Association for Information Systems

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Americas Conference on Information Systems
AMCIS 2007 Proceedings
(AMCIS)

December 2007

Configurative Method Engineering - On the

Applicability of Reference Modeling Mechanisms
in Method Engineering
Jörg Becker

Ralf Knackstedt

Daniel Pfeiffer
European Research Center for Information Systems

Christian Janiesch

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007

Recommended Citation
Becker, Jörg; Knackstedt, Ralf; Pfeiffer, Daniel; and Janiesch, Christian, "Configurative Method Engineering - On the Applicability of
Reference Modeling Mechanisms in Method Engineering" (2007). AMCIS 2007 Proceedings. 56.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/56

This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted
for inclusion in AMCIS 2007 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

Configurative Method Engineering –

On the Applicability of Reference Modeling Mechanisms
in Method Engineering

Jörg Becker Ralf Knackstedt

European Research Center European Research Center
for Information Systems (ERCIS) for Information Systems (ERCIS)
[email protected] [email protected]
Daniel Pfeiffer Christian Janiesch
European Research Center European Research Center
for Information Systems (ERCIS) for Information Systems (ERCIS)
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the applicability of reference modeling adaptation mechanisms in method
engineering. Reference models are generic conceptual models that formalize state-of-the-art knowledge of a certain
domain. Adaptation mechanisms can assist to tailor reference models to specific business or project needs.
(Situational) Method engineering is concerned with the preparation of methods that fit the characteristics of a
situation. Due to the similar requirements, it seems feasible to investigate to what extent the existing mechanisms of
reference modeling have already been reflected in the context of method engineering. The result of a literature
review points out that the mechanism of configuration has not been sufficiently considered yet. We suggest
transferring the concept of reference model configuration to the domain of method engineering. This approach is
supported by an example case utilizing the H2 toolset in which a method is configured according to project specific
needs.

Keywords
Method engineering, situational method engineering, adaptive reference modeling, configuration, theories.

On the Connection of Method Engineering and Reference Modeling

Methods describe systematic procedures to overcome problems. Problems can be characterized as the discrepancy between
an as-is and a to-be situation. It is widely accepted that a universal method, which can be used without modification in all
situations, is not feasible (Brooks 1987; Fitzgerald et al. 2003; Kautz 2004; Lindvall and Rus 2000; ter Hofstede and Verhoef
1997; Wistrand and Karlsson 2004). Rather, appropriate methods for problem solving must be chosen, adapted, or designed
depending on the specific characteristics of a situation, such as qualification, number of employees, or available time. In the
method engineering community, terms like domain specific method engineering (Kelly et al. 2005; Luoma et al. 2004) or
situational method engineering (Brinkkemper 1996; Harmsen 1997; Kumar and Welke 1992) have been used to voice this
special circumstance.
A method engineer is confronted with the following dilemma: Multi-purpose methods contain a comprehensive set of
activities and constructs but provide no guidance how to adapt them to fit the specific characteristics of a project and its
context. Domain specific methods, however, contain a problem adequate set of activities and constructs but are only
applicable in their well-defined domain. Thus, a mechanism is required which allows for adding domain and context specific
knowledge to multi-purpose methods. In the area of reference modeling this problem is addressed by so called adaptation
mechanisms (Becker et al. 2006a; vom Brocke 2007). Since it is possible to document methods in form of models, it is
reasonable to transfer these mechanisms into the domain of method engineering. The aim of this paper is to analyze prior

1
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

work on method engineering to explicate their mechanisms of reuse and adaptation in comparison to existing approaches in
the domain of reference modeling. Based on this analysis, configuration is identified as a promising mechanism to reduce the
effort of method engineering.
The paper is structured as follows: First, a classification of reference modeling mechanisms is introduced to provide the basis
for the analysis. Subsequently, related work on method engineering is reviewed concerning their use of adaptation
mechanisms. Analog to configurative reference modeling (Becker et al. 2006a), a concept for configurative method
engineering is derived. The paper closes with a short summary of the main results and an outlook on future research
perspectives.

Reference Modeling Mechanisms

Reference models are generic conceptual models that formalize state-of-the-art or best-practice knowledge of a certain
domain (Fettke and Loos 2003; Rosemann and van der Aalst 2007). They are of normative nature and can cover different
domains such as industry sectors or functional areas (e.g. logics or accounting). Well known reference models are for
example the Retail-H (Becker and Schütte 2007), a reference model for retail enterprises, or the Y-CIM model (Scheer et al.
2007), a reference model for industrial enterprises. Consequently, reference models are created to be helpful in more than one
situation. The objective of reference models is to simplify the creation of company specific models. They support this activity
by providing a template from which knowledge about common business processes and organizational structures can be
reused. To facilitate this reuse several methods have evolved, which utilize distinct mechanisms (Becker et al. 2006a; vom
Brocke 2007). These mechanisms are specified in Figure 1:

Figure 1. Meta model of the generic part of an adaptable reference modeling method

• Configuration: Reference models can be designed as configurable artifacts. They are provided with specific
attributes that contain configuration rules. Depending on the values assigned to the condition part of the rule it
can be decided whether the conclusion part of the rule has to be executed. The conclusion part can imply
consequences such as the elimination of model elements or the modification of their representation. With this
mechanism model variants regarding application-specific characteristics can be created in an automated
manner. The reference model is projected into a company-specific model based on the prior selection and
annotation of configuration parameters. An important application for this mechanism is for example to tailor a
reference model to a specific perspective such as a management view or software engineering view.
• Instantiation: When the mechanism of instantiation is used, reference models are equipped with placeholders.
The placeholders are inserted within the construction phase of the reference model and annotated with an
instantiation domain. When a specific model is created, the placeholders are filled with valid occurrences to the

2
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

particular circumstances. Depending on the properties of the application domain, numeric or alphanumeric
values, distinct model elements, or even composed model clusters can be defined as instantiation domains.
• Specialization: Through specialization a specific model is derived from a more general model by adapting,
extending and/or partially modifying the more general one. For this purpose, the model is annotated with
specialization instructions. Reference models which support specialization have a higher level of abstraction
than the resulting company specific models. These more abstract reference models offer only a relatively low
number of model elements.
• Aggregation: Reference models, which support aggregation, are not available as monolithic blocks but rather
contain independent parts, so called model element components. Within aggregation, a specific model is built by
assembling these model components. Interface descriptions of the model components offer information on their
general compatibility and how to combine them.
• Analogy Construction: As reference models are general artifacts they can be useful in domains they were not
constructed for. The application of a reference model can lead to conclusions by analogy. Analogies can be
drawn from any aspect of the reference model which can be indicated by the annotation of analogy construction
advices. This approach is used especially for analysis or design pattern collections.
Reference models must be prepared to support the mechanisms described above. Figure 1 contains the generic part of a
reference modeling method in which all adaptation mechanisms are specified. In order to apply a reference modeling method
in a certain domain, a specific part must be defined also. Figure 2 contains a meta model of the Entity-Relationship Model
(ERM) (Chen 1976).

Figure 2. Meta model of a specific part of the reference modeling method

As all method constructs in Figure 2 inherit from Model Element they support the adaptation mechanisms from Figure 1.
Subsequently, a reference model can be created by using the specified method. This model can then be annotated with
adaptation attributes to prepare its transformation into a company specific model. An example for an annotated reference
model is given in Figure 3 a). A company specific model is derived by applying the adaptation mechanisms to the reference
model. A possible result is given in Figure 3 b). By following the configuration rules, certain parts of the model have been
graphically emphasized as the perspective Customer Support was chosen. The placeholder for the cardinality has been filled
with the value 0, n from the instantiation domain. A model element component has been attached to include the article
information via aggregation. No specialization or analogy construction has been performed. Whereas the instantiation has
required a manual intervention, the configuration could be performed in an automated manner but may imply the need for a
manual semantic consistency check. The automation of aggregation strongly depends on model part interface descriptions.
The example shows that all mechanisms can be used in conjunction as well as independent of each other (Becker et al.
2006a). There is no general rule on the sequential use of adaptation mechanisms. It is however sensible to regularly consider
large and granular adaptations before small and more detailed ones. Thus, it depends on the conditions of specific project
whether a model is for example aggregated first and configured later or contrariwise.
Common application scenarios for these mechanisms can be found in the adaptation, i.e. customization, of Enterprise
Systems, which have to be fitted to the specific needs of a company (Soffer et al. 2003). Moreover, the adaptation of
conceptual process models supports the customer specific design of organizational structures and operations. For further
examples cf. (Becker et al. 2007; Dreiling et al. 2006; Janiesch 2007).

