Pragmatic-Driven Approach for Service-Oriented Analysis and Design

2011 ◽  
pp. 97-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remigijus Gustas
Keyword(s):  
Business Processes ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
System Development ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Analysis And Design ◽  
Service Oriented ◽  
System Development Methodologies ◽  
Service State ◽  
Pragmatic Aspects

This chapter presents a pragmatic-driven approach for service-oriented information system analysis and design. Its uniqueness is in exploiting a design foundation for graphical description of the semantic and pragmatic aspects of business processes that is based on the service-oriented principles. Services are viewed as dynamic subsystems. Their outputs depend not only on inputs, but on a service state as well. Intentions of business process experts are represented in terms of a set of pragmatic dependencies, which are driving the overall system engineering process. It is demonstrated how pragmatic aspects are mapped to conceptual representations, which define the semantics of business design. In contrast to the traditional system development methodologies, the main difference of the service-oriented approach is that it integrates the static and dynamic aspects into one type of diagram. Semantics of computation independent models are expressed by graphical specifications of interactions between service providers and service consumers. Semantic integrity control between static and dynamic dependencies of business processes is a one of the major benefits of service-oriented analysis and design process. It is driven by pragmatic descriptions, which are defined in terms of goals, problems and opportunities.

scholarly journals EXPLORING THE INFLUENCES OF THE USE OF ELEMENTS COMPRISING INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES ON STRATEGIC BUSINESS GOALS

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 885-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomaž HOVELJA ◽  
Olegas VASILECAS ◽  
Damjan VAVPOTIČ
Keyword(s):  
System Development ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Niche Markets ◽  
Cost Leadership ◽  
Business Goals ◽  
Actual Use ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
Is Development ◽  
System Development Methodologies

As the competitive pressure of the global market for information systems (IS) continues to increase, IS development enterprises should start to consider if and how the use of IS development methodologies (ISDM) influences their main strategic business goals. More precisely, they should start to consider two different dimensions of the actual use of ISDM: the number of times an opportunity for ISDM use arises and the number of times the ISDM is actually used. Otherwise, they run the risk of mismanaging their ISDM-related investments. The goal of this study is to develop a model that would enable academics and IS practitioners to better examine and understand how different dimensions of the use of ISDM influence strategic business goals of cost leadership, differentiation and cornering niche markets in IS development enterprises. Given the limited literature on the research topic, this study was considered exploratory and theory building in nature. The main result of the presented exploratory study is a clearly defined model for examining how different dimensions of ISDM influence strategic business goals. Exploratory results show that the actual use of ISDM has a significantly positive influence on strategic business goals of differentiation and cornering of niche markets, but not the cost leadership.

An Evaluation Framework for Component-Based and Service-Oriented System Development Methodologies

2011 ◽  
pp. 45-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoran Stojanovic ◽  
Ajantha Dahanayake ◽  
Henk Sol
Keyword(s):  
Service Oriented Architecture ◽  
System Development ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Distributed Information ◽  
It Alignment ◽  
Loosely Coupled ◽  
Service Oriented ◽  
Business Objects ◽  
System Development Methodologies ◽  
Cbd Method

Components-Based Development (CBD) and Web Services (WS) nowadays are prominent paradigms for implementing and deploying advanced distributed information systems. They have been proposed as the ways to support effective business/IT alignment and produce high quality and flexible software solutions that fulfill business goals within short time-to-market. However, current achievements in these areas at the level of methodology are much behind the technology ones. CBD methods proposed so far lack a comprehensive support for component and service concepts throughout the development process. By treating components as packages of implementation artifacts during software deployment or as larger-grained business objects during analysis and design, these methods are not well equipped for modeling loosely coupled coarse-grained components that offer business meaningful services organized in a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). This chapter presents an evaluation framework that highlights the extent to which a particular method is component-based and service-oriented. The CBD method sample is selected and evaluated using the framework’s concepts and requirements. Based on the evaluation, the method improvements are proposed in order to provide consistent, systematic, and integrated CBD and WS methodology support throughout the lifecycle.

System Development Methodologies for Web-Enabled E-Business

2011 ◽  
pp. 213-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda V. Knight ◽  
Theresa A. Steinbach ◽  
Vince Kellen
Keyword(s):  
System Development ◽  
Business Environment ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Business System ◽  
Development Methodology ◽  
Development Teams ◽  
Development Life Cycle ◽  
System Development Methodologies ◽  
And Control

The fast-paced, rapidly changing e-business environment, coupled with its emphasis on brand image and the human-computer interface, and the creative nature of Web development teams combine to require changes in traditional system development methodologies. This chapter explores the fit between typical Web-based information system characteristics and existing development methodologies, from the traditional System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to some of the newer rapid-response models. It concludes that, contrary to common practice in most organizations, one standardized development methodology is not best suited for all, or even most, e-business projects. Fifteen variables that are key to identifying the best methodology for a given e-business project are distilled, and a framework is constructed to aid development teams in the process of formulating a customized development methodology to serve as a basis for project management and control. Projections are made concerning the future of e-business system development methodologies.

System Development for E-Business

2005 ◽  
pp. 2712-2718
Author(s):  
Theresa A. Steinbach ◽  
Linda V. Knight
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
System Development ◽  
Project Manager ◽  
Business Environments ◽  
Development Methodology ◽  
Web Information ◽  
Web Information Systems ◽  
System Development Methodologies ◽  
Best Fit

This article first introduces both the technical and business environments in which Web information systems are developed and the unique project variables of these systems. Characteristics are identified where e-business projects differ from traditional information systems projects. The next section presents various system development methodologies, provides a categorization framework and analyzes these categories for situations where each is best utilized. The synthesis of applying the environmental and project variables to the system development methodology categories provides the main contribution of the article. Conclusions are drawn that a project is unlikely to align perfectly with any one methodology. The project manager should select the methodology that is the “best fit” from the model presented here. Finally, the project manager should customize the process based on the unique characteristics of the organization, project, and team.

Generic Framework for Defining Domain-Specific Models

2005 ◽  
pp. 1266-1273
Author(s):  
Arnor Solberg ◽  
John Oldevik ◽  
Audun Jensvoll
Keyword(s):  
System Development ◽  
Unified Modeling Language ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Unified Modeling ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Development Teams ◽  
Software Development Teams ◽  
System Development Methodologies ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Specific Modeling

As a result of the widespread popularity of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) (OMG, 2003-1), many companies have invested in introducing a UML-based methodology. There are many general purpose UML-based methodologies on the market today; among the most popular are UP (Jacobson, Booch & Rumbaugh, 1999), RUP (Kruchten, 2000), Catalysis (D’Souza & Wills, 1998), Select Perspective (Allen & Frost, 1998), and KOBRA (Atkinson et al., 2001). Typically, these general purpose software system development methodologies do not immediately fulfill a company’s need. Aiming to provide methodologies that may be applied in many domains and for many purposes, these general purpose methodologies typically become extensive and are perceived as overwhelming. At the same time they typically lack support for the more exclusive needs that the companies and domains encounter. Thereby, introducing a general purpose methodology in an organization commonly implies two particular challenges that at first sight seems to be contradictory. On one hand there is a problem that the general purpose methodology provides/prescribes far too much and encounters too many situations. On the other hand the general purpose methodology does not support specific modeling concepts, mechanisms, and techniques wanted by the particular company or development group. Thus, in that respect the general purpose methodology actually covers too little. This state of affairs is why lots of consultants, researchers, and others are in the business of helping companies to introduce these methodologies, as well as customizing general purpose methodologies to be appropriate for the actual company and purpose. The customization is typically tuned based on different criteria such as domain, kind of customers, quality demands, size of the company, and size of the software development teams. A common way of customizing a general purpose methodology is by removing, adding, and/or merging prescribed tasks, phases, roles, and models/artifacts of the methodology. However, even if introduction of a general purpose methodology almost always requires a customization effort, there does not seem to be any standard and formalized way of doing it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document