B01

card_id: B01

input: Project situation characteristics (goal type, situational factors) and a repository of method fragments (product, process, and related classified fragments) carrying declared properties.

operation: A five-step selection-and-assembly procedure: (1) determine project goal type; (2) derive a preliminary "ideal" scenario; (3) adapt the scenario into a project scenario using documented heuristics linking situation factors and performance indicators to scenario aspects; (4) select method fragments whose declared properties match the project scenario via property-based queries against the fragment repository; (5) assemble the selected fragments into an ordered, non-redundant situational method using explicit composition operations (e.g., Join...Into, Let...Precede) subject to formally stated consistency/completeness rules.

output: A configured, project-specific method (an ordered set of mutually consistent process/product fragments) plus a record of which fragments were selected and how they were combined.

scope_conditions: Information-systems (or comparable engineering) development where a repository of pre-classified, property-tagged method fragments already exists or can be built; classification against a common metamodel is a precondition for selection to work.

failure_conditions: The procedure "does not guarantee sufficiency" — situations needing fragments too specific for the generic situation/scenario/success model may be missed; assembly can produce defects (incompleteness, inconsistency, inefficiency, unsoundness, inapplicability) if composition rules are not checked.

predicted_effect: A situational method fitted to project goal and situation factors, intended to improve named performance indicators relative to an unmodified method; direction only, no quantified effect size verified.

measurement: Performance indicators are named per project-goal type and tied to scenario aspects via a sorted matrix; no calibrated scoring threshold was found in the sections read.

implementation_test: Given a stated goal and situation-factor values, query the fragment repository by declared properties, then apply the composition operations and check the stated axioms (contents completeness, precedence consistency, concurrence consistency); a method fails the test if any axiom check fails.

decision_rights: A "method engineer" performs selection and assembly using documented heuristics (checklists); this is a reviewable individual judgment call, not an automated decision procedure.

uncertainty_handling: Uses documented heuristics/checklists rather than a probabilistic or confidence-scored mechanism; no calibration verified.

verification: Formally stated method-assembly quality-assurance rules (axioms for completeness, precedence, concurrence, granularity consistency); independently, ME04 shows conformance-checking against an ISO/IEC-24744-aligned metamodel as an operational analogue.

provenance: ME03 sections 2.4, 6.1-6.2.2, Examples 6.1-6.5; ME04 sections 2.1-2.2.

implementation_cost: Not quantified; requires an existing populated, property-tagged fragment repository plus analyst time to run selection queries and manual composition steps.

limitations: coverage from a single research lineage plus one independent application paper; ISO/IEC 24744 itself remains abstract-only.

statement_basis: direct: ["5-step assembly procedure with worked query examples", "explicit composition operations (Join...Into, Let...Precede) and their governing axioms", "OPEN's five method-fragment classes conformant to ISO/IEC 24744 (ME04)"] inference: ["performance-effect direction ('improve...relative to an unmodified method') is the curator's paraphrase of the goal-to-indicator linkage, not a directly quoted claim"]