Advertisement

Effects of Architecture and Technical Development Process on Micro-process

  • Liming Zhu
  • Ross Jeffery
  • Mark Staples
  • Ming Huo
  • Tu Tak Tran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4470)

Abstract

Current software development methodologies (such as agile and RUP) are largely management-centred, macro-process life-cycle models. While they may include some fine-grained micro-process development practices, they usually provide little concrete guidance on appropriate micro-process level day-to-day development activities. The major factors that affect such micro-process activities are not well understood. We propose that software architecture and technical development processes are two major factors. We describe how these two factors affect micro-process activities. We validate our claim by mining micro-processes from two commercial projects and investigating relationships with software architecture and technical development processes.

Keywords

micro-process macro-process architecture process mining 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhuta, J., Boehm, B., Meyers, S.: Process Elements: Components of Software Process Architectures (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cass, A., Osterweil, L.: Programming Rework in Software Processes. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts UM-CS-2002-025 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorton, I., Zhu, L.: Tool Support for Just-in-Time Architecture Reconstruction and Evaluation: An Experience Report. In: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 514–523 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanssen, G.K., Bjørnson, F.O., Westerheim, H.: Tailoring RUP to a Defined Project Type: A Case Study. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3547, pp. 314–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huo, M., Zhang, H., Jeffery, R.: An exploratory study of process enactment as input to software process improvement. In: International Workshop on Software Quality at International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Shanghai (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huo, M., Zhang, H., Jeffery, R.: A Systematic Approach to Process Enactment Analysis as Input to Software Process Improvement or Tailoring. In: Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC) (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Münch, J., Jaufman, O.: Acquisition of a Project-Specific Process. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3547, pp. 328–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeffery, R.: Achieving Software Development Performance Improvement Through Process Change. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 43–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jeffery, R.: Exploring the Business Process-Software Process Relationship. In: Wang, Q., et al. (eds.) SPW 2006 and ProSim 2006. LNCS, vol. 3966, pp. 11–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansson, E., et al.: A Qualitative Methodology for Tailoring SPE Activities in Embedded Platform Development (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kazman, R., In, H.P., Chen, H.-M.: From requirements negotiation to software architecture decisions. Information and Software Technology 47, 511–520 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morisio, M., et al.: COTS-based software development: Processes and open issues. Journal of Systems and Software 61, 189–199 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Münch, J.: Transformation-based Creation of Custom-tailored Software Process Models. In: International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling (ProSim), Scotland, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ocampo, A., Bella, F., Münch, J.: Software Process Commonality Analysis. In: International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling (ProSim), Scotland, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Unifying Microprocess and Macroprocess Research. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 68–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rombach, D.: Integrated Software Process and Product Lines. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 83–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tran, T.T.: An Interim Report of XML Process Models. School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales UNSW-CSE-TR-0613 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Washizaki, H.: Building Software Process Line Architectures from Bottom Up. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 415–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liming Zhu
    • 1
  • Ross Jeffery
    • 1
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
  • Ming Huo
    • 1
  • Tu Tak Tran
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTA, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations