Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 513–526 | Cite as

What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice

  • Bran SelicEmail author
Expert’s Voice


Model-based engineering (MBE) has been touted as a new and substantively different approach to software development, characterized by higher levels of abstraction and automation compared to traditional methods. Despite the availability of published verifiable evidence that it can significantly boost both developer productivity and product quality in industrial projects, adoption of this approach has been surprisingly slow. In this article, we review the causes behind this, both technical and non-technical, and outline what needs to happen for MBE to become a reliable mainstream approach to software development.


Model-based engineering 


  1. 1.
    Antkiewicz, M., Czarnecki, K., et al.: Design space of heterogeneous synchronization. In: Lammel, R., Lammel, R., et al. (eds.) Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5235, p. 46. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baber, R.: Software Reflected. North Holland, Amsterdam (1982)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The Esterel synchronous programming language: design, semantics, implementation. Sci. Comput. Program. 19(2), 87–152 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloomberg, Nokia’s Share Slips as Unbranded Phonemakers, Apple gain Ground,, November (2010)
  5. 5.
    Bone, M., Cloutier, R.: The current state of model based system engineering: results from the OMG\(^{\rm TM}\) SysML request for information 2009. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), March 2010. Hoboken, NJ (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Constantine, L.: What Do Users Want? Engineering Usability into Software. Constantine& Lockwood Ltd. (1995).
  8. 8.
    The Eclipse Foundation.
  9. 9.
    Einstein, A.: Science and happiness (Speech given at the California Institute of Technology). Science 73(1893), 375–381 (1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erlande-Brandenburg, A.: The Cathedral Builders of the Middle Ages (translated from the French by Rosemary Stonehewer). Thames and Hudson, London (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eveleens, J.L., Verhoef, C.: The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures. IEEE Software, pp. 30–36 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In: Proceedings of 2007 IEEE Conference on the Future of Software Engineering (FOSE ‘07), pp. 37–54. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glass, R.: The Standish report: does it really describe a software crisis? Commun. ACM 49(8), 15–16 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Whittle, J.: Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In: Proceedings of 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’11), pp. 633–642. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristofferson, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’11), pp. 471–480. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Standards Organization: Information Technology—Common Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based languages, ISO/IEC Standard 24707:2007 (2007).
  17. 17.
    Lin, C., et al.: Experiences deploying MBSE at NASA JPL. Frontiers in Model-Based Systems Engineering Workshop. Georgia Institute of Technology (2011). (www.pslm.gatech. edu/events/frontiers2011/2.1̱Lin.pdf)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLuhan, M.: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency, International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where is the proof? A review of experiences from applying MDE in industry. In: Schiefendecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) Model Driven Architecture—Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA 2008), LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody, D.: The ‘Physics’ of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neumann, P.: Computer Related Risks. Addison Wesley, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Object Management Group: Compilation of SysML RFI—Final Report, OMG Document syseng/2009-06-01 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Object Management Group: Meta-Object facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (QVT), OMG document formal/2011-01-01 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, P.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: De-/re-constructing model transformation languages. In: Electronic Communications of the EASST, 29: Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (GT-VMT) (2010) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Varro, D., Pataricza, A.: Generic and meta-transformations for model transformation engineering. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML 2004), pp. 290–304. Lisbon, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Proceedings of Model Transformations in Practice Workshop. MTIP), MoDELS Conference, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muller, P.-A., Fleurey, F., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Weaving executability into object-oriented metalanguages. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 8th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 264–278. Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oster, C.: Evolving Lockheed Martin’s engineering practices through the creation of a model-centric digital tapestry. In: Frontiers in Model-Based Systems Engineering Workshop, Georgia Institute of Technology (2011).
  31. 31.
    Petriu, D.: Software model-based performance analysis. In: Post-Proceedings of the MDD4DRES Summer School, Aussois 2009. Hermès Science Publications, Paris (2012) (in press)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Selic, B.: Personal reflections on automation. Program Cult Model-Based Softw Eng Autom Softw Eng J 14(3/4) (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sokolsky, O., Lee, I., Clarke, D.: Schedulability analysis of AADL models. In: Proceedings 20th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2006). IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Standish Group International. Chaos Summary (2009).
  35. 35.
    United States Department of Labor—Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010–2011 Edition. Computer Software Engineers and Computer ProgrammersGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture (translated by M. H. Morgan). Dover Publications Inc. New York (1960)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weigert, T., Weil, F.: Practical experience in using model-driven engineering to develop trustworthy systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing (SUTC’06), pp. 208–217. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malina Software CorpNepeanCanada

Personalised recommendations