member of the UML 2.0 review team. In July 2001, Professor Henderson-Sellers was awarded a Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) from the University of London for his research contributions in object-oriented methodologies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gonzalez-Perez, C., McBride, T. & Henderson-Sellers, B. A Metamodel for Assessable Software Development Methodologies. Software Qual J 13, 195–214 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-005-6217-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-005-6217-7

Search

Navigation