Lean Management of Software Processes and Factories Using Business Process Modeling Techniques

  • Javier Berrocal
  • José García-Alonso
  • Juan Manuel Murillo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6156)


The software industry is moving towards a software factory business model, usually involving several centres collaborating on company contracts. The expected benefits of using specialized teams at lower cost locations are increased productivity and reduced costs. The tasks of project and process management have as a consequence become more complex. Managing such large structures requires more collaboration in development processes to enable rapid reaction to project needs, and support for the variety of technologies, methods, and levels of quality required by the different projects. This situation demands new practices and management support tools. This paper presents Zentipede, a tool for software process management. Its focus is on lightening, or even automating, management tasks by using Business Process Management (BPM) techniques. The tool does not force any particular practice on a company, but encourages it to model the practices which will finally be automated. Also, it supports process-to-product traceability.


Software Process and Project Management Distributed Software Development Software Process Quality Process and Project KPI 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Münch, J., Heidrich, J.: Software Project Control Centers: Concepts and Approaches. J. Syst. and Soft. 70(1), 3–19 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Project Management Institute: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidrich, J., Münch, J.: Goal-Oriented Setup and Usage of Custom-Tailored Software Cockpits. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 4–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings, T.: Planning for value. Technical report, Butler Direct Limited (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larman, C.: Agile & Iterative development: a manager’s Guide. Addison Wesley, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, J.R.: The Software Factory: Managing Software Development and Maintenance. John Wiley & Sons, Portland (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., Kent, S.: Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. Wiley, Indianapolis (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sengupta, B., Chandra, S., Sinha, V.: A research agenda for distributed software development. In: 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 731–740. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinha, V., Sengupta, B., Gosal, S.: An adaptive tool integration framework to enable coordination in distributed software development. In: 2nd International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 151–155. IEEE Comp. Society, Washington (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krishnamurthy, V.: Benefits of Tool Integration In Distributed Agile Development. AgileJournal 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maurer, F., Dellen, B., Bendeck, F., Goldmann, S., Holz, H., Kötting, B., Schaaf, M.: Merging Project planning and Web enabled dynamic workflow technologies. IEEE Internet Computing 4, 65–74 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Ambler, S.W., Nizami, K.: Agile Strategies for Geographically Distributed Quality Management. AgileJournal 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prikladnicki, R., Audy, J.L.N., Damian, D., de Oliveira, T.C.: Distributed Software Development: Practices and challenges in different business strategies of offshoring and onshoring. In: 2nd International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 262–274. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen, T., Wolf, T., Damian, D.: Global software development and delay: Does distance still matter? In: 3rd International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 45–58. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grinter, R.E., Herbsleb, J.D., Perry, D.E.: The Geography of Coordination: Dealing with Distance in R&D Work. In: ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, pp. 306–315. ACM, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Selby, R.W.: Analytics-Driven Dashboards Enable Leading Indicators for Requirements and Designs of Large-Scale Systems. IEEE Software 26, 41–49 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Artemis 7,
  28. 28.
    MKS Integrity Suite,
  29. 29.
    Kelly, G.: Barriers to adoption of the CMMI process model in small settings. In: 1st Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings, pp. 36–40. SEI, Pittsburgh (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barnes, F.: Good Business Sense Is the Key to Confronting ISO 9000. Review of Business (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Berrocal
    • 1
  • José García-Alonso
    • 1
  • Juan Manuel Murillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Escuela PolitécnicaUniversity of ExtremaduraCáceresSpain

Personalised recommendations