Maintaining a Large Process Model Aligned with a Process Standard: An Industrial Example

  • Martín Soto
  • Jürgen Münch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4764)


An essential characteristic of mature software and system development organizations is the definition and use of explicit process models. For a number of reasons, it can be valuable to produce new process models by tailoring existing process standards (such as the V-Modell XT). Both process models and standards evolve over time in order to integrate improvements or adapt the process models to context changes. An important challenge for a process engineering team is to keep tailored process models aligned over time with the standards originally used to produce them. This article presents an approach that supports the alignment of process standards evolving in parallel to derived process models, using an actual industrial example to illustrate the problems and potential solutions. We present and discuss the results of a quantitative analysis done to determine whether a strongly tailored model can still be aligned with its parent standard and to assess the potential cost of such an alignment. We close the paper with conclusions and outlook.


process modeling process model change process model evolution model comparison process standard alignment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    V-Modell XT (last checked 2006-03-31), available from
  2. 2.
    Soto, M., Münch, J.: Process Model Difference Analysis for Supporting Process Evolution. In: Richardson, I., Runeson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement. LNCS, vol. 4257, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soto, M., Münch, J.: The DeltaProcess Approach for Analyzing Process Differences and Evolution. Internal report No. 164.06/E, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE) Kaiserslautern, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black, P.E. (ed.): Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, Longest Common Subsequence. From Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures. NIST. CRC Press LLC (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manola, F., Miller, E.R. (eds.): Primer. W3C Recommendation (2004) (last checked 2006-03-22), available from
  6. 6.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Working Draft (2006) (last checked 2006-10-22), available from
  7. 7.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) «UML» 2003 - The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages and Applications. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: Model Comparison: A Key Challenge for Transformation Testing and Version Control in Model Driven Software Development. In: OOPSLA Workshop on Best Practices for Model-Driven Software Development, Vancouver (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mens, T.: A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(5) (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D.: Delta: An Ontology for the Distribution of Differences Between RDF Graphs. MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) (last checked 2006-03-30), online publication
  11. 11.
    Völkel, M., Enguix, C.F., Ryszard-Kruk, S., Zhdanova, A.V., Stevens, R., Sure, Y.: SemVersion - Versioning RDF and Ontologies. Technical Report, University of Karlsruhe (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D.: Tracking Changes in RDF(S) Repositories. In: KTSW 2002. Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, Lyon, France (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobler, J., Schöning, U., Toran, J.: The Graph Isomorphism Problem: Its Structural Complexity. Birkhäuser (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations