Preview 50% of the Answer Below
Answer Preview
Background research is especially important for engineering design projects, because you can learn from the experience of others rather than blunder around and repeat their mistakes. To make abackground research plan— a road map of the research questions you need to answer -- follow these steps:
Identify questions to ask about yourtarget useror customer.
Identify questions to ask about the products that already exist to solve the problem you defined or a problem that is very similar.
Plan to research how your product will work and how to make it.
Network with other people with more experience than yourself: your mentors, parents, and teachers. Ask them: "What should I study to better understand my engineering project?" and "What area of science covers my project?" Better yet, ask even more specific questions.
For an engineering design project, you should do background research in two major areas:
Users or customers
Existing solutions
Users or Customers
Research your target user or customer.Everything humans design is ultimately for the use of another human. (Think about it— even products designed for animals or plants are first purchased by another human!) Your choice of target user will sometimes have a big impact on your design requirements. For example, if you design something for a toddler, you need to make sure that there are no small parts that could be swallowed. Some customers are more sensitive to the cost than others, and so forth. You might describe your target user in any number of ways. Here are some examples:
Age (old, young, infant)
Gender
Occupation
Hobby interests
Amateur or professional
Whether users have disabilities and require accommodations
Size
First-time user or experienced user
Existing Solutions
Research the products that already exist to solve the problem you defined or a pXXXXXX XXXX XX very similar.No one wants to go to XXX the trouble of designing XXXXXXXXX XXXX think is XXX, XXXX to XXXX XXXX several XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX it. That XXXXX be XXXXXXXXXX! XX, you XXXX to XXXXXXXXXXX what's already out XXXXX. XXXX then XXX you be XXXX XXXX you'XX making something XXXX XXXX effectively fills a XXXX. XXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XX "XXXXXX" depends on your XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXX might want XX build XXXXXXXXX that's been around for XXXXXXXX of years, XXX XX it XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXX house. XXX XXXXXX might XX XXX, but the construction materials new (or used!).
XXXXXXXX how XXXX product will work XXX how XX XXXX it.When it XXXXX XXXX to XXXXX their XXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX also want to XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XX help XXXX find the XXXX materials XXX XXX XX do XXXXXX, XXXXXX than starting from scratch. XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXX important to help you XXXXXXXXXX the science or XXXXXX behind your solution. If you are entering a science XXXX, judges XXXX XX XXX XXXX you XXXXXXXXXX why XXXX product XXXXX XXX way it does and XXXX XXXXXX it XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX other XXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX-XXXX, XXXXXX XX they XXX a XXXXXXX XXXXXXX or XXXXXXXX or in XXX environment in which they XXXXXXXXX XXX problem.
Examine and analyze XXXXXXX products XXX solutions. Looking XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX important. XXXXX engineers spent a lot of XXXX XXXXXXXXX them, so you XXXXX as XXXX learn XXXXXXXXXX you XXX XXXX their work. And it is fun! You XXXXX even XXXX to take similar products apart! (Ask XXXXX!)
Conduct library and Internet XXXXXXXX.
Who needs _________?
XXX wants XXXXXXXXX?
Who XXXX XXXXXXXXX?
What does my XXXXXX user [a child, an XXXXXXX person, XXX.] need or XXXX in a _________?
How XXXX XXXXX my XXXXXX user be XXXXXXX XX XXX for a _________?
XXXX XXXX should I XXXX _________ for my XXXXXX XXXX?
XXXX XXXXXXXX fill a similar XXXX?
XXXX are XXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XX products that fill a similar need?
WhatXXthe XXX, must-XXXX features XX products XXXX XXXX a XXXXXXX need?
XXX XXX XXX engineers XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX design XXXX the XXX XXXX did?
How XXX I measure XX XXXXXX's improvement over existing designs?
Who invented XXXXXXXXX?
XXX does a __________ work?
XXXX XXX the XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX a XXXXXXXXXX?
What are XXX XXXXXXXXX characteristics of a __________?
How is XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX a _________?
XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX get XXXX?
XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX of?
XXX is XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX or using __________?
What is XXX XXXX material, XXXXXXXXX, orXXXXXXXXXXXX building ________? (XXX XXX even ask this separately for XXX XXXXXXXXX parts of your device or program.)
Engineers XXX lucky, because there XXX XXXXX ways XX do research XXXXXXXXX XXXXX and existing XXXXXXXXX:
XXXX you or XXXX parents are XXXXXXX a car, XXXXX XXX XXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX destination: drive XXXXXX XXXXXXXX until you XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX what you're XXXXXXX for XX XXX a XXX or XXXX XX a map XXXXXX you start. Finding XXXXXXXXXXX for XXXX background XXXXXXXX is XXXXXXX. XXXXX XXXXXXXXX and the Internet both contain millions XX XXXXX of information XXX XXXXX, you might never find XXXX you're XXXXXXX for unless you XXXXX XXXX a XXX! To avoid XXXXXXX lost, you XXXX a XXXXXXXXXX research plan.
Target XXXXX
To XXXX XXXXXXX the definition XX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX, you'll XXXX to ask questions like this:
Similar Products
Talk to XXXXXX XXXX More XXXXXXXXXX: Networking
One of XXX most XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX you XXX XX while working on your project XX XXXX XX other XXXXXX with more experience XXXX XXXXXXXX: your parents, XXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXX. This process XX XXXXXX networking. Some advisers or mentors may have XXX XXXXXXX or XXXX experience related XX XXX science XXXXXXXX in XXXX project. Others XXX have used or XXXX designed products like the XXX you are XXXXXXXXXXX. Ask them, "What science concepts should I study to better XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX?" Better yet, XX XX specific as you can when asking XXXX questions.
And XX the XXX, networking is XXXXXXXXX XXXX adults don't XXXXXX students XX XX XXXX XX, so you can XXXXXXXX surprise XXXX XX XXXXX a good job at it! XXX XXXX XXX workers, XX course, XXXXX XXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX. In XXXXX XXXXX, they XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX more XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX smoothly.
XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXX in the XXXXX checklist XXXXX XX evaluate XXXX XXXX for background research.
What XXXXX a Good XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX? | XXX a Good XXXXXXXXXX Research Plan, XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX "XXX" to Every Question |
Have you XXXXXXXXXX questions XX ask about your XXXXXX user or XXXXXXXX? | Yes / No |
XXXX you identified questions XX XXX XXXXX the XXXXXXXX that already exist XX solve XXX XXXXXXX you XXXXXXX or a XXXXXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXX? | XXX / No |
XXXX you XXXXXXX to XXXXXXXX how your XXXXXXX will work and how to XXXX it? | Yes / No |
X.X XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX methods
In XXXX XXXXXXX XX shall XXXXX XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX adopted and relate it to XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX method engineering. Second, XX XXXXXXXXX the research XXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXX XX describe XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX.
X.X.1 Research XXXXX
In XXXX thesis our topic XX ME principles for local method XXXXXXXXXXX. Reasons XXX selecting this XXXXX are twofold: First, new situations and XXXXXXXXXX of XXX, XXXX as client-XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, object-XXXXXXXX approaches, or business XXXXXXX XX-engineering, XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX approaches.
Page: XX
Second, current approaches to method XXXXXXXXX and development XX not provide XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX learning and XXXXXXXX of methodical knowledge. Hence, in XXXX XXXXX local method development is XXXXXX XX a knowledge XXXXXXXX process XXXXX can not be XXXX in a “XXX-XXXX” XXXXXX. XX cases XX local XXXXXX development (e.g. XXXXXX XX XX. 1988, XXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXX) reveal, in-house methods XX not XXXXXX fixed XXXX XXXX, rather XXXX XXXX a XXXXXXX with various configurations: parts XX XXX methods XXX XXXXXXXX, some parts XXX excluded, XXX new XXXX are included. XXXXXXXXX, methods must XX seen XX XXX XXXX XX organizational knowledge, XXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX to XX XXXXXXXXX, maintained and shared. XXXXX XX XXXX XX argue XXXX an XXXXXXXXX factor in local method XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX of an XXXXXXXXXXXX or a XXXXXXX to XXXXX about method use XXX deploy this XXXXXXXXX for XXXXXX refinements. XXXX, XXX research XXXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XX XXX one XXXX in XXXXXXX underpinning method XXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXX and Welke 1992) that focus on developing situation-XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXX XX XXX XXXXX hand in XXXXXXXX of organizational learning and XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX (XXXXX XXXX, XXXXXX 1994).
Before XX XXXXXXXXX our XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, we will conduct a XXXXXX of XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX allows XX XX XXXXXXXX our XXXXXXXX within XXX XXXXXXX XX ME XXXXXXXX during XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. In their prominent XXXXXXX XXXXX and Welke (XXXX) XXXXXXXX ME and XXXXXXX four domains that have XX be addressed in XX:
1) modular method XXXXXXXXXXXX,
X) XXXXXXXXXXX value XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX,
X) XXXX XXX computer XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXX
4) organizational XXXXXXX for XX.
In the XXXXXXXXX each research XXXXXX is discussed in more XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX is described[X].
X)Modular XXXXXX construction. XXXXXXX researchers (XX. Kumar XXX Welke XXXX, Harmsen et al. XXXXX, Heym XXXX) suggest that XX can XX XXXXXXX out by XXXXX pre-defined and tested method XXXXXXX. These XXXXXXX-XXXXX XXXXXX a component XXXX (Kumar XXX XXXXX XXXX), or method XXXXXXXXX (Harmsen XX XX. XXXXX)-XXXX XXXXXXX knowledge XXXXX ISD methods in two XXXX. XXXX either XXXXXXXX a method’s XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, or the dynamic features XX a method, i.e. XXX procedural part. XXX first XXXXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXX in meta-data XXXXXX (Brinkkemper 1990) XXXXX describe the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX with their representations. XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX is XXXXXXX by XXXX-XXXXXXXX XXXXXX (Brinkkemper 1990), or XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX (Marttiin 1994, Jarke XX al. 1994). These XXXXXX contain XXXXXXXXX XXXXX the stages and tasks XX a XXXXXX.
Most XXXXXXXX XXXX in this XXXXXX has XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX languages (XX. XXXXX 1988, XXXXXX 1991, Smolander XXXX, XXXX XXX Österle 1992, Rossi XXXX, XXXXXXXX 1994, XXXXXXX et XX. 1994a). XXXXXXXXXX XXX using XXX-defined XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX for XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX refinement have been far XXXX XXXXXXX. XXXX research has focused XX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX metamodels (e.g. XXXX XX al. XXXX, XXXXXXXXX-Sellers and Bulthuis XXXXX) and developing XXXXXXX for XXXXXXXXX-based XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX (XXXXX and Brinkkemper 1996). Moreover, advances in metamodeling languages XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX place in meta-XXXX XXXXXXXX (XX. Welke 1988, Smolander 1992), XXXXXX some XXXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXXX XX XX. 1991, XXXXXXXX 1994, Jarke et XX. XXXX) XX well XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX-XXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX have XXXX XXXXXXXXX (XXXX 1993, XXXXXXXX et al. 1995, XXXXXXX et XX. 1994a). XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX among XXXXX approaches can be XXXXX in their XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX capability, degree of formality, and XXXX to XXXXXXXXX method knowledge. Because ME is a relatively XXX research XXXXX, there XX a XXXX of XXXXXXXXXX in applying XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. X XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XX practices XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXX mostly on XXX XXXXXXXXXX of methods XX modeling tools (XX. XXXX 1990, Tolvanen and XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXX Goldkuhl 1994). Also some laboratory XXXXX experiments on representing XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX have XXXX XXXXXXX out (e.g. Wijers XXXX, Verhoef 1993). XXXXXXX, they XXXXX on individual aspects (i.e. how a XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX uses a method) XXXXXX than on XXX XXX of methods in XXX large XXX XX XXXX. XXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX method XXXXXXXX XXX be XXXXX XXXX method XXXXXXXXXXX XXX analysis (XX. Song XXX Osterweil XXXX, Hong XX al. XXXX). For XXXXX XXXXXXX, the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX: “XXX XXX XX represent, criticize, XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX adequately to XXXXXXX local XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX in practice?” has largely XXXXXXXX unanswered.
2)XXXXXXXXXXX value based method XXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX XX XXX XX regarded as a XXXXXX process, it XX relevant that XXXXXXXXXXX methods XXXX XXXXX’ XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXX, ME XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX and guidelines XX identify stakeholders-such XX designers, programmers, XX XXXXX and managers-XXX their requirements (XXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX, XXXX). XXXX, in fact, is an essential XXXXXX in accepting constructed methods. It can be expected that XXXXXX users will more XXXXXX learn XXX methods, XXXXXX them, and XXX XXXX if XXX methods are XXXXX XX their XXXXXXXXXXXX, in contrast to XXX situation where XXXXXXXXXX methods are XXXXXX XXXXX on requirements outside XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX. The involvement XX method XXXXX has XXXX XXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXX XXXXXX development efforts (e.g. XXX, Booch XX XX. 1997) in XXXXX method XXXX’s requirements XXX comments are collected XXXX extensively than XXXX before. Although XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX it XXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX requirements, and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in decision XXXXXX are XXXX studied in the XX literature.
In XXXX research XXXXXX few XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX carried out. XXXXXXXX et al. (1992) studied five XXXX XXXX adaptation XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX different roles XXX XXXXX XXX the XXXX XXXXXXXXXX. In this XXXXX, XXXXXXX, the research XXXXX was XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX customizable tools rather XXXX on XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX, other XXXXXXX of ME (e.g. XXXXXXXX XXXX) have XXXXXXX on a XXXXXXX number XX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX a few XXXXXXXXXXX factors.
3)XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX support. XXXXXXX research XXXXXX in ME has XXXXXXX XX developing tools for capturing method knowledge (XX. Heym XXXX) as well as XXXXXXXX XXXX modeling-based XXXXX XXXX XXX be customized (cf. Teichroew XX al. 1980, Chen XXXX, Sorenson XX XX. 1988, XXXXXXXX XX XX. XXXX, Smolander XX al. XXXX, Rossi 1995, Kelly XX al. 1996). These tools, XXXXX called CASE shells (XXXXXXX 1988), metasystems (Sorenson XX XX. XXXX), or meta XXXX XXXXX (XXXXX XXXX), offer facilities XX XXXXXX CASE tools XXXX desired XXXXXXX. Hence, XX XXX XXXXXXX are supported by XXXX tools, XXXXXXXXX meta XXXXXXXX languages XXX increasingly supported by XXXX Case XXXXX. This XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX introduced a more general XXXX CAME (Kumar and XXXXX 1992, Computer Aided Methodology Engineering) to XXXXXXXXX the XXXX of computer-based XXXXX in XX.
As in XXXX research (cf. XXXXXXXX and Conger 1991) there XX a XXXX in ME research XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX metaCASE XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX than XXXXXXXXXX them. XXXXX XXX XXXX articles that XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX and requirements XXX such XXXXXXXXXXXX (cf. Marttiin XX XX. 1995, XXXXXXX XX al. XXXXX, XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX 1993, Heym 1993), or XXXXXXXXX how XXX XXXXXXXXXX system XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX how it XXXXX (cf. Teichroew et al. XXXX, XXXXXXXX XX XX. 1988, XXXXXXXX XX al. 1989, XXXX 1988, XXXXXXXXX et XX. XXXX, XXXXX XXXX). XXXXX is, XXXXXXX, a XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX the use XX XXXXX XXXXX in practice. Only two XXXXXXXXX studies addressing the XXXXXXXXXXXX of adaptable environments was XXXXX[6]: XXXXXXXX et al. (1992) studied method adaptations carried out with XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX and five XXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XX XX. (1993) XXXX laboratory experiments by XXXXXXXX XXX same XXXXXX XX XXXXX different XXXX shells. XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX CAME tool developers XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX so far on XXXXXXXXXX that allow XXXX adaptation rather XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX techniques and principles XXX XXXXXXXXX tool XXXXX knowledge XXXXX methods XXX XXXXXXX in XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, method composition, XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXX. Yet, without XXXXXX ME XXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX advanced tool support XXX ME will XX slowed down.
4)XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XX.The use XX XXX methods XXXXXX involves a XXXXXXXXXX organizational structure XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX ensure XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX, training, use, and maintenance. XXX XXX XXXXXXXX question XXXX XX: “How should ME be XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX its IDS efforts?”. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX hardly XXXXXXX in the XX XXXXXXXXXX although XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX developed, XXXXXX XXX used XXXXXXX (XXXXXX and XXX XXXX XXXX, Aaen et XX. XXXX, Aalto 1993): XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX develop XXXXX own versions of XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX are already XXXXX managed somehow. Few XXXXXXXXXXX available (cf. Bubenko XXXX, XXXX 1990, XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX 1995, XXXXXX XXXX) study XXX XXXXX and tasks XXXXXX for method engineering. XXXXXXXX in XXXX XXXXXX has so far XXXXXXX mostly on XXXXXXXXX an XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX of a method engineer. Studies of the XXXXX people involved or tasks XXX organizational XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX needed XX carry out ME in practice are missing.
XXX XXXX of this thesis XX XX XXXXXXX XXX situational XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX IDS XXXXXXX that forms a part XX a modeling environment. XXXX objective is examined as a problem XX XXXXXX engineering. Our special XXXXXXXX XX in XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX of ME. XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX that builds XXX not only XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX as an XXXXXXX, XXX also XXXXXX and XXXXXXX knowledge XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX. In fact, knowledge XX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXX XX one of the XXXX valuable assets in XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX: methods XXX XX seen as a part XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXX and needs to XX collected XXX shared in an XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXX, creation of new XXXXXXXXX about XXX XXXXXXX can be XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX an incremental XXXXXXXX XXXXXX in contrast to selecting XXXXXXX solely in a “one-shot” XXXXXX and using XXXX as readily XXXXXXXXXX standards.
According XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX approach, an important XXXXXX in local XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX is XXX capability of an organization or a XXXXXXX to XXXXX about XXXXXX use, XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX into XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, and utilize the XXXXXXXXXXX for method XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX creation (cf. XXXXX XXXX, XXXXXX 1994). XX XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX knowledge is XXXXXXX XX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX method XXXXXXXXXXX and supported by CAME tools. XXX primary XXXXXXXX is not in how efficiently an organization XXXXXXXX ISs, but in how it creates XXXXXXXXXXX and knowledge XXXXX the IDS and about XXX IDS methods it XXXXXXX. XXX XXXXXXXX objective can also be XXXX XX an XXX XX develop methodical XXXXXXXXXX for ME. XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX is driven by a method, i.e. a metamethod. In XXXX, Kumar and Welke (XXXX) XXXXXX XX itself XX a “method XXX XXXXXXXXX and implementing IDS methods”.
XXX XXXXXXXXXX for XXX XXXXXXX formulation XX XXXXX on XXX observations: XXXXX, many organizations XXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXX own XXXXXXX, and second, XXXXX is a XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXX out local XXXXXX development (XXXXX XX al. 1995). XXXXXXXX XXXXX XX a XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX for IDS, hardly any XXXXX be XXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXX development XXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. To XXXXXXX principles XXX method engineering the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX is formulated:
How does XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX local XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX of IDSmethods? |
XXXX XXXXXXXX is divided into two more XXXXXXXX questions:
X)How XXXXXXXXXX can XXXX-data models represent XXXXXXXXX XXXXX IDSmethods for XXXXXXXX XXXXX?This XXXXXXX can XX defined XX a method XXXXXXXX (i.e. XXXX XXXXXXXX) problem. It XXXXX XXXX the XXXXXXXX power of meta XXXXXXXX languages XXX inspects XXXXXXXX data models as a XXXXX XXX meta modeling. XXX XXXXXXX XX examined XX seeking XXXX XXXXXXXX language constructs to XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX knowledge. Thus, XXXX research question XXXXX with XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX meta XXXXXXXX. We use XXX term meta-data XXXXX to XXXXXX a description XX XXXXXX method knowledge, in XXXXXXXX to the XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXX process XXXXXX or meta-activity XXXXXX (Tolvanen XXX Lyytinen 1993), or with other XXXX XX meta XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (cf. XXXXXXX 3.X.X). XXXXXXXXXX for XXXX-data modeling XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX of a XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (i.e. XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX representations) and integration of XXXXXXXXXX into a XXXXXX. XX XXXXXXXXXXX on meta-XXXX XXXXXXXX because XXXX customizable XXX XXXXX XXXXX on changing XXX XXXXXX part XX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX deal with XXXXXXXXXX static XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX (e.g. Tagg 1990, Goldkuhl XX XX. XXXX, Nissen et al. XXXX).
This question XX XXXXXXXXX since appropriate meta XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX to describe XXX methods being XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX (Wijers XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX 1996). Research in XXXX area (cf. survey XX XX research, Section 1.X.X) XXX focused so far on XXXXXXXX single techniques or a relatively XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX, XX XX want XX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX a XXXXXXX for XXXXXX construction (Kumar and XXXXX XXXX) XXX tool adaptation (Tolvanen XXX Lyytinen XXXX) this question is XX great XXXXXXXXXX: a XXXXXXXX meta model is a prerequisite for XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXX a XXXXXX. In XXXXX XX the steps of local XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX (XX. XXXXXX X-1), XXXX research XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX and tool adaptation.
2)XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XX method use together with XXXX modelsbe applied XXX method refinements?Because XXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXX (Nonaka XXXX, XXXXX XXXX) and of method use in XXXXXXXXXX XX created by individuals, XXX ability to XXXXX up and XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX is important XXX XXXXX method development. XXX subject here XX XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXX stakeholders (such as designers, XXXX experts, method engineers) which XXX XX used XX XXXXXXX in-house XXXXXXX. The question XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXX refinement XX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX a XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX learning (Schön XXXX) in XXXXX experience about methods is obtained XXXXXX XXXXXX use, and knowledge XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX a XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX with XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX of method XXX (XX. XXXXXX 1994).
XXX factors motivate XXXX research XXXXXXXX. XXXXX, method XXXXXXXX has not been studied from XXX viewpoint of XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, i.e. how experiences XXX XX used for method refinement. The XXXXXXXXXXX approach (cf. Brinkkemper 1996) has XXXX to XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX once in XXX beginning of XXXX IDS project rather XXXX to provide XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX experiences and relate them XX the available XXXXXX specifications. To XXXXXX XXX ME process XX propose mechanisms for evaluating and improving the situational applicability of XXXXXXX XXXXXXX in XXXXXXXX XXXXX. XX XXXXX XX XXX steps XX XXXXX method XXXXXXXXXXX (XX. XXXXXX X-X), this XXXXXXXX deals with XXXXXXXXX or XXXXXXXX methods XXXXX XX experience. XXXXXX, empirical studies XX XXXXXX modeling XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX have XXXX XXXXXXXXXX experiments or XXXXX cases (XX. Wijers 1991, XXXXXXX XXXX, Tolvanen XXX Lyytinen XXXX). Because XX XXXX in individual XXXXXXXXXX (e.g. Wijers XXXX), we lack knowledge XX how organizations or teams develop their own XXXXXXX. In this thesis we XXXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXX of the proposed XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in two XXXXX of XXXXXX engineering. XXXX, XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX refinements are XXXXXXX XXXX in a XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX manner, XXX XX a XXXXXXX level. One XXXXXX XXX this can be XXXXX XXXX XXX survey XX XX research (cf. Section 1.X.X) XXXXX reveals XXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXXXX XX how XX XXXXXXX XXX XX organized.
XX summarize, XXXX thesis puts forward some principles for incremental XX. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX aim XX systematize local method XXXXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXXXXX focus XX XX XXX evolutionary XXXXXX XX method knowledge. We argue XXXX an important factor for XXX success of XXX methods XX how an organization or a project creates XXX maintains method XXXXXXXXX. In XXXXXXXXXXX ME meta models XXX XX XXXX for XXXXXXXXX method knowledge, analyzing XXXXXXX XXXX, and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX experience of XXXXXX use. XX XXXXXXX answers to these questions, XX can analyze XXXXXXXXX ME XXXXXXXXXX and extend XXX principles XXX XXXXXXX of ME. XX XXXXX so we XXX improve XXX XXXXXXXXXXX of XXX methods and XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX faced in the XXXXXXXX “one-shot” introduction and use of standardized XXXXXXX. In XXXXX XX XXXXXXX of ME XXXXXXXX (XXX Section 1.5.X), and the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX the XXXXXX focuses on XXX XXXXX research XXXXXX: XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX based XX XXXX-XXXX models. XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XX also related to other research domains of ME. In XXX XXXXXX of tool XXXXXXX XXXX tools can XXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX XXXX modeling XXXXXXXXXXXX as XXXX XX support XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. In the domains of organizational support XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX’ roles the incremental principles suggest how experiences can be collected XXX XXXXXXXX in an XXXXXXXXXXXX. Finally, whereas XXXX studies on XX XXXX focused on developing XXXX modeling languages XXX XXXXX our study XXXXX with the process XX XXXXXX XXXXXX construction and development.
XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX methods is XXXXXX dependent on the research XXXXXXX XXX problem. At the XXXX time, XXXXXXX formulation can be done in favor of a particular XXXXXXXX XXXXXX. In XXXX thesis we XXXXX two kinds XX research XXXXXXX. The first research method, used to study the meta modeling XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, “how completely can XXXX-XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX knowledge XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX modeling XXXXX?”, is XXXXXXXXXX: XX model XX IDS XXXXXXX and validate XXXXX meta-data models by implementing methods in XXXXXXXX-aided tools. These XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX are then XXXX to analyze method knowledge as XXXX of modeling XXXXX XXX to extend languages for XXXXXX modeling. XXXX XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX rarely been XXXXXXX XX such an extent for analyzing and developing meta modeling XXXXXXXXX for ME (Tolvanen et XX. 1996). Thus, the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX complements other XXXXXXXX approaches XXXXXXX (XX. XXXXXXXX XX al. XXXX).
XXX second question, “how XXX XXXXXXXXXX of method XXX together XXXX meta models XX applied XXX method refinements?”, is studied XXXX conceptually and XXXXXXXXXXX. In XXX conceptual part XX analyze the literature on XX XXX relate it XX the mechanisms of XXXXXXXXX creation and XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. In XXX XXXXXXXXX part XX XXXXXX an action research XXXXXXXX (Rapoport 1970, Susman and Evered XXXX) also applied in IS research (Wood-XXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXXX 1991). XXX XXXX for empirical XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX ME XX a relatively XXX XXXXXXXX area, XXX XXXX XXX received little attention to theoretical XXX XXXXXXXX methodical XXXXXX. Especially in (meta)methods and XX efforts XX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX nor XXXXXXXXXX studies which aim to XXXXXXX meta methods[7]. This XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX that XX needs XX be studied in its XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, i.e. in XXXX life organizations. In other XXXXX, XX XXXXXXX that it XXXXX XX difficult XXX hard XX develop XXXXXXXXXX for XX in a XXXXXX deductive XXX.
In XXX study XX incremental XX we examine two cases in which XXXXXXX were developed XXX XXXXXXX to local XXXXX. Both of XXXXX cases XXXXX XXX XXX steps of XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX (XX. XXXXXXX X.X). They XXXXX us to XXXXX a rich XXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX demonstrate the feasibility XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The main XXXXXXXX XX applying an action XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX is to XXXX in-XXXXX XXX first-hand understanding XX XXX processes that XXXX place in an XXXXXXXXXXXX in a XXXXXXX XXXXXXX. In the XXXXXXX we XXXXXX requirements XXXXXXX XX methods XXX capture XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX in XXXX-data models. XXX XXXX XXXXX an XXXXXXXXXXXX’s XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX is XXXXXXXXX by XXXXXXXXXXXX method engineers XXX users, XXX by observing the ME XXXXXXX. XXXX, XXX XXXXXXXX XXXX tools XXX XXXX XX analyze the methods as XXXX are supported XXXX XXXXX. XX an XXXXXXX of XXX XXXX collection XX obtain different versions of XXXXXXX (in XXXXX XX meta models XXX XXXXXXX tools) together with XXXXXXX for XXXXXX refinements. On XXX data XXXXXXXX XXXX, the XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXXXX specifications to XXXXX XXXXXXX offers a mechanism to XXXXXXXX XXX explain method evolution.
XX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX all XXXXXXXXXXX in studying XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXXXXX, in XXXXXXXX local XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX use of in-XXXXX XXXXXXX, Russo et XX. (1995) XXXX surveys XXX Smolander et al. (1990) XXXXXXX out a field XXXXX. XXXXXXXX, XXXXXX (1991) performed XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX experiments to study method knowledge XX understood XXX XXXX by XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX, these approaches XXXXX on obtaining a XXXX-shot XXXX XX practice, or XX XXX offer a XXXXXXXXXXX XX analyze XXX richness and XXXXXX of XX. XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, they do not XXXXXXX XXXXXXX in ISD XXXXXXX XX XXXX as an XXXXXX research method does. XX XXX opinion, these are XX XXXXX importance XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX.
The use XX action research does XXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX: The XXXXX does not XXXX the XXXXXXXXX XX “XXXXXXXXXX” research XXXXXXX XXX approach XXXXXX few XXXXXXXXXXXXX for XXXXXXXXXXX generalization XXX XXX researcher can not exercise control XXXX experimental XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX have XXXXXXXXX an action XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX (cf. XXXXXXXX and Land XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX, Wood-XXXXXX 1985, Check land 1991), XXXXXXX the XXXXXX XX XXXXXX development XXX use of XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX a XXXXX interaction between theory XXX practice.
This XXXXX has several limitations. XXX XXXXXXX limitation XX XXX definition XX an IDS XXXXXX. As XXX XXXXX of the thesis suggests our XXXX of XXXXXXX is XXXXXXX in how XXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX XXXXX, such XX XXXX. XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX in those parts XX XXX methods XXXX XXX be modeled, formalized, XXX supported in XXXXXXXX-aided environments. XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX or XXXXXX parts XX methods, XXXX XX XXXXX XXXXX orientation, are XXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX.
The second XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXX on meta-data models XXX XXX of semantic data XXXXXX. XXX former XXXXX that our XXXXXXXX in XX is XXXX in static aspects of the method, namely the conceptual structure behind modeling XXXXXXXXXX. XXX latter means that XXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXX of semantic data XXXXXX XXXXX by XXXXXXXXXX have XXXXXXXXXXX in XX modeling XXX presumably XXXX in XXXXXX modeling. The semantic XXXX XXXXXX are XXXXXXXX as a basis for XXXX XXXXXXXX because they XXXXXXX support XXX incremental ME in XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, molecularity, XXXX XX use and support XXX communication XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX important. XXXXXXXX, most XXXXX XXXX modeling XXXXXXX (Hong XX al. 1993, Heym 1993, Henderson-XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX, 1996b, XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX) XXXXX semantic data XXXXXX, XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX semantic data models in their schema (CASE XXXXXXX 1989).
XXX third limitation XXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX. Despite XXX benefits XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX studies, such as its closeness to XXX real world and focus on detail and XXXXXX, the XXXXXXX can XXX XX statistically generalized. Rather, XXXX allow XX XX XXXXXXX conjectures (XXX XXXX) on an XXXXXXXXXXX basis. The studies can XXXXXXXXXXX that the suggested XX XXXXXXXX can be XXXXXX XXXXXX than justifying it XX XX universally XXXXXXXXXX. A XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX based XX necessitates a longer time XXXXX and larger samples XXXX XXXXXXX here.
[X]X XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX related XXXXXXXX XXX XX found from Tolvanen XX XX. (XXXX).
[6]Most articles related to XXX of XXXX Case tools (e.g. Tagg XXXX) XXXXXXXX only the current adaptation XXXXXXX XXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX the adaptation process.
[7]XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX offers XXXX XXXX methods XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XX in XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, they focus XX anaprioryview of XX (XX. XXXXXXX X.2) and XXXX not XXXX XXXXXXXXX or XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX in real-XXXXX XX efforts (XXXXXXXX XX XX. 1996).
">