Methodology evaluation framework for dynamic evolution in composition-based distributed applications

Fung, Kam Hay; Low, Graham

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.06.032

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of approaches (e.g. [7,13,26]) have been proposed for evaluating and comparing software development methodologies with the aim of:…”

Section: Existing Methodology Evaluation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Analytical Framework for Evaluating Service-Oriented Software Development Methodologies

Perepletchikov¹,

Ryan²,

Tari³

2013

JSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Service-Oriented Computing is becoming a para-digm of choice for implementing enterprise-level distributed applications, with a number of methodologies having been proposed to provide systematic guidance for the develop-ment of service-oriented solutions. However, presently, there is a lack of well-defined and pragmatic Service-Oriented (SO)-specific methodology evaluation approaches, making it difficult to evaluate and compare exiting method-ologies in an informed manner. To this end, this paper pro-poses an analytical framework for evaluating and compar-ing SO development methodologies using a set of qualitative features and quantitative ratio-scale metrics. A case-study was conducted to demonstrate the practical application of the framework

show abstract

“…A number of approaches (e.g. [7,13,26]) have been proposed for evaluating and comparing software development methodologies with the aim of:…”

Section: Existing Methodology Evaluation Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the presently available evaluation methodology approaches, e.g. [7,13,26], are not sufficient to capture the unique requirements and constraints of SOC [46]. Also, such approaches suffer from a number of limitations (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analytical Framework for Evaluating Service-Oriented Software Development Methodologies

Perepletchikov¹,

Ryan²,

Tari³

2013

JSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generality, preciseness, comprehensiveness, and balance are the main validation meta-criteria used in the refinement process [51]; however, to present a comprehensive and balanced collection of criteria, a number of complementary meta-criteria have also been defined. The final set of meta-criteria, as listed below, ensures that evaluation criteria possess the traits essential for evaluating processes effectively: To define a range of values for each criterion, a method similar to the Feature Analysis technique has been used [52]; in this method, criteria are divided into four distinct types according to their evaluation values: † Scaled: Discrete levels of satisfaction are defined for these criteria, each with its own specification. † Enumerated: A list of possible values is defined for these criteria.…”

Section: Criteria-based Analysis Of the Bprp Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generality, preciseness, comprehensiveness, and balance are the main validation meta‐criteria used in the refinement process [51]; however, to present a comprehensive and balanced collection of criteria, a number of complementary meta‐criteria have also been defined. The final set of meta‐criteria, as listed below, ensures that evaluation criteria possess the traits essential for evaluating processes effectively: Preciseness: To effectively differentiate the similarities and differences of processes. Clarity (simplicity): To enhance understandability and applicability of the criteria. Minimum overlap: To minimise interdependencies among the criteria. Generality: So that the criteria are applicable regardless of the type of the process being evaluated. Balance: To cover all of the three dimensions of processes (technical, managerial, and usage). Comprehensiveness: So that the criteria address all of the important aspects of processes. Inclusion of pattern‐specific criteria: To evaluate ‘pattern’ characteristics of the processes being evaluated. Inclusion of general process evaluation criteria: To evaluate general traits of processes. Inclusion of BPR‐specific criteria: To evaluate BPR‐specific characteristics of processes. Inclusion of method engineering criteria: To evaluate method‐engineering‐related characteristics of processes. To define a range of values for each criterion, a method similar to the Feature Analysis technique has been used [52]; in this method, criteria are divided into four distinct types according to their evaluation values: Scaled: Discrete levels of satisfaction are defined for these criteria, each with its own specification. Enumerated: A list of possible values is defined for these criteria. Simple: Two values are defined for these criteria, denoting satisfaction or non‐satisfaction. Descriptive: Evaluation results are in narrative form, describing the level of satisfaction in a non‐formal manner. The compiled set of criteria has been divided into four groups: Pattern‐specific, General, BPR‐specific, and SME‐related. These groups will be explained in the following sub‐sections.…”

Section: Validation Of Proposed Bprp Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a method engineering approach for business process reengineering

Ghanadbashi

Ramsin

2016

IET softw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Business process reengineering (BPR) assists organisations in improving their internal functions to better achieve their business objectives. Various methodologies have been developed for applying BPR, through which organisational processes are identified, analysed, and improved. However, the need still remains for custom methodologies which are tailored to fit the specific characteristics of organisations and BPR projects. Process patterns are abstract representations of common and effective processes that can be reused as method parts for building custom methodologies; an approach that is commonly referred to as situational method engineering (SME). This study aims to use SME in the context of BPR by proposing a collection of cohesive process patterns for BPR; these process patterns have been extracted through studying prominent BPR methodologies and abstracting their similarities. The patterns have then been organised into a generic framework for BPR methodologies. A method for using the framework has also been presented which prescribes a process for selecting suitable process patterns and adding them to a core process to yield a bespoke BPR methodology. This flexible framework forms a knowledge base that is not only useful for improving BPR practices, but also provides a basis for future research in this context. stage): The tasks of this optional stage are as follows: † Task 1: Project the costs/benefits associated with implementing and operating the new design. † Task 2: Refine the business case. 2.2.5 Phase 5implement redesigned processes: In this phase, the details of the execution plan are produced and tested through pilot studies, utilisation of measurement systems, and process management. HR structures are revised, and software, hardware and IS infrastructures are created. The stages are explained below. Stage 1-Plan and train: The tasks include the following: † Task 1: Evolve transition plan. The transition plan often consists of a systems integration strategy, a technology strategy, and an IS strategy [25]. † Task 2: Train users. The people who will work on the reengineered processes are trained [35]. † Task 3: Review and approve transition plan. Stage 2-Create organisational prerequisites: The tasks include the following: † Task 1: Create HR infrastructure. The HR structure and the new roles are created in the organisation. † Task 2: Upgrade technology. The IS and software applications of the new processes are implemented [25, 35]. † Task 3: Run a culture change program (optional task). † Task 4: Implement process management and measurement systems. Stage 3-Test: The tasks include the following: † Task 1: Prototype and simulate transition plan. The plan is validated through prototyping and simulation. † Task 2: Execute larger-scale pilots (optional task). † Task 3: Monitor new process tests. The results of testing the new processes are reviewed, and the transition plan and design documents are updated [31]. † Task 4: Obtain implementation approval from organisational decision-makers (optional task)...

show abstract

“…Morrison et al (2007) evaluated when it was safe to perform evolution, what evolutionary steps were required and how to execute the evolution operations to ensure the suitability of a dynamic reconfiguration approach used. Fung & Low (2009) conducted a survey and concluded that multiple factors such as coexistence, performance characteristic prediction, dynamic state transfer, dynamic change impact analysis and servicing continuity should be the principal criteria. Specifically, the expected impacts of dynamic changes were suggested to be an important feature.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

QoS prediction for dynamic reconfiguration of component based software systems

Guo

2015

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methodology evaluation framework for dynamic evolution in composition-based distributed applications

Cited by 11 publications

References 102 publications

An Analytical Framework for Evaluating Service-Oriented Software Development Methodologies

An Analytical Framework for Evaluating Service-Oriented Software Development Methodologies

Towards a method engineering approach for business process reengineering

QoS prediction for dynamic reconfiguration of component based software systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About