Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

ME2011 Keynote by Marko Bajec

570

Published on

Application of Method Engineering Principles in Practice

Application of Method Engineering Principles in Practice

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
570
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Additionaly:* Is thisrealy in a SVN?
  • Additionaly:* Is thisrealy in a SVN?
  • Additionaly:* Is thisrealy in a SVN?
  • Additionaly:* Is thisrealy in a SVN?
  • Additionaly:* Is thisrealy in a SVN?
  • Additionaly:* Is thisrealy in a SVN?
  • Transcript

    • 1. Marko Bajec
      University of Ljubljana
      Faculty of Computer & Information Science
      Slovenia
      Application of ME principles in practiceLessons Learned and Prospects for the Future
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      Paris,France, April20-22, 2011
    • 2. Agenda
      - 2 -
      Intro
      Application of ME principles to improve software development practice in Slovenian software companies.
      What we did
      What we learned
      What we intend to do next
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 3. Introduction
      University of Ljubljana
      The biggest of 5 SLO universities
      >40.000 students;
      27 member institutions
      Faculty of Computer & Information Science
      >1200 students
      Undergraduate and postgraduate study programmes
      Laboratory for Data Technologies
      One of 20 labs
      Data Representation
      Networks, Graphs, Ontologies, Data streams, etc.
      Data Analysis
      Data Mining, Knowledge Disc., Information Retrieval
      Data Visualizationand Soundification
      Network Visualization and Soundification, Data stream
      Visualization, Visualisation ofsound.
      Data Management
      Data fusion and integration, Business Intelligence, etc.
      - 3 -
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 4. Longitudinal Study(1)
      - 4 -
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      T i m e l i n e
      2010
      2011
      2006
      2003
      2004
      2005
      2007
      2008
      2009
      1
      Survey
      Unsupervised usage
      MasterProc
      Future
      work
      Check Point
    • 5. Survey(1)
      - 5 -
      Objectives: to analyse existing practice:
      To what extent companies employ formalised methods in ISD?
      What kind of methods companies use in their everyday working?
      How technically and social sound are the methods companies use in their everyday working?
      Do companies lack higher levels of formalisation of their ways of working.
      Participants: Slovenian IT companies and companies with larger IT departments.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      2003-2004
    • 6. Survey(2)
      - 6 -
      Sample:
      Invitation sent to 200 companies (>3 emp)
      Respondents: 70 companies
      Small: 50
      Medium: 13
      Large: 7
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Company Size
      Size of IT Department
    • 7. Two types of questionnaires:
      A questioner for IT managers (decision makers),
      A questioner for developers (individuals).
      Questions for each discipline:
      Business modelling, Requirements acquisition, Analysis, Design, Implementation, Testing, Integration, Maintenance, Project management, Change and version management.
      Survey(3)
      - 7 -
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      R
      D
      A
      B
      In
      T
      Technical suitability
      I
      P
      M
      C
      Social suitability
    • 8. Survey - Results
      8
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      SDM underused in practice
      In-house SDM
      Social inappropriateness
      KeyObstacles
      Additional formalisation
      Key Findings
      Inflexibility
      Testing
      SDM not documented
      Change Mngm
      Maintenance
      Design
      Implementation
      SDM – Software development method(s)
    • 9. Longitudinal Study(2)
      - 9 -
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      2004-2007
      T i m e l i n e
      2010
      2011
      2006
      2003
      2004
      2005
      2007
      2008
      2009
      2
      Survey
      Unsupervised usage
      MasterProc
      Future
      work
      Check Point
    • 10. Research goals and motivation
      10
      Motivation:
      Low usage of documented SDM in Slovenian companies;
      Lessons learned on projects not captured; reinventing the wheel.
      Awareness of their importance for QAin software development;
      Goal:
      To help companies to improve their software development practice (and results) by providing a framework and tools for reengineering their SDM, focusing on methods formalisation, their continuous improvement, and their adaptability to characteristics of a particular project or team.…
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 11. The MasterProc research project
      11
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      MasterProc project:
      R&D project under the umbrella of the centre of excellence for information and communication technologies;
      Started in 2004, finished in 2007
      Participating partners:
      Faculty of Computer & Information Science – responsible for research and development;
      Five software companies – interested parties;
      The Institute for Economic Research – responsible for market research
      Co-founded by the Slovenian Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, European Commission and the participating Software Companies
    • 12. Research method
      12
      Organised as a collaborative practice research.
      Interviews and surveys used to evaluate existing ways of working in the participating companies.
      Complemented by action research.
      For each of the participating companies a working team was set up comprising two researchers and two practitioners.
      The responsibility of the team was to take part in real projects to get firsthand information.
      Literature review used to study state of the art in the field of method construction.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 13. Collaborative practice research
      13
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Adapted by Mathiassen, 2001
      • Analyse existing processes (quality, technical and social suitability);
      • 14. Determine required level of flexibility.
      Interpretation
      Inreviews and questioners
      Action research
      • Conduct a research to understand how to improve practice;
      • 15. Conduct a research to understand how to introduce appropriate level of flexibility.
      • 16. Conduct a research on improvement strategies;
      • 17. identify appropriate strategy to make improvements;
      • 18. Improve practice.
      Literature review
      Experiments and field studies
      Literature review
      Survey
      Intervention
      Design
    • 19. A Framework for Method Reengineering
      14
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Project characteristics
      Method Configuration
      Documentedmethod
      Tailoredmethod
      Existing ways of working
      Method Use
      Learning cycle
      Method Construction
      Method Evaluation & improvement
      Suggestions for improvements
      Experience, new knowledge
      AMF - Agile Methodology Framework
    • 20. Method Construction
      15
      Aim:
      To construct/improve a base method that will document the ways of working in the analyzed organization.
      Approach:
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Analyse the company
      Discuss
      and make improvements
      Create metamodel
      Populate metamodel
      • Understand how the company works
      • 21. Analyse characteristics of the company and its development team
      • 22. Measure socio-technical suitability of the method used
      • 23. Point out deficiencies of the existing ways of working
      • 24. Study and suggest changes/improvements…
      • 25. Select appropriate method weight
      • 26. Design method structure (metamodel)
      • 27. Define basic rules…
      • 28. Elicit and capture method fragments
      • 29. Define rules for method tailoring
    • Base Method
      16
      Characteristics of a base method
      Represents basis for method tailoring.
      Document the ways of working;Captures method fragments for various situations – “project paths”;
      Defines rules that tell when the use a certain method fragment is compulsory, advisable or discouraged.
      Is process oriented;
      Needs several learning cycles to become all-inclusive;
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 30. Rules in base method
      17
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 31. Process flow rules
      18
      Process flow rules
      define conditional transitions among activities – theconditions that have to be met to perform the transition.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      R1: IF A2 is finished AND C THEN start A3
    • 32. Structure rules
      19
      Structure rules
      similar to process flow rules;
      can constrain any link between method elements (not just links between activities).
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      R2: IF A2 AND C THEN OA1
    • 33. Completeness rules
      20
      Completeness rules:
      help to check whether a project-specific method includes all required components,
      apply to a metamodel and not to a base method,
      tell the cardinality of the relationships between metaelements.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Activity
      Technique
      1
      n
      n
      1
      Tool
    • 34. Consistency rules
      21
      Consistency rules
      similar to completeness rules;
      aimed to assure consistency of the elements comprising a project-specific method;
      deal with interdependency between any two elements;
      help to avoid conflicting situations.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      The deliverable Business Model depends on the activity Business modelling
    • 35. Facts
      22
      Facts
      Assertions that define the characteristicsof project for which a project-specific method is being created;
      Can be classified into base facts or derived facts;
      Base facts define project variables directly;
      Derived facts are derived from base facts using inferences or calculations.
      Examples:
      The project domain is well known.
      If the project field is telecommunications or healthcare then the project domain is well known.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 36. Method Configuration and Use
      23
      Aim:
      To tailor base method to suite specific project project-specific method.
      Approach:
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Determine project characteristics
      Use tailored method on project
      Tailor base method
      Definition of base facts:
      • The project domain is healthcare,
      • 37. The project timeframe is 12 months,
      • 38.
      PCA algorithm
    • 39. PCA as SME and its characteristics
      24
      PCA – Process Configuration Approach
      Based on ME principles
      Single point of departure (base method);
      Works on low layer of granularity (maximal flexibility);
      Combines the meta-modelling and extension/reduction based SME approaches.
      PCA advantages:
      Uses org.-specific method to create project-specific methods;
      Does not need or allow fragments to be changed during the creation process;
      Is easy, yet powerful;
      Focuses on software process improvement.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Bajec M., Vavpotič D., Krisper M. Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Information and Software Technology. 2007, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 345-365.
    • 40. Performing PCA
      25
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Process process flow rules
      Process structure rules
      Process completeness rules
      Process consistency rules
    • 41. Method evaluation & improvement
      26
      Aim:
      Continuous method evaluation and improvementto retain social and technical suitability of the base method.
      Approach:
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Evaluate method elements
      Discuss
      possible improvements
      Identify strategies
      Implement changes
    • 42. Evaluation method
      27
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 43. SPI in terms of CMM
      28
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      Method Configuration
      Method Configuration
      Optimized
      L5
      Managed
      After a few
      learning
      Cycles
      L4
      Method Use
      Method Construction
      Learning cycle
      Method Use
      Method Construction
      Defined
      L3
      Repeatable
      Method
      Construction
      L2
      Method Evaluation & improvement
      Method Evaluation & improvement
      Initial
      L1
      Maturity levels of the CMM
    • 44. AMT – Agile Methodology Toolset
      29
      AMT high-level architecture
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 45. AMT – MethElicit, MethModel
      30
      MethElicit: method elicitation
      Definition of a metamodel.
      Metamodel population (instances of metamodel elements, instances of relations).
      MethModel: process modelling
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 46. AMT – MethAdapt
      31
      MethAdapt: method adaptation
      Facilitates method tailoring.
      Based on rules and project specifics, MethAdapt creates an instance of the method that is tailored to the project characteristics.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 47. AMT – MethEval
      32
      MethEval: method evaluation
      Facilitates continuous evaluation of the method.
      Comprises two sub-modules:
      S1 allows method engineer to configure survey questionnaires and analyse the survey results.
      S2 generates survey questionnaires and distributes them among method users according to the context of their role.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 48. AMT – MethGen, MethUse
      33
      MethGen: method generation
      MethGen generates a method reference book in PDF format suitable for printing. Can be used as a learning material, given to customers, etc.
      MethUse: method use
      Enables dynamic access to the method contentthrough web portal. The main purpose of the module is to make access to the method content as easy and quick as possible.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 49. Longitudinal Study(3)
      - 34 -
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      2008-2010
      T i m e l i n e
      2010
      2011
      2006
      2003
      2004
      2005
      2007
      2008
      2009
      3
      Survey
      Unsupervised usage
      MasterProc
      Future
      work
      Check Point
    • 50. Check Point(1)
      35
      From May, 2007 till September 2010, unsupervised usage.
      Findings at check point:
      In four of the five companies, AMF learning cycle (Evaluate, Construct/Improve, Configure, Use) discontinued.
      In one company, SDM managed, in all other defined (documented) but not up to date.
      The maturity level raised in one of the companies in others kept at the same level.
      Companies reported they are managing project better that they used to and are still interested in capturing the knowledge gained at IT development projects (e.g. in a form of a base method) but did not want to spend too much time for that…
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 51. Check Point(2)
      36
      Reported obstacles:
      Software development process rather chaotic– i.e. difficult to describe and capture.
      Method engineer role not common – project managers like to manage projects by their own ways.
      The AMF learning cycle time consuming. There is no immediate advantage if decisions are discussed and documented.
      The AMT good as a prototype but not for professional use.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 52. Longitudinal Study(4)
      - 37 -
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      2011-
      T i m e l i n e
      2010
      2011
      2006
      2003
      2004
      2005
      2007
      2008
      2009
      4
      Survey
      Unsupervised usage
      MasterProc
      Future
      work
      Check Point
    • 53. Prospects for the future
      38
      Making AMF learning cycle moreuser transparent and less time consuming would increase its use in practice!
      Most prominent future directions:
      Auto capturing and monitoring of In-action Methods (IM) based on projects’ Revision Control System (RCS) Repositories;
      Automaticadjustments of the Base Method based on projects’ IMs;
      Adequate tool-support for project monitoring, management, analysis and execution.
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
    • 54. Auto Capturing & Monitoring of IM
      39
      (Large) software projects typically use a RCS (e.g., Subversion, Visual Source Safe, Rational Team Concert, CVS, etc.)
      H1:
      Based on the RCS repository content, project’s IM can be inferred.
      H2:
      IMs, inferred from the RCS repository content, can be used to alter and generalize company’s Base Method.
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
    • 55. Silent Learning cycle
      40
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
      IM
      MonitoringSystem
      R C S
      R e p o s i t o r y
      Guidance
      Alterations
      Existing ways of working
      Artefacts
      Method
      Use
      Method Construction
      B a s e M e t h o d
    • 56. RCS Repository
      41
      RCS repository consists of files and directories.
      Various repository layouts available.
      trunkProjectsWidgetsource
      trunkProjectsWidgetdoc
      trunkProjectsWidgetimages
      branches
      IM artefacts written into repository structure.
      Majority of RCS support
      Custom properties
      Automatic property setting
      Pre/post-event hooks
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
    • 57. IM Auto Capturing
      42
      After an artefact is inserted into repository:
      Custom properties can be used to identify the position in the base method.
      If the position can not be not found then base method needs alterations.
      Examples:
      Insert (d6, A5, R3)  connect (A5, d6), getRule(A5, d6).
      Insert (d6, A6, R3)  new branch (A3, A6), getRule(A3, A6), connect (A6, d6), connect (A6, R3)
      Pre/post-event hookscan be used to capture additional information.
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
      d1
      A1
      d2
      R1
      R2
      R3
      A2
      A3
      d3
      Rule1
      Rule2
      Rule3
      A4
      A5
      A6
      d5
      d4
      d6
      d6
    • 58. IM Guidance
      43
      At any time user may invoke monitoring system and get all available information based on:
      his role,
      metamodel of the base method and
      current position in the base method.
      E.g.:
      Next activities,
      Deliverables of an activity,
      Examples of deliverables,
      Deliverables‘ templates…
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
      d1
      A1
      d2
      R1
      R2
      R3
      A2
      A3
      d3
      Rule1
      Rule2
      A4
      A5
      d5
      d4
    • 59. IM Control
      44
      Monitoring system can be used to control IM.
      E.g.:
      After d1 and d2, d4 is inserted. Monitoring system detects missing artefact d3 and alerts responsible user.
      User may introduce a new rule under which d3 is not required.
      Pre/post-event hooks can be used to invoke dialog box for user to add required info.
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
      d1
      A1
      d2
      R1
      R2
      R3
      A2
      A3
      d3
      Rule1
      Rule2
      A4
      A5
      d5
      d4
    • 60. Auto generation of a Base Method
      45
      Base method can be automatically created step-by-step from IMs captured to RCS repository.
      Repository content represented with labelled multigraphs. Subgraph isomorphism algorithm used to identify an IM or its part in the base method.
      Constraints (Structure, Process, Consistency, Completeness) and Facts identified using Inductive Logic Programming.
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
    • 61. Important remarks
      46
      Adopted meta-model must be consistent among projects and with the company’s base method;
      Project parameters, properties and facts need to be captured at the project kick off.
      When checking RCS repository, only last revisions are considered.
      IFIP 8.1 Working conference on ME
      Paris, France, April 20-22, 2011
    • 62. Conclusions
      47
      SDMs underused in practice, which effects negatively the development process and its products.
      AMF learning cycle useful but too time consuming for everyday practice.
      Automation of the learning cycle (Silent Learning):
      IM auto Capturing, Monitoring and Control
      Base method auto adjustment
      With an adequate tool support the silent learning cycle would possibly bring positive results.
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
    • 63. Questions
      48
      IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on ME
      April 20 - 22, 2011 - Paris, France
      University of Ljubljana
      Faculty of Computer & Information Science
      Tržaška 25,
      1000 Ljubljana
      Marko Bajec
      Laboratory for DatabaseTechnologies
      Contact:
      Tel: +386 (1) 4768816
      e-mail: marko.bajec@fri.uni-lj.si

    ×