Advertisement

Software Process Model Blueprints

  • Julio Ariel Hurtado Alegría
  • Alejandro Lagos
  • Alexandre Bergel
  • María Cecilia Bastarrica
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6195)

Abstract

Explicitly defining a software process model is widely recognized as a good software engineering practice. However, having a defined process does not necessarily mean that this process is good, sound and/or useful. There have been several approaches for software process evaluation including testing, simulation and metrics; the first one requires software process enactment, i.e., an expensive, risky and long process, and the others require high expertise for correctly interpreting their meaning. In this paper we propose a visual approach for software process model evaluation based on three architectural view types, each one focusing on basic process elements: Role Blueprint, Task Blueprint and Work Product Blueprint. They enable visual evaluation of different perspectives of a software process, each being relevant for a particular stakeholder. We illustrate the proposed approach by applying it to the software process defined for a real world company that develops software for retail. We show how design errors were identified.

Keywords

Task Blueprint Software Process Work Product Improve Software Process Role Blueprint 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bendraou, R., Jezéquél, J.-M., Fleurey, F.: Combining Aspect and Model-Driven Engineering Approaches for Software Process Modeling and Execution. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V., Madachy, R., Pfahl, D. (eds.) ICSP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5543, pp. 148–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canfora, G., García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Visaggio, C.A.: A family of experiments to validate metrics for software process models. Journal of Systems and Software 77(2), 113–129 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, J.E., Wolf, A.L.: Software process validation: quantitatively measuring the correspondence of a process to a model. ACM TOSEM 8(2), 147–176 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ge, J., Hu, H., Gu, Q., Lu, J.: Modeling Multi-View Software Process with Object Petri Nets. In: ICSEA 2006, p. 41 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gîrba, T., Lanza, M.: Visualizing and characterizing the evolution of class hierarchies. In: WOOR 2004 - 5th ECOOP (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruhn, V.: Validation and verification of software process models. In: Proc. of the Software development environments and CASE technology, pp. 271–286 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO./IEC 15504 : Information technology - software process assessment and improvement. Technical report, Int. Organization for Standardization (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobs, D., Marlin, C.: Multiple view software process support using the MultiView architecture. In: ISAW-2 and Viewpoints 1996, pp. 217–221. ACM, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobs, D., Marlin, C.D.: Software process representation to support multiple views. IJSEKE 1995 5(4), 585–597 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lanza, M., Ducasse, S.: Polymetric Views-A Lightweight Visual Approach to Reverse Engineering. TSE 2003 29(9), 782–795 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, M.D., Butavicius, M.A., Reilly, R.E.: An Empirical Evaluation of Chernoff Faces, Star Glyphs, and Spatial Visualizations for Binary Data. In: APVis 2003, pp. 1–10. Australian Computer Society Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG. Software Process Engineering Metamodel SPEM 2.0 OMG. Technical Report ptc/08-04-01, Object Managemente Group (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osterweil, L.: Software processes are software too. In: ICSE 1987, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp. 2–13. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perez, G., El Emam, K., Madhavji, N.H.: Evaluating the congruence of a software process model in a given environment. In: ICSP 1996, p. 49 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sauer, C., Jeffery, D.R., Land, L., Yetton, P.: The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(1), 1–14 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SEI. CMMI for Development, Version 1.2. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Software Engineering Institute (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Ariel Hurtado Alegría
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alejandro Lagos
    • 1
  • Alexandre Bergel
    • 1
  • María Cecilia Bastarrica
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversidad de ChileChile
  2. 2.IDIS Research GroupUniversity of CaucaColombia

Personalised recommendations