3
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

Figure 3. Application of reference modeling mechanisms

Mechanisms in Method Engineering

The research field of method engineering within the Information Systems (IS) discipline has been established in the 1990’s.
Since then many suggestions for the design of methods and the combination of their components have been published. In this
section the current state-of-the-art of method engineering research is examined and compared (cf. Table 1).
In IS literature, a method is not considered as a single monolithic block. It rather consists of a set of fragments (e.g.
Brinkkemper et al. 1998; Harmsen 1997; Punter and Lemmen 1996; Saeki and Wenyin 1994), also called chunks (e.g. Ralyté
and Rolland 2001a) or components (e. g. Karlsson and Wistrand 2006; Song 1997). These fragments can have a very
different granularity and they can describe the product (which is created) as well as the process aspect (how is it created) of a
method. The fragments can comprise a single activity or construct but they can also contain a complete method. Hence, a
method engineering project can start with a set of atomic method fragments which must be assembled as well as an existing
method which has to be modified (Ralyté et al. 2003). Method engineering research has mainly focused on the first strategy
so far (Bajec et al. 2007). Contrary to that, reference modeling mechanisms primarily focus on an existing model and only
additionally consider its design by the aggregation of model element components.

4
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

Table 1. Overview about mechanisms in method engineering approaches

Reference Reference Mechanism(s) of the Approach Objects of the Mechanism
Modeling
Mechanism(s)
(Baskerville and Stage Aggregation, Accommodation Method Fragments
2001) Specialization
(Bajec et al. 2007) Configuration Process Configuration Base Method, Configuration Rules,
Project Characteristics
(Brinkkemper 1996; Aggregation Method Assembly Method Fragments
Brinkkemper et al. 1998;
Harmsen 1997)
(Cameron 2002) Aggregation Tailoring Work Product Descriptions, Work
Breakdown Structures
(Fitzgerald et al. 2003) Aggregation Method Tailoring Original Formalized Methodologies
(Greiffenberg 2003b) Aggregation Creation of Meta Model Concepts
Specialization Choice of Reference Meta Reference Meta Models
Model Scope
Analogy Creation of Meta Model Typing Patterns
Construction
(Gupta and Prakash 2001) Aggregation Method Assembly Method Components
(Henninger et al. 2002) Specialization Refinement and Tailoring Software Development Resources
(Karlsson 2005; Karlsson Configuration Configuration Framework Base Method, Configuration Package,
and Ågerfalk 2004; Configuration Template
Karlsson and Wistrand
2006)
(Kumar and Welke 1992) Aggregation Methodology Engineering Methodology Components
(Leppänen 2005) Aggregation Method Engineering Methodical Contextual Method Components
Skeleton
(Nuseibeh 1994) Aggregation Template Reuse Viewpoint Templates
Instantiation Instantiation Viewpoint Templates
Specialization Inheritance Super Templates
(Odell 1995) Specialization Single Framework Modeling Kernel Meta Model
(Patel et al. 2004) Aggregation Selection and Assembly Method Fragments
Specialization Method Tailoring Method Fragments
(Punter and Lemmen 1996) Aggregation Assembly Method Fragments
(Mirbel and Ralyté 2006; Aggregation Assembly-based strategy Method Chunks
Ralyté et al. 2003; Ralyté Specialization Extension-based strategy, Method Chunks, Meta Models
and Rolland 2001a; Ralyté Paradigm-based strategy
and Rolland 2001b) Analogy Paradigm-based strategy Meta Models
Construction
(Rossi et al. 2004; Tolvanen Aggregation Method Construction Method Components
1998) Specialization Method Refinement Meta Models
(Saeki and Wenyin 1994) Aggregation Method Integration Meta Models
(van Offenbeek and Specialization / Fit Scenarios
Koopman 1996) Analogy
Construction

In their situational method engineering approach Harmsen (1997), Brinkemper (1996) and Brinkkemper et al. (1998) focus in
particular on the recombination of method fragments and, thus, are using the mechanism of aggregation. They describe rules
in the context of the aggregation to guide the assembly of method fragments. Comparable approaches were for example
published by Fitzgerald et al. (2003), Gupta and Prakash (2001), Punter and Lemmen (1996), and Saeki and Wenyin (1994).
Kumar and Welke (1992) handle methodology components similarly but also stress the disassembly of old methods prior to
the assembly of new methods. Cameron (2002) puts so called work products together and chooses their temporal order to
define a specific development process. Baskerville and Stage (2001) as well as Patel et al. (2004) emphasize the need to adapt

5
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

a method after the aggregation by means of deletion, addition and/or modification. This so called method accommodation is
considered an application of the specialization mechanism.
Greiffenberg (2003a) has published a comprehensive approach for the development of modeling languages. Greiffenberg
specifies a meta modeling language, a reference meta model, a set of meta modeling patterns as well as a process model for
method engineering. Following Greiffenberg, the construction of a meta models is based on concepts. For this purpose the
mechanism of aggregation is used. Furthermore, Greiffenberg includes the mechanism of specialization for selecting from the
reference model. Analogy construction is taken into consideration by the application of meta modeling patterns.
Henninger et al. (2002) and van Offenbeek and Koopman (1996) base their methodology on existing scenarios or available
resources. They gather contextual factors such as risk to guide the adaptation process of a method. The procedure results
ultimately in a refined method that is a specialized version of the original or that is analog to the original. The refinement
process is strongly depending on the fit of original model to the specific problem. A configuration in terms of specific
adaptation points or parameters is not in focus.
Karlsson and Ågerfalk (2004), Karlsson (2005), and Karlsson and Wistrand (2006) are one of the few authors in method
engineering who directly addresses the mechanism of configuration. Adaptations of methods are performed by the use of
configuration packages which rest upon a base method. To manage complex situations with a number of characteristics,
configuration packages are combined to configuration templates. Based on the characteristics of a project, an acceptable
configuration template is chosen and applied on the base method. Thus, the base method is configured according to the
project needs. The configuration of the method focuses only the procedure model. Due to this fact, the modeling language
and the resulting products are only taken into consideration indirectly. A comparable approach that also focuses the process
of the method is suggested by Bajec et al. (2007).
Leppänen (2005) also makes use of method components that can be aggregated to form situation-specific methods. He,
however, focuses on forming an ontology that assists the selection and combination, i.e. integration, of these components. He
provides comprehensive interfaces that explicate the compatibility of method components. However, his ontology is not
intended to be the basis for any further configuration and, thus, only provides a means to perform method aggregation.
The approach of Nuseibeh (1994) focuses on the multi-perspectivity of software development with the ViewPoint
Framework. Due to the abstraction of viewpoints to viewpoint templates, this can be understood as a method engineering
approach. New methods can be designed by the combination of viewpoint templates. On the basis of an abstract super
template, specialization (inheritance) results in a more specific sub template. By applying the instantiation mechanisms on a
viewpoint template, a viewpoint is created.
Odell (1995) suggests a basic vocabulary for describing modeling methods, which is called kernel meta model. With the aid
of the kernel meta model, which is based on the mechanism of specialization, it is possible to derive specific concepts of
meta models. For example, the concept relation from the kernel meta model can be specialized as is super type of.
Ralyté et al. (2003) provide a generic process model for situational method engineering. With a map notation they describe
different strategies to construct a method that meets the contingencies of a project situation. The assembly-based strategy
reuses method chunks from a repository and compiles them by applying the aggregation mechanism (Ralyté and Rolland
2001b). The extension-based approach uses the specialization mechanism on an existing method and employs patterns to
provide novel additions to it (Ralyté and Rolland 2001a). The paradigm-based approach takes a meta-model that belongs to
a certain theoretical framework as starting point. By analogy construction and specialization the meta model is adapted to the
specific needs. Mirbel and Ralyté (2006) include the a detailed refinement of a project specific method by each project
member. They describe the aggregation of method chunks for the development of project specific methods. For adapting the
method with respect to the necessity of every project member, they suggest the adaptation of the procedure (roadmap) of the
project specific method by the mechanism of specialization; e.g. the user is able to choose between a prosaic way and use
case diagrams to document a requirements analysis depending on his expertise.
Tolvanen (1998) and Rossi et al. (2004) are highlighting the iterative, incremental aspects of method engineering. They
assume that due to the inadequate acknowledgement of the application domain at the beginning of the method engineering
project, only a part of the method specification is possible. Thus, an iterative process for evaluation and refinement of the
method is necessary to reach an adequate description level for the method. This includes adaptation (specialization) and
addition of missed constructs (aggregation).
This literature review has shown that the adaptation mechanisms of aggregation, instantiation, specialization and analogy
construction are widely used by method engineering researchers. Especially aggregation and specialization are included in
many approaches. However, the configuration of modeling methods and here especially the product and language aspects

6
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

have not been sufficiently addressed yet. Hence, the aim of this work is to transfer the mechanism of configuration into
method engineering research.

Configurative Method Engineering

Configuration of Conceptual Modeling Methods
Constituent elements of methods are actions, artifacts, constructs, notations, and actor roles (Braun et al. 2005; Karlsson
2005). Figure 4 puts these elements into relation. Actor roles carry out actions. Actions are related to each other in form of a
network and can be nested to represent phases or, on a higher level of abstraction, procedure models. The output of an action,
an artifact, can be the input for a subsequent action. Within an action, artifacts, such as class diagrams or activity diagrams,
are produced and utilized. Artifacts are described by notations. Constructs represent the contextual dimension of a notation
and provide the formal vocabulary to describe a certain domain. Also, constructs can be nested to form modeling languages
and their views. These method elements (as well as parts thereof) as well as their relations (not described here) can be subject
to configuration. Methods and their corresponding configuration mechanisms can be supported by tools that implement them.

Figure 4. Meta model of a configurable method (cf. Braun et al. 2005; Karlsson 2005)
Similar to configurable reference models also configurable methods can be annotated with configuration rules. Configuration
rules describe in which way methods can be adapted to specific-application contexts. The rules are composed of a condition
part and a conclusion part. The condition part defines the application contexts by logical combination of configuration
parameters. These parameters can include but are not limited to objectives of the method’s use, application systems or
respectively organizations to be designed, roles, qualifications, and other attributes of the method users as well as financial,
time, personnel, and other restrictions. Contingency factors for methods adaptations can be found for example in Davis
(1982), Offenbeek and Koopman (1996), or Pérez et al. (1995). The conclusion part of the configuration rule describes the
kind of adaptation that is performed on the method. It specifies the method elements of a configurable method which either
persist within the organization specific method or have to be eliminated. The specific configuration points at which
configuration rules can be annotated may differ depending on the method to be made configurable. Common configuration
points for modeling methods are at the levels of constructs, actions or roles. Furthermore, deviations in notation and
terminology can be incorporated.

7
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

Configurable methods comprise knowledge about all situation-specific methods, which can be derived from them. Therefore,
the configurable methods are, similar to reference models, very comprehensive. They can contain method elements which are
used only occasionally or that exhibit very different levels of granularity. This is necessary to support rule-based
modifications for very particular cases as well as to be able to get project-specific or company-specific methods with diverse
granularities.
The annotation of the configuration rules has to be performed by the method engineer prior to making the method available
for configuration to method users. In this way, the engineer provides a consistent reference method or method master that can
be adapted to the specific situational needs of a company, domain, purpose, or project. The challenge of a method engineer is
to bear in mind the interdependencies between method elements and configuration rules (cf. similarly Becker et al. 2006b). In
this way, the set of terms for any configuration parameter occurrence results in a consistent method variant.

Tool Support for Method Configuration

With respect to the corresponding adaptation concepts of reference modeling, a tool for configurable method engineering has
to support two phases: In the first phase, configurable methods are specified by annotating elements with configuration rules
and the definition of a condition and a conclusion part. In the second phase, methods are configured based on the selection of
situation specific parameters. By matching the situation parameters with the condition part of the configuration rules it is
decided whether the conclusion part is executed and method elements are eliminated or modified.
The H2 Toolset (Becker et al. 2006c) represents a proof-of-concept for configurative method engineering as presented above.
H2 is a meta modeling tool designed to create hierarchically structured modeling methods and to construct models based on
the defined methods. In H2 both models and modeling methods can be defined and modified in a hierarchical form. For the
purpose of this paper H2 is not used to model a certain application domain but to model a method. Hence, the H2 tool is
applied one meta level above its regular use. H2 supports both phases of configurative method engineering, the annotation of
a method with attributes and its adaptation.
Figure 5 contains the specification of a meta model of a configurable method in H2. It comprises important elements of the
meta model from Figure 4 in an hierarchical representation. It includes the elements action, artifact, notation, construct,
actor role, and tool. To clarify the structure of actions, procedure model and phase have been added. Based on this
specification it is now possible to define a configurable method.

Figure 5. Definition of configurable method meta model in H2

Figure 6 contains as an example a simplified waterfall model. The configuration process in H2 is roughly the following:
Firstly, the configuration rules are assigned to model elements and configuration parameters are added to the condition part.

8
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

This is done with the configuration customizer and the term editor (cf. right tab of Figure 6). Secondly, the conclusion part is
defined that enables the engineer to either dismiss elements from the method or to include them explicitly.
The configuration itself is checkbox-based and performable by the method users. A simple example reads as follows (again
cf. Figure 6 for illustration): By selecting the role of a software architect and open source as a type of project, the
configuration of the method would result in the omission of all activities and their super ordinate phases that are not
performed by the software architect and the dismissal of any software tool that is not open source such as the products by
Microsoft and Rational. This represents only a very simple configuration task as configuration can take place on many other
configuration points as introduced in the previous section.

Figure 6. Exemplary configuration of a method in H2

Summary and Further Research

Methods provide a means for structured problem solving. The determining factors of their application change from project to
project and require situation-specific adaptations of the method. Reference models are adapted to company-specific models
by the use of configuration, specialization, aggregation, instantiation, and analogy construction. It is reasonable to transfer the
mechanisms of reference modeling to the domain of method engineering. An analysis of the body of knowledge of method

9
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

engineering revealed that the mechanism of configuration – as it is applied in reference modeling – was hardly recognized in
the context of method engineering. This absence marked the starting point for an operationalization of configuration for
method engineering, which was exemplified by employing the H2 Toolset.
The definition of configuration rules enables their empirical evaluation and fosters theory building. This, however, requires
that configurable methods are available. Paramount to further research is to enhance current methods with appropriate
configuration rules. In addition to that, it is necessary to modify modeling tools to assure software-based support for method
configuration. This step is also necessary to evaluate our approach. Furthermore, the design of procedures is required that
assist the configuration of complex methods. Since configuration intents to hide complexity from the user, criteria for the
design of user interfaces (Shneiderman 2004) as well as high level configuration approaches (Janiesch et al. 2006) have to be
taken into consideration.
With configuration mechanisms for methods available, the actual definition of configuration rules and their parameters
moves into the focus of interest. In particular, a combination of the presented proposal with the approach of Karlsson (2005)
and the contextual parameters of Leppänen (2005) seems to be promising. Apart from configuration also the mechanism of
instantiation is only sporadically considered by the method engineering community. It is due to further research to extend this
approach.

References
Bajec, M., Vavpoti , D., and Krisper, M. "Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development
methods," Information and Software Technology (49:4) 2007, pp. 345-365.
Baskerville, R., and Stage, J. "Accommodating Emergent Work Practices: Ethnographic Choice of Method Fragements,"
IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on Realigning Research and Practice in IS Development: The Social and
Organisational Perspective, Boise, ID, 2001, pp. 12-28.
Becker, J., Delfmann, P., and Knackstedt, R. "Adaptive Reference Modeling: Integrating Configurative and Generic
Adaptation Techniques for Information Models," Reference Modeling Conference (RefMod2006), Passau, 2006a.
Becker, J., Janiesch, C., and Dreiling, A. "A Framework for Interdependent Configuration of Enterprise Systems," (Pre-)ICIS
Inaugural Workshop on Enterprise Systems Research in MIS, Milwaukee, WI, 2006b.
Becker, J., Janiesch, C., Seidel, S., and Brelage, C. "A Framework for Situational and Evolutionary Language Adaptation in
Information Systems Development," 15th International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD
2006), Budapest, 2006c.
Becker, J., Kugeler, M., and Rosemann, M. (eds.) Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes.
Springer, Berlin, 2007. To appear.
Becker, J., and Schütte, R. "A Reference Model for Retail Enterprises," in: Reference Modeling for Business Systems
Analysis, P. Fettke and P. Loos (eds.), Idea Group, Hershey, USA, 2007, pp. 182-205.
Braun, C., Wortmann, F., Hafner, M., and Winter, R. "Method Construction: A Core Approach to Organizational
Engineering," 20th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Santa Fe, NM, 2005, pp. 1295-1299.
Brinkkemper, S. "Method engineering - engineering of information systems development methods and tools," Information
and Software Technology (38:4) 1996, pp. 275-280.
Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., and Harmsen, F. "Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering," 10th International Conference
on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 1998). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Pisa,
1998, pp. 381-400.
Brooks, F.P. "Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering," IEEE Computer (20:4) 1987, pp. 10-19.
Cameron, J. "Configurable Development Processes," Communications of the ACM (45:3) 2002, pp. 72-77.
Chen, P.P.-S. "The Entity Relationship Model - Toward a Unified View of Data," ACM Transaction on Database Systems
(1:1) 1976, pp. p. 9-36.
Davis, G.B. "Strategies for information requirements determination," IBM Systems Journal (21:1) 1982, pp. 4-30.
Dreiling, A., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W., Heuser, L., and Schulz, K. "Model-Based Software Configuration: Patterns
and Languages," European Journal of Information Systems (15:6) 2006, pp. 583-600.
Fettke, P., and Loos, L. "Classification of reference models—a methodology and its application," Information systems and e-
business management (1:1) 2003, pp. 35-53.
Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L., and O'Kane, T. "Software Development: Method Tailoring at Motorola," Communications of the
ACM (46:4) 2003, pp. 65-70.
Greiffenberg, S. "Methoden als Theorien der Wirtschaftsinformatik," 6. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI
2003), Physica, Dresden, 2003a, pp. 947-968.
Greiffenberg, S. Methodenentwicklung in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg, 2003b.

10
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

Gupta, D., and Prakash, N. "Engineering Methods from Method Requirements Specifications," Requirements Engineering
(6:3) 2001, pp. 135-160.
Harmsen, A.F. "Situational Method Engineering," Utrecht, 1997.
Henninger, S., Ivaturi, A., Nuli, K., and Thirunavukkaras, A. "Supporting Adaptable Methodologies to Meet Evolving Project
Needs," Joint Conference on XP Universe and Agile Universe, Chicago, IL, 2002, pp. 33-44.
Janiesch, C. "Implementing Views on Business Semantics: Model-based Configuration of Business Documents," 15th
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2007), St. Gallen, 2007.
Janiesch, C., Dreiling, A., and Seidel, S. "Document Variant Management: Facilitating Enterprise System Definition,
Configuration, and Interoperability," 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2006), Adelaide,
2006.
Karlsson, F. "Method Configuration: Method and Computerized Tool Support," Linköping, 2005.
Karlsson, F., and Ågerfalk, P.J. "Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets,"
Information and Software Technology (46:9) 2004, pp. 619-633.
Karlsson, F., and Wistrand, K. "Combining method engineering with activity theory: theoretical grounding of the method
component concept," European Journal of Information Systems (15:1) 2006, pp. 82-90.
Kautz, K. "The Enactment of Methodology: The Case of Developing a Multimedia Information System," 25th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2004), Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 671-683.
Kelly, S., Rossi, M., and Tolvanen, J.-P. "What is Needed in a MetaCASE Environment?," Enterprise Modelling and
Information Systems Architectures (1:1) 2005, pp. 25-35.
Kumar, K., and Welke, R.J. "Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation-specific Methodology Construction," in:
Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, W.W. Cottermann and J.A. Senn (eds.), John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1992, pp. 257-269.
Leppänen, M. "An Ontological Framework and a Methodical Skeleton for Method Engineering: A Contextual Approach,"
Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, 2005.
Lindvall, M., and Rus, I. "Process Diversity in Software Development," IEEE Software (17:4) 2000, pp. 14-18.
Luoma, J., Kelly, S., and Tolvanen, J.-P. "Defining Domain-Specific Modeling Languages: Collected Experiences," 4th
OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM 2004), Vancouver, 2004.
Mirbel, I., and Ralyté, J. "Situational Method Engineering: Combining Assembly-based and Roadmap-driven Approaches,"
Requirements Engineering (11:1) 2006, pp. 58-78.
Nuseibeh, B.A. "A Multi-Perspective Framework for Method Integration," London, 1994.
Odell, J. "Meta-modelling," OOPSLA'95 Workshop on Metamodelling in OO Austin, TX, 1995.
Patel, C., de Cesare, S., Iacovelli, N., and Merico, A. "A Framework for Method Tailoring: A Case Study," 2nd OOPSLA
Workshop on Method Engineering for Object-Oriented and Component-Based Development, Vancouver, 2004.
Pérez, G., El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N.H. "Customising Software Process Models," 4th European Workshop on Software
Process Technology (EWSPT 1995), Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 1995, pp. 70-78.
Punter, T., and Lemmen, K. "The MEMA-model: towards a new approach for Method Engineering," Information and
Software Technology (38:4) 1996, pp. 295-300.
Ralyté, J., Deneckère, R., and Rolland, C. "Towards a Generic Model for Situational Method Engineering," 15th International
Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2003), Klagenfurt/Velden, Austria, 2003, pp.
95-110.
Ralyté, J., and Rolland, C. "An Approach for Method Reengineering," 20th International Conference on Conceptual
Modeling (ER 2001), Yokohama, Japan, 2001a, pp. 471-484.
Ralyté, J., and Rolland, C. "An Assembly Process Model for Method Engineering," 13th International Conference on
Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2001). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Interlaken, 2001b,
pp. 267-283.
Rosemann, M., and van der Aalst, W.M.P. "A configurable reference modelling language," Information Systems (32:1) 2007,
pp. 1-23.
Rossi, M., Ramesh, B., Lyytinen, K., and Tolvanen, J.-P. "Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method
Rationale," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (5:9) 2004, pp. 356-391.
Saeki, M., and Wenyin, K. "Specifying software specification & design methods," 6th International Conference on Advanced
Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 1994), Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1994.
Scheer, A.-W., Jost, W., and Güngöz, Ö. "A Reference Model for Industrial Enterprises," in: Reference Modeling for
Business Systems Analysis, P. Fettke and P. Loos (eds.), Idea Group, Hershey, USA, 2007, pp. 167-181.
Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, (4th ed.) Addison-
Wesley Amsterdam, 2004.

11
Becker, Knackstedt, Pfeiffer and Janiesch Configurative Method Engineering

Soffer, P., Golany, B., and Dori, D. "ERP modeling: a comprehensive approach," Information Systems (28:6) 2003, pp. 673-
690.
Song, X. "Systematic integration of design methods," IEEE Software (14:2) 1997, pp. 107-117.
ter Hofstede, A.H.M., and Verhoef, T.F. "On the Feasibility of Situational Method Engineering," Information Systems
(22:6/7) 1997, pp. 401-422.
Tolvanen, J.-P. "Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools: Theoretical Principles and Empirical Evidence," M.
Sakkinen (ed.), Jyväskylä, 1998.
van Offenbeek, M.A.G., and Koopman, P.L. "Scenarios for System Development: Matching Context and Strategy,"
Behaviour & Information Technology (15:4) 1996, pp. 250-265.
vom Brocke, J. "Design Principles for Reference Modelling – Reusing Information Models by Means of Aggregation,
Specialisation, Instantiation, and Analogy," in: Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, P. Fettke and P.
Loos (eds.), Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, 2007, pp. 47-75.
Wistrand, K., and Karlsson, F. "Method Components – Rationale Revealed," 16th International Conference on Advanced
Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004), Riga, Latvia, 2004, pp. 189-201.

12