The REMIS Approach for Rationale-Driven Process Model Evolution

  • Alexis Ocampo
  • Jürgen Münch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4470)


In dynamic and constantly changing business environments, the need to rapidly modify and extend the software process arises as an important issue. Reasons include redistribution of tasks, technology changes, or required adherence to new standards. Changing processes ad-hoc without considering the underlying rationales of the process design can lead to various risks. Therefore, software organizations need suitable mechanisms for storing and visualizing the rationale behind process model design decisions in order to optimally introduce future changes into their processes. This paper presents REMIS (Rationale-driven Evolution and Management Information System), a prototype tool we have developed for providing support to process engineers during the task of collecting the reasons for process changes, introducing the changes, and storing them together in a process model evolution repository. Additionally, we present lessons learned with REMIS during the evolution of a reference process model for developing service-oriented applications.


Process evolution rationale process management prototype tool resource description framework 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ASG: Adaptive Services Grid. Integrated Project Supported By the European Commision. Available at:
  2. 2.
    Armbrust, O., Ocampo, A., Soto, M.: Tracing Process Model Evolution: A Semi-Formal Process Modeling Approach. In: Oldevik, J., et al. (eds.) ECMDA Traceability Workshop (ECMDA-TW) 2005 - Proceedings. Trondheim, pp. 57–66 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bröckers, A., et al.: Language Report Version 2. Technical Report 265/95, Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohem, B., et al.: Using the WinWin Spiral Model: A Case Study. IEEE Computer 31(7), 33–44 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burge, J., Brown, D.C.: An Integrated Approach for Software Design Checking Using Rationale. In: Gero, J. (ed.) Design Computing and Cognition ’04, pp. 557–576. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Conklin, J., Begeman, M.L.: gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6(4), 303–331 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process modeling. Commun. ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dutoit, A., et al. (eds.): Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dutoit, A., Paech, B.: Rationale-Based Use Case Specification. Requirements Engineering Journal 7(1), 3–19 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dellen, B., Kohler, K., Maurer, F.: Integrating Software Process Models and Design Rationales. In: Proceedings of 11th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference (KBSE ’96), Syracuse, NY, pp. 84–93 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer, G., et al.: Making Argumentation Serve Design. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design Rationale, Concepts, Techniques and Use, pp. 267–294. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, M.: An Exception Handling Approach to Enhancing Consistency, Completeness, and Correctness in Collaborative Requirements Capture. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications 5(1), 37–46 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax W3C Recommendation (10 February 2004), Available at
  15. 15.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper No. 131, Institut für Grundlagen der Plannung, Universität Stuttgart, Germany (1970)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: Contribution Structures. In: Proceedings International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 100–107. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, J.: A Qualitative Decision Management System. In: Winston, P.H., Shellard, S. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence at MIT: Expanding Frontiers, vol. 1, pp. 104–133. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, J.: SIBYL: a Tool for Managing Group Design Rationale. In: Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’90, Los Angeles, California, United States, October 7-10, 1990, pp. 79–92. ACM Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lutz, M.: Programming Python, 2nd edn. O’Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacLean, A., et al.: Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 6, 201–250 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maurer, F., et al.: Merging Project Planning and Web-Enabled Dynamic Workflow Technologies. IEEE Internet Computing 4(3), 65–74 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCall, R.: PHIBIS: Procedural Hierarchical Issue-Based Information Systems. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Architecture at the International Congress on Planning and Design Theory, pp. 17–22. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCall, R., et al.: PHIDIAS: Integrating CAD Graphics into Dynamic Hypertext. In: Streitz, N., Rizk, A., André, J. (eds.) Hypertext: Concepts, Systems and Applications, pp. 152–165. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merz, D.: XML for Word Processors. IBM Developer Works (25 February 2004), Available at
  25. 25.
    Nejmeh, B.A., Riddle, W.E.: The PERFECT Approach to Experience-based Process Evolution. In: Zelkowitz, M. (ed.) Advances in Computers, Academic Press, London (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ocampo, A., Münch, J.: Process Evolution Supported by Rationale: An Empirical Investigation of Process Changes. In: Wang, Q., et al. (eds.) SPW 2006 and ProSim 2006. LNCS, vol. 3966, pp. 334–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Potts, C., Bruns, G.: Recording the Reasons for Design Decisions. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’10), Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 418–427 (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Potts, C., Takahashi, K.: An Active Hypertext Model for System Requirements. In: Proceedings of the 7th international Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Redondo Beach, California, December 6-7, 1993, pp. 62–68. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pena-Mora, F., Vadhavkar, S.: Augmenting Design Patterns with Design Rationale. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Desgin, Analysis, and Manufacturing 11, 93–108 (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Protegé: Ontology Editor (6 January 2006), Available at
  31. 31.
    Ramesh, B., Dhar, V.: Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberations During Requirements Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(6), 498–510 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex - Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Losing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sauer, T.: Project History and Decision Dependencies. Diploma Thesis, University of Kaiserslautern (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sutcliffe, A., Ryan, M.: Experience with SCRAM, a Scenario Requirements Analysis Method. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, pp. 164–173 (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    SPARQL: Query Language for RDF (6 January 2006), Available at:
  36. 36.
    van der Aalst, W., et al.: Workflow mining: A Survey of Issues and Approaches. Data and Knowledge Engineering 27, 237–267 (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verlage, M., et al.: A Synthesis of Two Process Support Approaches. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’96), Lake Tahoe, Nevada, USA, June 10-12, 1996, pp. 59–68 (1996)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    WinWin. The Win Win Spiral Model. Center for Software Engineering University of Southern California,
  39. 39.
    Weber, B., et al.: CCBR–Driven Business Process Evolution. In: Muñoz-Ávila, H., Ricci, F. (eds.) ICCBR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3620, pp. 610–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexis Ocampo
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Fraunhofer-Platz 1, 67663 KaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations