Process Definition Language Support for Rapid Simulation Prototyping

  • Mohammad S. Raunak
  • Leon J. Osterweil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3840)


This paper suggests how an appropriately designed and architected process definition language can be an effective aid to the rapid generation of simulations, which are, in turn, capable of providing important insights. The paper describes how the features of the Little-JIL process definition language helped in the rapid generation of simulations that shed important new light on the effectiveness of various collusion strategies in influencing the outcomes of various auction approaches. The paper describes how Little-JIL’s approach to modular reuse and its separation of process concerns both turn out to be of particular value in supporting rapid prototyping. The simulation results obtained are themselves interesting, as the paper also suggests that the auction idiom is highly relevant to resource allocation in software development. Thus, the insights gained into the efficacy of various collusion approaches have particular relevance to software process research.


Discrete Event Simulation Bidding Strategy Double Auction Defense Advance Research Project Agency Bidder Behavior 
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.
    Aoyagi, M.: Bid rotation and collusion in repeated auctions. Journal of Economic Theory 112(1), 79–105 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bajari, P., Summers, G.: Detecting collusion in procurement auctions. Antitrust Law Journal 70, 143–170 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byde, A.: A comparison among bidding algorithms for multiple auctions. Technical Report, Trusted E-Services Laboratory, HP Laboratories Bristol (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., McCall, E.K., Osterweil, L.J., Sutton Jr., S.M., Wise, A.: Logically central, physically distributed control in a process runtime environment. Technical Report No. UM-CS-1999-065, University of Massachusetts, Department of Computer Science, Amherst, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., McCall, E.K., Osterweil, L.J., Sutton Jr., S.M., Wise, A.: Little-JIL/Juliette: A process definition language and interpreter. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 754–757 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christie, A.M.: Simulation in support of CMM-based process improvement. Journal of Systems and Software 46(2) (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cobleigh, J.M., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: Verifying properties of process definitions. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (ISSTA 2000), Portland, OR, pp. 96–101 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Isaac, R.M., Plott, C.R.: The opportunity for conspiracy in restraint of trade: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2 (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isaac, R.M., Valerie, R., Arlington, W.W.: The effects of market organization on conspiracies in restraint of trade. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 5, 191–222 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isaac, R.M., Walker, J.M.: Information and conspiracy in sealed bid auction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 6, 139–159 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kellner, M.I., Madachy, R.J., Raffo, D.M.: Software process modeling and simulation: Why, what, how. Journal of Systems and Software 46(2) (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klemperer, P.: Auction theory: A guide to the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys 13(3), 227–286 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lakey, P.B.: A hybrid software process simulation model for project management. In: Proceedings of the Software Process Simulation Modeling Workshop, Portland, OR (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Software processes are software too. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of Software Engineering, Monterey, CA, pp. 2–13 (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Improving the quality of software quality determination processes. In: Boisvert, R. (ed.) The Quality of Numerical Software: Assessment and Enhancement. Chapman & Hall, London (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milgrom, P.R., Weber, R.J.: A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica 50(5), 1089–1122 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandholm, T.: Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 542–547 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scacchi, W.: Experience with software process simulation and modeling. Journal of Systems and Software (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thuente, D.J.: Rapid simulation and software prototyping for the architectural design of embedded multiprocessor systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer Science, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 113–121 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16, 8–37 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.0 language report. Technical Report No. UM-CS-1998-024, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad S. Raunak
    • 1
  • Leon J. Osterweil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations