A Framework for Coping with Process Evolution

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3840)


To survive, companies must rationally, rapidly and incrementally evolve their processes in response to changes in customer desires, market pressures, personnel availability and capability, business goals, and available technology as well as many other business-context factors. A Process Evolution Dynamics Framework allows process change agents to address this critical need by rationally describing, understanding, learning from, planning and managing process evolution efforts in a manner that addresses rapid, unpredictable changes to their company’s business context. The framework may be based on an experience-based categorization of process evolution-related activities highlighting their collaborative maturation of a company’s process knowledge base. In addition to clarifying and facilitating a company’s process evolution efforts, the framework suggests several topics which should be addressed by the process research and empirical-study communities.


Activity Category International Standard Organization Software Development Process Process Architecture Activity Stream 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    International Standards Organization (ISO), Quality Management Systems: Requirements, ISO 9001 (International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Information Security Management – Specification for Information Security Management Systems, BS 7799-2 (Business Standards Institution (BSI) Group, London, United Kingdom (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version.1.1, CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, ADA 263403, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT) – Release 3.1 (Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Rolling Meadows, Illinois (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., Warsta, J.: Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis, VTT Publications 478, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Vuorimiehentie, Finland (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Highsmith, J., Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation. IEEE Computer, 120–122. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEEE Software Engineering Standards Collection, CD-ROM, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®Guide), Project Management Institute (PMI), Newtown Square, Pennsylvania (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferguson, P., Leman, G., Perini, P., Renner, S., Seshagiri, G.: Software Process Improvement Works! CMU/SEI-99-TR-027, ESC-TR-99-026, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2002 (November 1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curtis, B., Hefley, B., Miller, S.: People Capability Maturity Model. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Subramanyam, V., Deb, S., Krishnaswamy, P., Ghosh, R.: An Integrated Approach to Software Process Improvement at Wipro Technologies: veloci-Q, CMU/SEI-2004-TR-006, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nichols, R., Connaughton, C.: Software Process Improvement Journey: IBM Australia Application Management Services, CMU/SEI-2005-TE-002, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (March 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kishida, K.: Informal Remarks during the Second International Software Process Workshop, Coto de Caza, California, March 1985, Software Engineering Notes. ACM, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shewhart, W.A.: Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product (Original Publication: 1931) (Re-issue Edition: American Society for Quality, Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 1980)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deming, E.: Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Cambridge, Massachusetts (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.: The Experience Factory. In: Marciniak, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 469–476. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McFeeley, R.: IDEAL: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement, CMU/SEI-1996-HB-001, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riddle, W.: Coping with Process Specification. In: Proceedings 2003 Integrated Design and Process Technology Conference, IDPT-2003, Austin, Texas (Society for Design and Process Technology, Austin, Texas) (December 2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dreamweaver. macromedia, San Francisco, California Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    iNotion. I-Logix, Andover, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spearmint/PMC Tool Suites. Fraunhofer Institut Experimentelles Software Engineering, Kaiserslautern, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IRIS. Osellus, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nejmeh, B., Riddle, W.: Coping with Process Evolution, Technical Report 2005-01 (Solution Deployment Affiliates, Santa Fe, New Mexico) (in progress)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Senior Partner INSTEP Inc.LancasterUSA
  2. 2.Associate Professor of Information Systems and EntrepreneurshipMessiah CollegeGranthamUSA
  3. 3.Senior Solution ArchitectSolution Deployment AffiliatesSanta FeUSA
  4. 4.Senior Scientist, Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations