Requirements Engineering and Process Modelling in Software Quality Management— Towards a Generic Process Metamodel

• Allen, P. and Frost, S. 1998. Component-Based Development for Enterprise Systems, Applying the SELECT Perspective. Cambridge University Press.

• Andriole, S.J. and Freeman, P.A. 1993. Software systems engineering: The case for a new discipline, Software Engineering Journal 8(3).

• Armenise, P., Bandinelli, S., Ghezzi, C., and Morzenti, A. 1993. A survey and assessment of software process representation formalisms, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 3(3): 410-426.

  Google Scholar 

• Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G. 1995. Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. McGraw-Hill.

• Berki, E. 1999. Systems development method engineering, the formal NEWS: The formal notation for expressing a wide-range of specifications, the construction of a formal specification metamodel, Mphil/PhD Transfer Report, Faculty of Science, Computing and Engineering, University of North London.

• Berki, E. 2001. Establishing a scientific discipline for capturing the entropy of systems process models: CDM-FILTERS—a computational and dynamic metamodel as a flexible and integrating language for the testing, expression and re-engineering of systems, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Science, Computing and Engineering, University of North London.

• Berki, E. and Georgiadou, E. 1998. A comparison of quantitative frameworks for information systems development methodologies, Proc. of the 12th International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, Jerusalem, Israel, November–December.

• Berki, E., Georgiadou, E., and Siakas, K. 1997. A methodology is as strong as the user involvement it supports, Proc. of the International Symposium of Software Engineering in Universities (ISSEU), Rovaniemi, Finland, March.

• Berki, E., Isomäki, H., and Jäkälä, M. 2003. Holistic communication modelling: Enhancing human-centred design through empowerment, Proceedings of the Human Computer Interaction HCI International Conference, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece, 22–27 June.

  Google Scholar 

• Berkman, E. 2001. Knowledge management is a solid concept that fell in with the wrong company: Software companies, to be precise, Darwin Magazine, April.

• Bubenko, J.A., Jr. 1995. Challenges in requirements engineering. Invited talk at IEEE RE'95, 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, York, England, 27–29 March.

• CCTA. 1994. Euromethod Overview, CCTA.

• Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley.

• Cross, R. and Daveport, T. 2003. The Social Side of Performance. MA, Harvard Business Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. UK, Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Dorling, A. 1993. SPICE: Software process improvement and capacity determination, Information and Software Technology 35(6/7): 404-406.

  Google Scholar 

• Georgiadou, E. 2001. Software measurement for process and product improvement: Controlled experiments and derivation of reengineering metrics, MPhil Transfer Report, Faculty of Science, Computing and Engineering, University of North London.

• Georgiadou, E. and Sadler, C. 1995. Achieving quality improvement through understanding and evaluating information systems development methodologies, 3rd International Conference on SQM, Seville, Spain, Vol. 2, pp. 35-46.

  Google Scholar 

• Graham, I. 1991. Object-Oriented Methods. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• Hirscheim, R., Iivari, J. and Klein H.K. 2000. A comparison of five alternative approaches to information systems development. URL: http://www.cba.uh.edu/parks/fis/sad5.htm.

• Hoffer, J.A., George, J.F. and Valacich, J.S. 1996. Modern Systems Analysis and Design. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.

• Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. New York, McGraw Hill Book Company.

  Google Scholar 

• Holcombe, M. 2000. X-machines in computing, biology and art, Proceedings of Grammar Systems 2000, eds. R. Freund and A. Kelemenova, Silesian University at Opava, Czech Republic, pp. 343-346.

  Google Scholar 

• Holcombe, M., Bogdanov, K., and Gheorghe, M. 2001. Functional test set generation for extreme programming, Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering (XP2001), Sardinia, Italy, 20–23 May, pp. 109-113.

• Ince, D. 1995. Software Quality Assurance. McGraw-Hill.

• Jackson, M. 1994. Problems, methods and specialisation, Software Engineering Journal.

• Jarke, M. and Pohl, K. 1994. Requirements engineering in 2001: (virtually) managing a changing reality, Software Engineering Journal.

• Jayaratna, N. 1994. Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies, NIMSAD: A Systemic Approach. McGraw-Hill.

• Jenkins, T. 1994. Report back on the DMSG sponsored UK Euromethod forum '94, Data Management Bulletin 11(3), Summer issue.

• Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., and Rossi, M. 1996. MetaEdit+: A fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment, Advances in Information Systems Engineering, eds. P. Constantopoulos, J. Mylopoulos and Y. Vassiliou, 8th International Conference CAiSE '96, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 20–24, pp. 1-21.

• Kopetz, H. 1979. Software Reliability. The Macmillan Press Ltd.

• Koskinen, M. 2000. Process metamodelling: Conceptual foundations and application, Ph.D. Thesis, Jyväskylä Studies in Computing — 7, University of Jyväskylä.

• Larman, C. 2004. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide, Agile Software Development Series. Pearson Education.

• Martin, J. and Finkenstein, C. 1981. Information Engineering, Vols. 1 and 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Marttiin, P., Rossi, M., Tahvanainen, V.-P., and Lyytinen, K.A. 1993. Comparative review of CASE shells—a preliminary framework and research outcomes, Information and Management 25: 11-31.

  Google Scholar 

• Mukarovsky. 1978. The Place of the Aesthetic Function among the other Functions, in Structure, Sign and Function, J. Burbank and P. Steiner (ed. and transl.). New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Mumford, E. and Weir, M. 1979. Computer Systems in Work Design—the ETHICS Method. Associated Business Press.

• Musa, J.D., Iannino, A. and Okumoto, K. 1987. Software Reliability Measurement, Prediction, Application. New York, McGraw-Hill.

  Google Scholar 

• Myers, G. 1976. Software Reliability Principles and Practices. Wiley.

• Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. 1993. The capability maturity model: Version 1.1, IEEE Software 18-27.

• Pfleeger, L.S. 1998. Software Engineering, Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall.

• Pressman, R. 1994. Software Engineering—a Practitioner's Approach, Europ. Edition. McGraw-Hill.

• Rolland, C., Souveyet, C., and Moreno, M. 1995. An approach for defining ways-of-working, Information Systems 20(4): 337-359.

  Google Scholar 

• Sadler, C. and Kitchenham, B.A. 1996. Evaluating software engineering methods and tools, part 4: The influence of human factors, SIGSOFT, Software Engineering Notes 21(5).

• Saunders, B. and Georgiadou, E. 1999. Information systems development and the need for a multi-facetted manager, Proc. of the BCS INSPIRE IV Conference: Training and Teaching for the Understanding of Software Quality, eds. C. Hawkins, E. Georgiadou, L. Perivolaropoulos, M. Ross, and G. Staples, University of Crete, Greece, pp. 193-201.

  Google Scholar 

• Setliff D.E. and Rutenbar, R. 1992. Knowledge representation and reasoning in a software synthesis architecture, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(6).

• Siakas, K., Berki, E., Georgiadou, E., and Sadler, C. 1997. The complete alphabet of quality software systems: Conflicts and compromises, World Conference on Total Quality Management, WCTQM, N. Delhi, India, February.

• Skyrme, D.J. 1996. Information management: The organisational dimension, The Hybrid Manager, pp. 436-456, ed. M.J. Earl, Oxford Univ. Press.

• Sommerville, I. 1992. Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley.

• Sorenson, P.G., Tremblay, J.-P. and McAllister, A.J. 1988. The MetaView system for many specification environments, IEEE Software 30(3): 30-38.

  Google Scholar 

• Stapleton, J. 1997. Dynamic Systems Development Method—the Method in Practice. Harlow, UK, Addison-Wesley Longman.

  Google Scholar 

• TAP. 1998. Telematics Applications Programme (TAP), Language Engineering: Progress and Prospects Report for the European Commission, LINGLINK, Luxemburg, July 1998.

  Google Scholar 

• Teasley-Mynatt, B. 1989. Software Engineering with Student Project Guidance.

• UML, 1997. Unified Modeling Language Version 1.0. Santa Clara, CA, UML Partners.

  Google Scholar 

• Ward, P.T. and Mellor, S.J. 1985. Structured Development for Real-Time Systems. New York, Yourdon Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Wood-Harper, A.T., Antill, L., and Avison, D.E. 1985. Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach. Blackwell.

• Yourdon, E. 1997. Modern Structured Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Yourdon, E. and Argila, C. 1996. Case Studies in Object Oriented Analysis and Design, Yourdon Press Computing Series.

Download references