Towards Automatic Generation of Project-Based Solutions

  • Krikor Maroukian
  • Kevin Lano
  • Mohammad Yamin
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 449)


Modern business models and processes usually demand an integrated utilisation of business frameworks and methodologies, such as PRINCE2® and PMBOK®, to produce meaningful business documentation and solutions. Often, the use of such frameworks is a prerequisite to engage with public or private sector large-scale projects. However, models contained in such frameworks usually lack formal semantics which may lead to inconsistencies between modeling solutions. The maintainability and reusability of such models tends to require manual intervention which is susceptible to human error. Software engineers used to experience similar issues and partially solved these by introducing a model-driven approach called Model Driven Architecture. In an attempt to adapt to industry needs, over the past five years Domain Specific Modeling has experienced increased popularity. The authors propose a transfer of concepts and logic from MDA and DSM to a project-based model-driven approach; facilitating the automated production of supportive documents for business decision making.


Unify Modelling Language Model Transformation Process Instance Eclipse Modeling Framework Model Drive Architecture 
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.


  1. 1.
    Denno, P., Steves, M.P., Libes, D., Barkmeyer, E.J.: Model-Driven Integration Using Existing Models. IEEE Software (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where Is the Proof? - A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guttman, M., Parodi, J.: Real-Life MDA: Solving Business Problems with Model Driven Architecture. Morgan Raufmann (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Presso, M.J., Belaunde, M.: Applying MDA to Voice Applications: An Experience in Building an MDA Tool Chain. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 1–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Staron, M.: Adopting Model Driven Software Development in Industry – A Case Study at Two Companies. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 57–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloomfield, T.: MDA, Meta-Modelling and Model Transformation: Introducing New Technology into the Defence Industry. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 9–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgstaller, R., Wuchner, E., Fiege, L., Becker, M., Fritz, T.: Using Domain Driven Development for Monitoring Distributed Systems. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 19–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker, P., Loh, S.C., Weil, F.: Model-Driven Engineering in a Large Industrial Context — Motorola Case Study. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 476–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M1 Global Solutions.: Model Driven Software Development and Offshore Outsourcing (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seidewitz, E.: What models mean. IEEE Software 20(5), 26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bran, S.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20, 19 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anneke, G., Kleppe, J.W., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG, Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification, Object Management Group (2003),
  14. 14.
    Weis, T., Ulbrich, A., Geihs, K.: Model Metamorphosis. IEEE software(2003) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalnins, A., Vitolins, V.: Use of UML and Model Transformations for Workflow Process Definitions, Databases and Information Systems. In: Vasilecas, O., Eder, J., Caplinskas, A. (eds.) BalticDB&IS’2006, pp. 3–15. Vilnius, Technika (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heitkoetter, H.: Transforming PICTURE to BPMN 2.0 as Part of the Model-Driven Development of Electronic Government Systems. In: Proceedings of HICSS, pp. 1–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macek, O., Richta, K.: The BPM to UML activity diagram transformation using XSLT. In: Proceedings of DATESO, pp. 119–129 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roebuck, K.: Model-driven Architecture (MDA): High-impact Strategies - What You Need to Know: Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors, USA, 88-90 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Apostolopoulos, H., Maroukian, K.: Model Driven Architecture Transformation for Business Models: Decision Analysis Based on a Collateral Analysis Model. In: 13th International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, pp. 33–39 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lano, K.: Advanced Systems Design with Java UML and MDA. Elsevier (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Rose, L., Polack, F.: The Epsilon Book. Structure 178 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lano, K., Poernomo, I., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Comparative Evaluation of Model Transformation Specification Approaches. International Journal of Software and Informatics 6(2), 233–269 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krikor Maroukian
    • 1
  • Kevin Lano
    • 1
  • Mohammad Yamin
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Department of InformaticsKing’s College London, StrandLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations