JSD & RUP
F21SF October 2014
Assignment 3
Boris Mocialov, Sören Pollakowski, Yernar Akshabayev,
Assem Madikenova, Max M Baird
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
History / Context
Models / Techniques
Structure
Evaluation using NIMSAD - Framework
HISTORY / CONTEXT
JSD
• A method for specifying and designing inherently
sequential systems
• Pays initial attention to the domain of the
software then later to the sofware itself
• Focuses on event sequencing rather than static
data models
• JSD‘s domain is the real world
– Where entities exhibit concurrent time ordered
behavior
– The system must model such behavior
RUP
• Unified Process by Jacobson et al.  Rational
Unified Process
• Object-oriented methodology using modelling
techniques (mainly UML)
• Software engineering process, not
methodology according to Jacobson
• use-case driven, architecture centric, iterative
and incremental
MODELS/TECHNIQUES
JSD
• Design must begin by describing and modeling
the real world
• Time ordered model of the real world must
itself be time ordered
• System is implemented by transforming
specification into a set of processes
RUP
- Based on UML modelling to model “real world”
- Models below describe the static structure of the designing process
Source: Rational, 2011
STRUCTURE
JSD
• Modeling Phase
– Real world is described in terms of events, entities,
roles, event orderings and entity attributes
• Network Phase
– Previously identified processes are configured into a
process network
• Implementation Phase
– Timing and the implementation of scheduling the
processes is considered
RUP
Source: Rational 2011
RUP
Iterative and incremental process
Cycles
|
Phases
|
Iterations
|
Workflows
|
Activities
EVALUATING JSD & RUP USING THE
NIMSAD FRAMEWORK
The Problem Situation
JSD
RUP
• Maps real world onto
• Use wide range of unified
entities and events using
modelling techniques to
system specification
produce use-case models
diagram and distinguish
that will aid the creation
sequential events that carry
and validation of
data between entities
architecture
• Suitable for both structured and ill-structured problems
• Concerned with technical side of the problem
(Political/cultural aspects are left out)
• No assessment of clients perception of ‘reality’ is performed
The Problem Solver
•
•
•
•
None of the current discussed methodologies provide any
essential information about their intended problem
solvers
There are no relevant answers which might be meet
questions of NIMSAD framework about value sets, ethical
behaviour and ‘mental construct’ of problem solver
Economic, cultural and political sides are skipped
Experience and knowledge of developer are slightly taken
into account
The Problem - Solving Process
RUP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stage 1: modelling business workflow
Stage 2: modelling business workflow
Stage 3: business vision document
Stage 4: requirements workflow
Stage 5: analysis & design workflow
Stage 6: analysis & design workflow
Stage 7: analysis & design workflow
Stage 8: Implementation, Test, Deployment
workflows
3
supporting
workflows
Evaluation
Differences
JSD
• Models don’t capture many
attributes of real word
can’t cope with most of big real
world situations because it’s
narrowed to sequential processes
• Delivers theoretical solution to
perceived problems and
doesn’t consider the
implementation in action
world
• Promotes thinking about
sequential interactions of
entities (functions thinking)
RUP
• Models capture more
attributes of real world
can cope with complex and
ill-structured problem
situations
• Will deliver blueprint for IS
implementation and help
managing implementation
• Promotes object-oriented
thinking
Evaluation
Commonalities
• Might not identify real underlying problems
• Adaptive to changes in environment
• High Possibility to justify development and
decisions
• Don’t help to identify the most relevant
technical solutions for implementation
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
Methodologies History / Overview & Context
Tools and techniques used during the process
Structure description
Methodologies through NIMSAD lens
Evaluation using NIMSAD
DISCUSSION
References
• Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G.: Information Systems Development –
Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2003, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill
• Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G.: Information Systems Development –
Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 2006, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill
• Hunt, J.: Agile Software Construction, 2006, Springer, p. 193-210
• Jackson, M. A.: A System Development Method, 1982, Cambridge
University Press
• Jackson, M. A.: The Jackson Development Methods, 1992, in Wiley
Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering, 1992, edited by Marciniak J.
• Jayaratna, N.: Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD - A
Systematic Framework, 1994, McGraw-Hill
• Rational, Rational Unified Process: Best Practices for Software
Development Teams, 2011, Rational Software White Paper
References continued
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Black W.J., Sutcliffe A.G., Loucopoulos P., Layzell P.J.: Translation between pragmatic software development
methods, 1987 in: ESEC '87, 1st European Software Engineering Conference Strasbourg, France, September 9–11,
1987 Proceedings, p. 357-365
Fernandes J. M., Duarte, F.: Using RUP for Process-Oriented Organisations, 2004, in: Product Focused Software
Process Improvement, 5th International Conference, PROFES 2004, Kansai Science City, Japan, April 5-8, 2004.
Proceedings, p. 348-362
Hanssen G. K., Westerheim H., Bjørnson F. O.: Tailoring RUP to a Defined Project Type: A Case Study, 2005, in:
Product Focused Software Process Improvement, 6th International Conference, PROFES 2005, Oulu, Finland, June
13-15, 2005. Proceedings, p. 314-327
Hinchey, M. G.: Structured and Formal Methods: An Investigative Framework, 1996, in: Studies of Software Design,
ICSE'93 Workshop Maltimore, Maryland, USA, May 17–18, 1993 Selected Papers, p. 151-163
Kherissi F., Meslati D.: ONTO-RUP: A RUP Based Approach for Developing Ontogenetic Software Systems, 2010, in:
Bioinspired Models of Network, Information, and Computing Systems, 4th International Conference, BIONETICS
2009, Avignon, France, December 9-11, 2009, Revised Selected Papers, p. 140-151
Letelier P., Canós J. H., Sánchez E.: An Experiment Working with RUP and XP, 2003, in: Extreme Programming and
Agile Processes in Software Engineering, 4th International Conference, XP 2003 Genova, Italy, May 25–29, 2003
Proceedings, p. 41-46
Mathiassen L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen P. A., Stage J.: Combining two Approaches to Object-Oriented Analysis,
1994, in: Object-Oriented Methodologies and Systems, International Symposium, ISOOMS '94 Palermo, Italy,
September 21–22, 1994 Proceedings, p. 158-170
Salgado C. E., Ricardo J. Machado R. J., Maciel R. S. P.: Using Process-Level Use Case Diagrams to Infer the Business
Motivation Model with a RUP-Based Approach, 2014, in: Information System Development, p. 123-134, Springer