=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-223/paper-5
|storemode=property
|title=Creating a comprehensive agent-oriented methodology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-223/15.pdf
|volume=Vol-223
|authors=Brian Henderson-Sellers (University of Technology,Sydney)
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eumas/Henderson-Sellers06
}}
==Creating a comprehensive agent-oriented methodology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-223/15.pdf
CREATING A COMPREHENSIVE AGENT-ORIENTED
METHODOLOGY – EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Brian Henderson-Sellers
Faculty of Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123,
Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
While individual agent-oriented methodologies are useful for restricted situations, for wider industry
adoption it is useful to create a methodological framework that provides method fragments from which
situationally specific methodologies can be constructed. Such a flexible approach can be found in the
use of situational method engineering (SME). In this context, this article describes the details of SME
and its embodiment in the OPEN Process Framework (OPF) [1]. The OPF uses an underpinning
metamodel, a repository (a.k.a. methodbase) of method fragments and guidelines to assist method
engineers create the final methodological approach from a selected number of fragments to form an
organization-specific or project-specific methodology.
Having described SME with the OPF, we then show how this basis is suitable not only for objects
but also for agents and discuss agent-specific method fragments. We then demonstrate how it becomes
possible not only to recreate whole agent-oriented methodologies such as Prometheus or Gaia or
Tropos but how it is also possible to create an enhanced methodology such as might be obtained, for
instance, by adding Tropos method fragments into a Prometheus-style methodology in order to tailor
Prometheus to situations for which it was not originally designed.
This paper was originally published as Chapter XIII in a book entitled Agent-Oriented
Methodologies (edited by B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini) by Idea Group in July 2005. The aim
of the book was to present a significant number of agent-oriented methodologies, written by the
original developers, but in a standard format. They were asked to not only describe their approaches
but also highlight specific positive features and areas not addressed in their methodologies. These were
followed by a chapter evaluating these 10 approaches objectively [2] and then this final chapter [3].
The overall aim is to encourage “convergence” between methodologies so that when industry en masse
adopts agents there will be an agreed methodological offering. The idea is to avoid the errors of OO
wherein industry sought an OO methodology to adopt in the early 1990s and were offered between 20
and 60 (depending upon which author you read) – this was tantamount to an admission that OO was
not ready for industry usage.
The way forward is proposed to be Situational Method Engineering (SME) [4]. Rather than
seeking a single unified methodology, unification occurs at the metamethodology level [e.g. 5] and
method fragments are generated from concepts in this metamodel [1] and stored in a repository or
methodbase [4,6,7]. Construction guidelines [1,7-9] are then followed in order to create a methodology
that takes into account the many industry situational factors, including, for instance, security,
reliability, real-time, safety criticality, organizational maturity, project size and developers’ skills
levels. This approach is technology agnostic and all these elements are as suitable for agent technology
as for object technology.
The sources for fragments are largely existing methodologies [10] plus best practice. For agents,
there are around a dozen or so extant methodologies that have provided fragments to enhance the
original OO-focussed repository of the OPF so that it can offer full support for the re-creation of AO
methodologies. The fragments have thus far been gleaned from each individual AO methodology and
are summarized in the book chapter [3]. Future work, under way, is to investigate possible (and likely)
overlaps between various method fragments across the various AO methodologies. This is particularly
evident in the proferred AO work products i.e. diagrams to represent various AO features not found in
traditional OO diagrams such as those provided by the UML [11].
As well as proposing a community effort to create a merger of methodological ideas, there are
other interesting research issues raised. In particular, how does one measure the quality of the
constructed methodology, both in terms of internal qualities such as consistency, but also external
quality in terms of its suitability for a particular situation? Evaluating how a methodology works in
practice requires liaison with industry, possibly using an Action Research style of investigation [12].
Other possible community efforts could also be instigated. For example, intercomparison of
approaches, not only theoretically as, for instance, in [2] and other similar studies [e.g. 13], but also on
a test example (e.g. [14]) and, preferably, in industry situations, might yield significantly improved
understanding of what works and what is less successful. Similarly, such intercomparison could reveal
any significant weak points in agent-oriented methodology research and help researchers target areas
where results are likely to be the most fruitful.
The ultimate result of the substantial efforts of the various AO methodology teams,
complemented by method engineering techniques will be the consolidation of the agent-oriented
methodological community’s contribution to the better development of commercial software systems
and the provision of an agreed and widely supported methodological approach to the development of
agent-oriented applications in the future.
References
[1] D.G. Firesmith and B. Henderson-Sellers. The OPEN process framework. Harlow, UK:
Addison Wesley, 2002.
[2] Q.-N.N. Tran and G.C. Low. Comparison of ten agent-oriented methodologies. Chapter
XII In Agent-Oriented Methodologies (edited by B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini),
Idea Group, Hershey, PA, USA, 2005.
[3] B. Henderson-Sellers. Creating a comprehensive agent-oriented methodology – using
method engineering and the open metamodel. Chapter XIII In Agent-Oriented
Methodologies (edited by B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini), Idea Group, Hershey,
PA, USA, 2005.
[4] A.H.M. Ter Hofstede and T.F. Verhoef. On the feasibility of situational method
engineering. Information Systems, 22: 401-422, 1997.
[5] Standards Australia. Standard metamodel for software development methodologies,
AS4651-2004, 23 August. Sydney, NSW: Standards Australia International, 2004
[6] S. Brinkkemper. Method engineering: engineering of information systems development
methods and tools. Inf. Software Technol., 38(4): 275-280, 1996.
[7] J. Ralyté and C. Rolland. An assembly process model for method engineering. In
Proceedings of the 13th Multi International Conference on Advanced Information
Systems Engineering, CAISE’01, Interlaken, Switzerland. June 6-8. LNCS2068, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 267-283, 2001.
[8] S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki and F. Harmsen. Assembly techniques for method engineering.
In Proceedings of CAISE 1998, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 381-400, 1998.
[9] J. Ralyté, C. Rolland and R. Deneckère. Towards a meta-tool for change-centric method
engineering: A typology of generic operators. In Proceedings of CAiSE2004 (eds. A.
Persson and J. Stirna). LNCS 3084, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 202-218, 2004.
[10] J. Ralyte. Towards situational methods for information systems development:
engineering reusable method chunks. Procs. 13th Int. Conf. on Information Systems
Development. Advances in Theory, Practice and Education (eds. O. Vasilecas, A.
Caplinskas, W. Wojtkowski, W.G. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic and S. Wrycza), Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania, 271-282, 2004.
[11] Object Management Group. OMG: Unified Modeling Language Superstructure, Version
2.0, August 2005, OMG document formal/05-07-04 [Online]. Available
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc ?formal/05-07-04 (2005).
[12] D.E. Avison, F. Lau, M. Myers and P.A. Nielsen. Making academic research more
relevant. Communications of the ACM, 42(1): 94-97, 1999.
[13] K.H. Dam and M. Winikoff. Comparing agent-oriented methodologies. In Agent-
Oriented Systems (eds. P. Giorgini, B. Henderson-Sellers and M. Winikoff), LNAI 3030,
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 778-793, 2004.
[14] E. Yu and L. Cysneiros. Agent-oriented methodologies - Towards a challenge exemplar.
In Agent-Oriented Information Systems 2002, Procs.AOIS-2002 (eds. P. Giorgini, Y.
Lespérance, G. Wagner and E. Yu), 47-63, 2002.