When Do Projects End? – The Role of Continuous Software Engineering

  • Peter Forbrig
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 261)


Agile development methods have been proven to increase the quality of interactive systems because they allow quick adaptation to continuously changing requirements that are enforced by a fast changing reality.Additionally, models are very helpful to specify the understanding of analysts; developers and users of the domain. If models can be animated, they provide very good basis for discussions. The engagement of all participants is often much higher in this case. Currently, a lot of specification languages like UML, BPMN, or S-BPM are used to document the results of the analysis of the domain in most projects. Additionally, it can be recognized that the focus on users increases. S-BPM is already an example for that. It provides a special view on business processes that is missing in BPMN. It focusses on subjects that often are users but could also be software systems. This shifting focus goes together with a trend from Technology-Driven Design to Human-Centered Design.

The paper discusses the combination of agile development methods with Continuous Software Engineering. It argues for an integration of Human-Centered Design methods with business process modeling and Continuous Requirements Engineering. The concepts of existing approaches of Continuous Software Engineering are extended accordingly. Therefore, classical maintenance does not exist anymore.


Agile software development Continuous Software Engineering Continuous Requirements Engineering Continuous Human-Centered Design Continuous Business-Process Modeling Subject-oriented BPM 


  1. 1.
    Agile Manifesto. Accessed 4th June 2015
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C.C.: The disappearing boundary between development-time and run-time. In: Future of Software Engineering Research (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergener, K., Brocke, J.V., Hofmann, S., Stein, A., Brocke, C.V.: On the importance of agile communication skills in BPM education: design principles for international seminars. KM & E-Learn. 4(4), 415–434 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bogsnes, B.: Implementing Beyond Budgeting: Unlocking the Performance Potential. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bosch, J.: Continuous Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Pinggera, J., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Poels, G.: Tying process model quality to the modeling process: the impact of structuring, movement, and speed. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bukša, I., Darģis, M., Penicina, L.: Towards a method for integrated semi - automated business process and regulations compliance management for continuous requirements engineering. In: [21], pp. 25–33Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrington, H.J.: Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness. McGraw Hill Inc., New York (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fichtenbauer, C., Fleischmann, A: Three dimensions of process models regarding their execution. In: Proceedings of the S-BPM ONE 2016, Erlangen (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C.: Open S-BPM = open innovation. In: Fischer, H., Schneeberger, J. (eds.) S-BPM ONE-Running Processes, pp. 295–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C.: Requirements specification as executable software design – a behavior perspective. In: [21], pp. 9–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fichtenbauer, C., Fleischmann, A.: Three dimensions of process models regarding their execution. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Management (S-BPM 2016), 8 pages, ACM, New York, Article 7.
  13. 13.
    Fitzgerald, B., Stol, K.-J.: Continuous software engineering and beyond: trends and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering – RcoSE 2014, pp. 1–9, ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forbrig, P.: Generic components for BPMN specifications. In: Johansson, B., Andersson, B., Holmberg, N. (eds.) BIR 2014. LNBIP, vol. 194, pp. 202–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forbrig, P.: Reuse of models in S-BPM process specifications. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Management, S-BPM ONE 2015, Kiel, Germany, pp. 6–16. 23–24 April 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forbrig, P., Herczeg, M.: Managing the agile process of human-centred design and software development. In: Beckmann C., Gross T., (eds.) INTERACT 2015 Adjunct Proceedings, pp. 223–232 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forbrig, P.: Continuous software engineering with special emphasis on continuous business-process modeling and human-centered design. In: Proceedings of the S-BPM ONE (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldin, L., Berry, D.M.: Reuse of requirements reduced time to market at one industrial shop: a case study. Requirements Eng. 20(1), 23–44 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuusinen, K.: Task allocation between UX specialists and developers in agile software development projects. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9298, pp. 27–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lichter, H., Brügge, B., Riehle, D.: Workshop on Continuous Software Engineering.
  21. 21.
    Matulevičius, R., et al. (eds.): REFSQ Workshop proceedings (2015).
  22. 22.
    Mann, S., Borusan, A., Ehrig, H., Große-Rhode, M., Mackenthun, R., Sünbül, A., Weber, H.: Towards a component concept for continuous software engineering, Technical report 55/00, FhG-ISST (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Milewski, S.K., Fernandes, K.J., Mount, M.P.: Exploring technological process innovation from a lifecycle perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35(9), 1312–1331 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paelke, V., Nebe, K.: Integrating agile methods for mixed reality design space exploration. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2008), pp. 240–249, ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paul, M.: Systemgestützte Integration des Usability-Engineerings in den Software-Entwicklungsprozess, Ph.d. thesis, University of Lübeck (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qureshi, N.A., Perini, A., Ernst, N.A., Mylopoulos, J: Towards a continuous requirements engineering framework for self-adaptive systems. In: First International Workshop on RE @ Runtime at 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), pp. 9–16, Sydney, September 2010Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rising, L., Janoff, S.N.: The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Softw. 17(4), 26–32 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salah, D., Paige, R. Cairns, P.: A practitioner perspective on integrating agile and user centred design. In: Proceedings of the 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2014), pp. 100–109 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh, M.: U-SCRUM: an agile methodology for promoting usability, integrating usability engineering and agile software development: a literature review. In: Proceedings of the AGILE 2009, pp. 555–560, IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sy, D.: Adapting usability investigations for agile user-centered design. J. Usability Stud. 2(3), 112–132 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weber, H., Mueller, H. (eds.): Continuous Engineering for Industrial Scale Software Systems, Dagstuhl Seminar 98092 (1998).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations