JSD & RUP

F21SF October 2014Assignment 3

Boris Mocialov, Sören Pollakowski, Yernar Akshabayev, Assem Madikenova, Max M Baird

Table of Contents

1. History / Context2. Models / Techniques3. Structure4. 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

Source: Rational, 2011

- Based on UML modelling to model “real world” - Models below describe the static structure of the designing process

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

Cycles|

Phases|Iterations|Workflows|Activities

Iterative and incremental process

EVALUATING JSD & RUP USING THE NIMSAD FRAMEWORK

The Problem Situation

JSD• Maps real world onto

entities and events using system specification diagram and distinguish sequential events that carry data between entities

RUP• Use wide range of unified

modelling techniques to produce use-case models that will aid the creation and validation of 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 worldcan cope with complex and ill-structured problem situations• Will deliver blueprint for IS

implementation and help managing implementation

• Promotes object-oriented thinking

EvaluationCommonalities

• 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