Centro de Investigación ProS

Model Driven MethodEngineering. A SupportingInfrastructure

MARIO CERVERA ÚBEDA

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Motivation

Software development projects High diversity

Economic resources, duration, etc.

1of2

Software production methods Must be adapted to project needs

Software support CASE environments Little flexibility

Motivation

Method Engineering

2of2

The engineering discipline to design, construct and adapt methods,

techniques and tools for the development of information systems

(Brinkkemper, 1996)

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

State of the Art

1. Method Engineering approaches Assembly-based, paradigm-based and extension-based

2. Method Engineering languages ASDM, GOPRR, MEL, MRSL, NATURE, SPEM and ISO/IEC 24744

3. Method Engineering tools MERET, Decamerone, MENTOR, Method Editor, MetaEdit+ and MERU

1of4

State of the Art2of4

Method Engineering approaches

The assembly-based approach is the most common Modular vision of methods Facilitates reusability

Usually used in combination with the paradigm-based approach

There is no approach that takes all the 4 method dimensions

(product, process, people and tool) into account together

State of the Art3of4

Method Engineering languages

Most of them are product-oriented and defined by means of a

meta-model

Latest standardization efforts: SPEM and ISO/IEC 24744

Method Engineering proposals that make use of these standards

are still non-existent

State of the Art4of4

Method Engineering tools

Two types: CAME1 and metaCASE environments

Most of them are non-commercial prototypes

They provide inadequate coverage of the Method Engineering

lifecycle CAME tools focus on the method design

metaCASE tools focus on CASE tool construction

1 Computer Aided Method Engineering

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Problem Statement

Many theoretical proposals in Method Engineering

Standards are hardly used

Lack of software support Incomplete prototypes

Only one tool (MetaEdit+) has been commercialized

High complexity

1of1

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Proposed Solution1of7

Methodological Framework to support from a MDD perspective the specification of methods and the generation of the CASE tool support

Proposed Solution2of7

Method Design

Construction of the method model following the SPEM standard

This construction can be performed from scratch or reusing method fragments

These fragments are stored in the Method Base repository following the RAS standard

This model does not contain technological details

Proposed Solution3of7

Method Configuration

Configuration of the method built in the previous step

Technical fragments stored in the Asset Base repository are associated to the tasks and products of the method

These fragments contain transformations, editors, etc. that will support the method elements in the generated CASE tool

This model contains technological details

Proposed Solution4of7

Method Implementation

A software tool supporting the method is generated from the method model by means of model transformations

This software tool supports:

Product part Technical fragments

Process part Process engine

Proposed Solution5of7

A software architecture for supporting the methodological framework

Proposed Solution6of7

EPF Composer

Cheatsheets

Eclipse view

4ME

Proposed Solution7of7

4ME

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Case Study1of5

The OOWS-BP method

Case Study2of5

Method Design

Process

Roles

Products

Tasks

Case Study3of5

Method Configuration

Technical fragments

Association of a

Product with a

Technical Fragment

Case Study4of5

Method Implementation

MOSKitt Transformation Manager

Transformation Wizard

Product Configuration FileExport Wizard

Case Study5of5

Method Implementation

Final CASE toolProduct Configuration File

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Main Contributions1of1

1. Application of the MDD paradigm in the Method Engineering field

• Method definition Models• CASE tool generation Model transformations

2. Definition of a methodological approach and development of a prototype that make use of an standard language (SPEM)

3. Coverage of the four dimensions of methods

4. Coverage of both the method design and implementation

5. Definition of a software architecture that establishes the required components to support Model Driven Method Engineering

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Future Work1of1

Process engine Integration with

Method as a Service

Method variability

Megamodeling

Agenda

1. Motivation

2. State of the Art

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Solution

5. Case Study

6. Conclusions

• Main Contributions

• Future Work

• Publications

Publications1of1

1. Cervera, M., Albert, M., Torres, V., Pelechano, V.: A Methodological Framework and Software Infrastructure for the Construction of Software Production Methods. International Conference on Software Processes (2010)

• ICSP is classified as A in the CORE australian ranking

2. Cervera, M., Albert, M., Torres, V., Pelechano, V., Cano, J., Bonet, B.: A Technological Framework to support Model Driven Method Engineering. 7th Taller sobre Desarrollo de Software Dirigido por Modelos (2010)

3. Cervera, M., Albert, M., Torres, V., Pelechano, V.: Turning Method Engineering Support into Reality. To be published in: the 4th IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Method Engineering (2011)

Thanks

Model Driven Method Engineering.A Supporting Infrastructure

Mario Cervera Úbeda– mcervera@pros.upv.es