Scoping Software Process Models - Initial Concepts and Experience from Defining Space Standards

  • Ove Armbrust
  • Masafumi Katahira
  • Yuko Miyamoto
  • Jürgen Münch
  • Haruka Nakao
  • Alexis Ocampo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5007)


Defining process standards by integrating, harmonizing, and standardizing heterogeneous and often implicit processes is an important task, especially for large development organizations. However, many challenges exist, such as limiting the scope of process standards, coping with different levels of process model abstraction, and identifying relevant process variabilities to be included in the standard. On the one hand, eliminating process variability by building more abstract models with higher degrees of interpretation has many disadvantages, such as less control over the process. Integrating all kinds of variability, on the other hand, leads to high process deployment costs. This article describes requirements and concepts for determining the scope of process standards based on a characterization of the potential productzs to be produced in the future, the projects expected for the future, and the respective process capabilities needed. In addition, the article sketches experience from determining the scope of space process standards for satellite software development. Finally, related work with respect to process model scoping, conclusions, and an outlook on future work are presented.


Quality Function Deployment Software Product Line Variable Part Process Line Initial Concept 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rombach, H.D.: Integrated Software Process and Product Lines. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.). LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 12207:1995, Geneva, Switzerland (1995) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ocampo, A., Bella, F., Münch, J.: Software Process Commonality Analysis. Software Process - Improvement and Practice 10(3), 273–285 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soto, M., Münch, J.: Focused Identification of Process Model Changes. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soto, M.: Delta-P: Model Comparison Using Semantic Web Standards. In: Proceedings of the Workshop Vergleich und Versionierung von UML-Modellen (VVUM 2007), co-located with the GI-Fachtagung Software Engineering 2007, March 27, 2007, Hamburg (2007) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ocampo, A., Soto, M.: Connecting the Rationale for Changes to the Evolution of a Process. In: Münch, J., Abrahamsson, P. (eds.) PROFES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4589, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ocampo, A., Münch, J.: The REMIS Approach for Rationale-Driven Process Model Evolution. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, pp. 12–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Becker, U., Hamann, D., Verlage, M.: Descriptive Modeling of Software Processes, Kaiserslautern, Germany (ISERN Report 97-10) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bella, F., Münch, J., Ocampo, A.: Observation-based Development of Software Process Baselines: An Experience Report. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Quality Engineering in Software Technology (CONQUEST), Nuremberg, Germany, September 22-24 (2004) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biffl, S., Halling, M.: Managing Software Inspection Knowledge for Decision Support of Inspection Planning. In: Aurum, A., Jeffery, R., Wohlin, C., Handzic, M. (eds.). Springer, Berlin (2003) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schweikhard, T.: Identification of inspection-variation-factors for a decision-support-tool. Diploma Thesis, Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denger, C., Elberzhager, F.: A Comprehensive Framework for Customizing Quality Assurance Techniques, Kaiserslautern (2006) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Avison, D.E., Wood-Harper, A.T.: Information Systems Development Research: An Exploration of Ideas in Practice. The Computer Journal 34(2), 98–112 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L., O’Kane, T.: Software Development Method Tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM 46(4), 65–70 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmid, K.: Planning Software Reuse - A Disciplined Scoping Approach for Software Product Lines. PhD Thesis. Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    John, I., Knodel, J., Lehner, T., Muthig, D.: A Practical Guide to Product Line Scoping. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2006), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, August 21-24 (2006) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bayer, J., Kose, M., Ocampo, A.: Improving the Development of e-Business Systems by Introducing Process-Based Software Product Lines. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 348–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen, L.: Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ove Armbrust
    • 1
  • Masafumi Katahira
    • 2
  • Yuko Miyamoto
    • 2
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 1
  • Haruka Nakao
    • 3
  • Alexis Ocampo
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Japanese Aerospace Exploration AgencyTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.Japan Manned Space Systems CorporationTsuchiuraJapan

Personalised recommendations