Advertisement

Changing Role of SPI – Opportunities and Challenges of Process Modeling

  • Antero Järvi
  • Tuomas Mäkilä
  • Harri Hakonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4257)

Abstract

Software process modeling is gaining acceptance because of the evolving Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM) language. While carrying out empirical process research in software companies in order to model reusable process components with SPEM, we have faced issues that concern Software Process Improvement (SPI) more generally. To understand the general context we have structured these issues into five important aspects of SPI. In this paper we present each aspect through its challenges and opportunities from the process modeling point of view. Consequently, we claim that by overcoming the challenges, process modeling will bring new concrete opportunities for SPI.

Keywords

Software Process Object Management Group Process Framework Process Content Business Process Modeling Notation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Object Management Group. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification - Version 1.1 (January 5, 2005), formal/05-01-06Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuggetta, A.: Software process: A roadmap. In: ICSE - Future of SE Track, pp. 25–34 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Improving software process improvement. IEEE Software 19(4), 2–9 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMMI Product Team. CMMI for systems engineering and software engineering (cmmi-se/sw, v1.1) - staged representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-002, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (December 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. ISO/IEC 12207, Information technology - Software life cycle processes (August 1, 1995), ISO/IEC 12207:1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockburn, A.: Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Software, 64–71 (July/August 2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline, A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wells, D.: Extreme programming: A gentle introduction (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.extremeprogramming.org/
  10. 10.
    Msf Homepage (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/teamsystem/msf/
  11. 11.
    Backlund, et al.: Transfer of development process knowledge through method adaptation and implementation. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2003) (June 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The frameworks quagmire (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.software.org/quagmire/
  13. 13.
    Halvorsen, C.P., Conradi, R.: A taxonomy to compare SPI frameworks. In: Ambriola, V. (ed.) EWSPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2077. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eclipse process framework project Homepage (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.eclipse.org/epf/
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. Business Process Modeling Notation Specification - Final Adopted Specification (2006), dtc/06-02-01Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knowledge Based Systems Inc. Integrated definition methods home page (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.idef.com/
  17. 17.
    Becker, et al. (eds.): Process Management - A Guide for the Design of Business Processes. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davenport, J.: Don’t write another process. Methods & Tools 12(3), 2–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Järvi, A., Mäkilä, T.: Observations on modeling software processes with SPEM process components. In: Proceedings of The 9th Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools, Tartu, Estonia (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McFeeley, B.: IDEAL: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburg, PA (February 1996), CMU/SEI-96-HB-001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners views. The Journal of Systems and Software 66, 23–33 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: Motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners views. The Journal of Systems and Software 62, 85–96 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antero Järvi
    • 1
  • Tuomas Mäkilä
    • 1
  • Harri Hakonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyUniversity of TurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations