Advertisement

Towards Methodological Support for the Engineering of Process Reference Models for Product Software

  • Fritz Stallinger
  • Reinhold Plösch
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 477)

Abstract

Reference models available for software process improvement are often not satisfactorily suitable for application in the improvement of product-oriented software engineering. The resulting need to develop more suitable models for the engineering of software products by integrating, customizing, specializing or enhancing existing models is additionally enforced by the wide spectrum of models available, but focused on specific improvement areas or engineering paradigms, and the need of companies and industry sectors for compliance with more than one model. The goal of the research underlying this paper is thus to support the development of process reference models for the context of product-oriented software engineering by distilling methodological support for the derivation of respective model development methods. The aim of the present paper is to present the goals, identified related work and state-of-the-art, and the envisioned approach of this ongoing research to the software process improvement community.

Keywords

software product product-oriented software development process improvement process reference model reference model development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 (CMMI-DEV, V1.3), http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalReport/2010_005_001_15287.pdf
  2. 2.
    International Standards Organisation: ISO/IEC 12207:2008 - Systems and software engineering — Software life cycle processes (2008) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.: An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software 80, 883–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rautiainen, K., Lassenius, C., Sulonen, R.: 4CC: A framework for managing software product development. EMJ - Engineering Management Journal 14, 27–32 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Saeki, M., Versendaal, J.: Process Improvement in Requirements Management: A Method Engineering Approach. In: Rolland, C. (ed.) REFSQ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5025, pp. 6–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stallinger, F., Neumann, R.: Extending ISO/IEC 12207 with Software Product Management: A Process Reference Model Proposal. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 93–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salviano, C.F., Zoucas, A., Silva, J.V.L., Alves, A.M., von Wangenheim, C.G., Thir, M.: A Method Framework for Engineering Process Capability Models. In: EuroSPI 2009, The 16th EuroSPI Conference, European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation, Industry Proceedings, pp. 6.25 – 6.36 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hauck, J.C.R., von Wangenheim, C.G., Mc Caffery, F., Buglione, L.: Proposing an ISO/IEC 15504-2 Compliant Method for Process Capability/Maturity Models Customization. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) PROFES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6759, pp. 44–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M., Baldassarre, M.T.: An ontology for the harmonization of multiple standards and models. Computer Standards & Interfaces 34, 48–59 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J., Zoucas, A., Salviano, C.F., McCaffery, F., Shull, F.: Creating Software Process Capability/Maturity Models. IEEE Software 27, 92–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., Garcia, F., Baldassarre, M.T., Piattini, M.: From chaos to the systematic harmonization of multiple reference models: A harmonization framework applied in two case studies. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 125–143 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radice, R.A., Harding, J.T., Munnis, P.E., Phillips, R.W.: A programming process study. IBM Syst. J. 24, 91–101 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework. IEEE Software 5, 73–79 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheard, S.A.: Evolution of the frameworks quagmire. Computer 34, 96–98 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J.C.R., Salviano, C.F., von Wangenheim, A.: Systematic Literature Review of Software Process Capability/Maturity Models. In: Rout, T., Lami, G., Fabbrini, F. (eds.) Process Improvement and Capability Determination in Software, Systems Engineering and Service Management. Proceedings of: 10th International SPICE Conference 2010, Pisa, Italy, May 18-20, pp. 1–9. Edizioni ETS, Pisa (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1, http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalReport/1993_005_001_16211.pdf
  17. 17.
    International Standards Organisation: ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004 - Information technology - process assessment - part 1: concepts and vocabulary (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Standards Organisation: ISO/IEC TR 15504-9:1998 - Information technology — Software process assessment — Part 9: Vocabulary (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Standards Organisation: ISO/IEC TR 15504-1:1998 - Information technology — Software process assessment — Part 1: Concepts and introductory guide (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Standards Organisation: ISO/IEC TR 15504-5:1998 - Information technology — Software process assessment — Part 5: An assessment model and indicator guidance (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Artz, P., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: Productization: The process of transforming from customer-specific software development to product software development, http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/techreps/repo/CS-2010/2010-003.pdf
  22. 22.
    Hietala, J., Kontio, J., Jokinen, J.-P., Pyysiainen, J.: Challenges of software product companies: results of a national survey in finland. In: Proceedings - 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, METRICS 2004, pp. 232–243 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Nieuwenhuis, R., Versendaal, J., Bijlsma, L.: Towards a Reference Framework for Software Product Management. In: Glinz, M., Lutz, R. (eds.) 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2006, pp. 319–322. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Artz, P., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Fieggen, J.: Productization: Transforming from developing customer-specific software to product software. In: Tyrväinen, P., Jansen, S., Cusumano, M.A. (eds.) ICSOB 2010. LNBIP, vol. 51, pp. 90–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gorschek, T., Gomes, A., Pettersson, A., Torkar, R.: Introduction of a process maturity model for market-driven product management and requirements engineering. J. Softw. Evol. and Proc. 24, 83–113 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Linden, F., Schmid, K., Rommes, E.: Software product lines in action. The best industrial practice in product line engineering. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: A Framework for Software Product Line Practice, Version 5.0, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines/frame_report/index.html
  28. 28.
    International Standards Organisation: ISO/IEC 26550:2013 - Software and systems engineering – Reference model for product line engineering and management (2013) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Linden, F., Bosch, J., Kamsties, E., Känsälä, K., Obbink, H.: Software Product Family Evaluation. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 110–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    García-Mireles, G.A., Ángeles Moraga, M., García, F.: Development of maturity models: a systematic literature review. In: Baldassarre, T., Genero, M., Mendes, E., Piattini, M. (eds.) Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2012, pp. 279–283. IEEE, Piscataway (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U.: Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In: Campbell, B., Underwood, J., Bunker, D. (eds.) Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing maturity models for IT management - A procedure model and its application. Busin. Info. Sys. Eng. 51, 249–260 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mettler, T.: A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in Information Systems, https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/Publikationen/214531
  34. 34.
    van Steenbergen, M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W.: The Design of Focus Area Maturity Models. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 317–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matook, S., Indulska, M.: Improving the quality of process reference models: A quality function deployment-based approach. Decision Support Systems 47, 60–71 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Larsson, S., Myllyperkiö, P., Ekdahl, F., Crnkovic, I.: Software product integration: A case study-based synthesis of reference models. Information and Software Technology 51, 1066–1080 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini Velthius, M., Baldassarre, M.T.: Trends in harmonization of multiple reference models. In: Maciaszek, L.A., Loucopoulos, P. (eds.) ENASE 2010. CCIS, vol. 230, pp. 61–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stallinger, F., Dorling, A., Rout, T., Henderson-Sellers, B., Lefever, B.: Software process improvement for component-based software engineering: an introduction to the OOSPICE project. In: Fernandez, M., Crnkovic, I. (eds.) Proceedings of 28th Euromicro Conference, Dortmund, Germany, September 4-6, pp. 318–323. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Stallinger, F., Lefever, B.: Bridging the gap from process modelling to process assessment: the OOSPICE process specification for component-based software engineering. In: Fernandez, M., Crnkovic, I. (eds.) Proceedings of 28th Euromicro Conference, Dortmund, Germany, September 4-6, pp. 324–331. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stallinger, F., Plösch, R., Pomberger, G., Vollmar, J.: Integrating ISO/IEC 15504 conformant process assessment and organizational reuse enhancement. J. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 22, 307–324 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stallinger, F., Neumann, R., Schossleitner, R., Zeilinger, R.: Linking software life cycle activities with product strategy and economics: Extending ISO/IEC 12207 with product management best practices. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2011. CCIS, vol. 155, pp. 157–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stallinger, F., Neumann, R., Vollmar, J., Plösch, R.: Towards a Process Reference Model for the Industrial Solutions Business: Integrating Reuse and Product-orientation in the Context of Systems Engineering. In: Rout, T., Lami, G., Fabbrini, F. (eds.) Process Improvement and Capability Determination in Software, Systems Engineering and Service Management. Proceedings of: 10th International SPICE Conference 2010, Pisa, Italy, May 18-20, pp. 129–139. Edizioni ETS, Pisa (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stallinger, F., Neumann, R., Vollmar, J., Plösch, R.: Reuse and product-orientation as key elements for systems engineering: Aligning a reference model for the industrial solutions business with ISO/IEC 15288. In: Raffo, D.M., Pfahl, D., Zhang, L. (eds.) ICSSP 2011. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA, May 21-22, pp. 120–128. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stallinger, F., Neumann, R.: Enhancing ISO/IEC 15288 with Reuse and Product-orientation: Key Outcomes of an Add-on Process Reference Model Proposal. In: EuroSPI2 2012. European Systems, Software & Service Process Improvement & Innovation, Industrial Proceedings, 19th EuroSP 2012 Conference, June 25-27, pp. 8.1–8.11. DELTA, Hørsholm (2012)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pulm, U.: Eine systemtheoretische Betrachtung der Produktentwicklung. Dissertation, Technische Universität München, Fakultät für Maschinenwesen (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fritz Stallinger
    • 1
  • Reinhold Plösch
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Competence Center HagenbergHagenbergAustria
  2. 2.Johannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations