Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 571–580 | Cite as

How effective is UML modeling ?

An empirical perspective on costs and benefits
  • Michel R. V. Chaudron
  • Werner Heijstek
  • Ariadi Nugroho
Expert's Voice


Modeling has become a common practice in modern software engineering. Since the mid 1990s the Unified Modeling Language (UML) has become the de facto standard for modeling software systems. The UML is used in all phases of software development: ranging from the requirement phase to the maintenance phase. However, empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of modeling in software development is few and far apart. This paper aims to synthesize empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of modeling using UML in software development, with a special focus on the cost and benefits.


Unified Modeling Language  Costs and benefits Quality Productivity Effectiveness 


  1. 1.
    Anda, B., Hansen, K., Gullesen, I., Thorsen, H.K.: Experiences from introducing uml-based development in a large safety-critical project. Empir. Softw. Eng. 11(4), 555–581 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1981)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.W., Gray, T.E., Seewaldt, T.: Prototyping vs. specifying: a multi-project experiment. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 473–484. IEEE Press, Piscataway (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cherubini, M., Venolia, G., DeLine, R., Ko, A.J.: Let’s go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in, computing systems, pp. 557–566 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dekel, U., Herbsleb, J.D.: Notation and representation in collaborative object-oriented design: an observational study. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on object-oriented programming systems and applications, pp. 261–280 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is used. Commun. ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dzidek, W.J., Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C.: A realistic empirical evaluation of the costs and benefits of UML in software maintenance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 34(3), 407–432 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forward, A., Lethbridge, T.: Perceptions of software modeling: a survey of software practitioners. Technical Report TR-2008-07, School of Information Technology and Engineering, University of Ottawa, 800 King Edward Ave. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Genero, M., Fernández-Sáez, A.M., Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Research review: a systematic literature review on the quality of UML models. J. Database Manag. 22(3), 46–70 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grossman, M., Aronson, J.E., McCarthy, R.V.: Does UML make the grade? insights from the software development community. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(6), 383–397 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heijstek, W., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Empirical investigations of model size, complexity and effort in large scale, distributed model driven development processes—a case study. In: Proceedings of the 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA 2009) Patras, Greece (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heijstek, W., Chaudron, M.R.V.: On the use of UML diagrams in industrial software architecture documents. Technical Report TR2011-02, Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 1, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herzberg, F.: One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harv. Bus. Rev. 46(1), 53–62 (1968)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of mde in industry. In: Proceeding of the 33rd international conference on Software engineering, pp. 471–480. ACM Press, London (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, C.: Software defect-removal efficiency. Computer 29(4), 94–95 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, C.: Programming Productivity. McGraw-Hill, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lange, C.F.J., Bois, B.D., Chaudron, M.R.V., Demeyer, S.: An experimental investigation of UML modeling conventions. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 27–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Effects of defects in UML models: an experimental investigation. In: Osterweil L.J., Rombach H.D., Soffa M.L., (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering. pp. 401–411. ACM Press, London (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, Michel R.V., Muskens, J.: In practice: UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Softw. 23(2), 40–46 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, M.R.V., Muskens, J., Somers, L.J., Dortmans, H.M.: An empirical investigation in quantifying inconsistency and incompleteness of UML designs. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McConnell, S.: Code Complete. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mellegård, N., Staron, M.: Characterizing model usage in embedded software engineering: a case study. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Software Architecture: Companion Volume. pp. 245–252 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nugroho, A., Chaudron, M.R.V.: A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity. In: ESEM ’08: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, pp. 90–99. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nugroho, A., Flaton, B., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Empirical analysis of the relation between level of detail in UML models and defect density. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 600–614. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nugroho, A., Lange, C.F.J.: On the relation between class-count and modeling effort. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 10th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 5002/2008, pp. 93–104. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pareto, L., Eriksson, P., Ehnebom, S.: Architectural descriptions as boundary objects in system and design work. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Model driven, engineering, pp. 406–419 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Premraj, R., Nauta, G., Tang, A., van Vliet, H.: The boomeranged software architect. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Ninth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA ’11, pp. 73–82. IEEE Computer Society, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shull, F., Basili, V., Boehm, B., Brown, A. W., Costa, P., Lindvall, M., Port, D., Rus, I., Tesoriero, R., Zelkowitz, M.: What we have learned about fighting defects. In: Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE Symposium on Software Metrics, pp. 249–258. IEEE Press, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Staron, M.: Adopting model driven software development in industry—a case study at two companies. In: MoDELS, pp. 57–72 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stettina, C.J., Heijstek, W.: Necessary and neglected? an empirical study of internal documentation in agile software development teams. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC 2011), Pisa, Italy, (October 2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thörn, C., Gustafsson, T.: Uptake of modeling practices in SME’s. In: Proceedings of the ICSE workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MiSE), ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weigert, T., Weill, F.: Practical experiences in using model-driven engineering to develop trustworthy computing systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy, Computing (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel R. V. Chaudron
    • 1
  • Werner Heijstek
    • 1
  • Ariadi Nugroho
    • 2
  1. 1.Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Software Improvement GroupAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations