Advertisement

Tool Support for Dynamic Development Processes

  • Thomas Heer
  • Markus Heller
  • Bernhard Westfechtel
  • René Wörzberger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5765)

Abstract

Development processes in engineering disciplines are highly dynamic. Since development projects cannot be planned completely in advance, the process to be executed changes at run time. We present a process management system which seamlessly integrates planning and enactment. The system manages processes at the project management level, but goes beyond the functionality of project management systems inasmuch as it both monitors and controls development processes and supports enactment of tasks through a work environment. However, the process management system does not provide process automation as performed in workflow management systems. Therefore, we have developed tools for integrating process management and workflow management such that repetitive fragments of the overall development process may be enacted in workflow management systems and monitored in the process management system. Even in the case of repetitive process fragments, the need for deviations from the workflow definition may occur while a workflow is being enacted. Thus, we have also realized a tool which allows to perform dynamic changes of workflows during enactment. Altogether, dynamic development processes are supported through a synergistic combination of process and workflow management systems, integrating process planning and enactment.

Keywords

Project Management Process Management Dynamic Changes Workflow Management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nagl, M., Marquardt, W. (eds.): Collaborative and Distributed Chemical Engineering - From Understanding to Substantial Design Process Support. LNCS, vol. 4970. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jablonski, S., Bußler, C.: Workflow Management — Modeling Concepts and Architecture. International Thomson Publishing, Bonn (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer, T.: Kooperation von Projekt- und Workflow-Management-Systemen. Informatik - Forschung und Entwicklung 19, 74–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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(3), 65–74 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan, K., Chung, L.: Integrating Process and Project Management for Multi-Site Software Development. Annals of Software Engineering 14, 115–143 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bussler, C.: Workflow instance scheduling with project management tools. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 1998), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 753–758. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Comos Industry Solutions (April 2009), http://www.comos.com
  8. 8.
    Intergraph: Smartplant enterprise (March 2010), http://www.intergraph.com/global/de/ppm/spe.aspx
  9. 9.
    Heller, M., Jäger, D., Krapp, C.A., Nagl, M., Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B., Wörzberger, R.: An adaptive and reactive management system for project coordination. In: Nagl, M., Marquardt, W. (eds.) Collaborative and Distributed Chemical Engineering. LNCS, vol. 4970, pp. 300–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagl, M., Westfechtel, B., Schneider, R.: Tool support for the management of design processes in chemical engineering. Computers and Chemical Engineering 27, 175–197 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heller, M., Jäger, D., Schlüter, M., Schneider, R., Westfechtel, B.: A management system for dynamic and interorganizational design processes in chemical engineering. Computers and Chemical Engineering 29, 93–111 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krapp, C.A.: An Adaptable Environment for the Management of Development Processes. Aachener Beiträge zur Informatik, vol. 22. Augustinus Buchhandlung, Aachen (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jäger, D.: Unterstützung übergreifender Kooperation in komplexen Entwicklungsprozessen. Aachener Beiträge zur Informatik, vol. 34. Augustinus Buchhandlung, Aachen (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schleicher, A.: Management of Development Processes: An Evolutionary Approach. Informatik. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heller, M.: Dezentralisiertes sichtenbasiertes Management übergreifender Entwicklungsprozesse. Informatik. Shaker Verlag, Aachen (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westfechtel, B.: Models and Tools for Managing Development Processes. LNCS, vol. 1646. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heimann, P., Joeris, G., Krapp, C.A., Westfechtel, B.: DYNAMITE: Dynamic task nets for software process management. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (SE 1996), Berlin, Germany, pp. 331–341. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (March 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hai, R., Heller, M., Marquardt, W., Nagl, M., Wörzberger, R.: Workflow support for inter-organizational design processes. In: Marquardt, W., Pantelides, C. (eds.) 16th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering and 9th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Computer-Aided Chemical Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 2027–2032. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heller, M., Nagl, M., Wörzberger, R., Heer, T.: Dynamic Process Management Based Upon Existing Systems. In: Nagl, M., Marquardt, W. (eds.) Collaborative and Distributed Chemical Engineering. LNCS, vol. 4970, pp. 733–748. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heer, T., Briem, C., Wörzberger, R.: Workflows in dynamic development processes. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Workshops, Milano, Italy. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 17, pp. 266–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Voorhoeve, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Ad-hoc workflows: Problems and solutions. In: Wagner, R. (ed.) Proceedings 8th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 1997), Toulouse, France, pp. 36–40. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (September 1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heinl, P., Horn, S., Jablonski, S., Neeb, J., Stein, K., Teschke, M.: A comprehensive approach to flexibility in workflow management systems. In: Georgakopoulos, D., Prinz, W., Wolf, A.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration (WACC 1999), San Francisco, CA. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 24-2, pp. 79–88. ACM Press, New York (March 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex — Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflows Without Loosing Control. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10(2), 93–129 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joeris, G., Herzog, O.: Managing evolving workflow specifications. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 1998), New York, NY, pp. 310–321. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wörzberger, R., Ehses, N., Heer, T.: Adding support for dynamics patterns to static business process management systems. In: Pautasso, C., Tanter, É. (eds.) SC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4954, pp. 84–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wörzberger, R.: Management dynamischer Geschäftsprozesse auf Basis statischer Prozessmanagementsysteme. Aachener Informatik-Berichte, Software Engineering, vol. 2. Shaker Verlag, Aachen (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jäger, D., Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Using UML for software process modeling. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC/FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, pp. 91–108. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Beyond stereotyping: Metamodeling approaches for the UML. In: IEEE Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34), Minitrack Unified Modeling Language: A Critical Review and Suggested Future, Maui, HI, pp. 1–10 (January 2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schneider, R., Westfechtel, B.: A scenario demonstrating design support in chemical engineering. In: Nagl, M., Marquardt, W. (eds.) Collaborative and Distributed Chemical Engineering. LNCS, vol. 4970, pp. 39–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lawrence, P. (ed.): Workflow Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Workflow Management Coalition: Workflow process definition interface – XML process definition language (XPDL), version 1.0 (April 2002), http://www.wfmc.org/standards/XPDL.htm
  32. 32.
    OASIS: OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (April 2007), http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.pdf
  33. 33.
    Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B. (eds.): Software Process Modelling and Technology. Advanced Software Development Series. Research Studies Press (John Wiley & Sons), Chichester, UK (1994)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Derniame, J.C., Baba, A.K., Wastell, D. (eds.): Software Process: Principles, Methodology, and Technology. LNCS, vol. 1500. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hagen, C., Alonso, G.: Exception handling in workflow management systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(10), 943–958 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jablonski, S.: Do we really know how to support processes? Considerations and reconstruction. In: Engels, G., Lewerentz, C., Schäfer, W., Schürr, A., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering: Essays Dedicated to Manfred Nagl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. LNCS, vol. 5765, pp. 393–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bolcer, G.A., Taylor, R.N.: Endeavors: A process system integration infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Software Process, Brighton, England, pp. 76–89. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (December 1996)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bandinelli, S., Fuggetta, A., Ghezzi, C.: Software process model evolution in the SPADE environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19(12), 1128–1144 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jaccheri, M.L., Conradi, R.: Techniques for process model evolution in EPOS. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19(12), 1145–1156 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cugola, G., Nitto, E.D., Fuggetta, A., Ghezzi, C.: A framework for formalizing inconsistencies and deviations in human-centered systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(3), 191–230 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cugola, G.: Tolerating deviations in process support systems via flexible enactment of process models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(11), 982–1001 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Pernici, B., Pozzi, G.: Workflow evolution. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 438–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kradolfer, M., Geppert, A.: Dynamic workflow schema evolution based on workflow type versioning and workflow migration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 1999), Edinburgh, pp. 104–114. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (September 1999)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    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(3), 65–74 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Enhydra.org Community: Enhydra Shark – Java Open Source XPDL workflow, version 1.1-2 (2005), http://www.enhydra.org/workflow/shark/index.html
  46. 46.
    Weisemöller, I.: Verteilte Ausführung dynamischer Entwicklungsprozesse in heterogenen Prozessmanagementsystemen. Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S.B., Reichert, M.: Change patterns and change support features in process-aware information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vossen, G., Weske, M.: The WASA approach to workflow management for scientific applications. In: Dogac, A., Kalinichenko, L., Ozsu, M.T., Sheth, A. (eds.) Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability. ASI NATO Series, Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, vol. 164, pp. 145–164. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Casati, F., Ceri, S., Paraboschi, S., Pozzi, G.: Specification and implementation of exceptions in workflow management systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 24(3), 405–451 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A., Jaccheri, M.L.: Six theses on software process research. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) EWSPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1487, pp. 100–104. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nagl, M. (ed.): Building Tightly Integrated Software Development Environments: The IPSEN Approach. LNCS, vol. 1170. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cugola, G., Ghezzi, C.: Software processes: a retrospective and a path to the future. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 4(3), 101–123 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vesperman, J.: Essential CVS. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2006)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Collins-Sussman, B., Fitzpatrick, B.W., Pilato, C.M.: Version Control with Subversion. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Heer
    • 1
  • Markus Heller
    • 2
  • Bernhard Westfechtel
    • 3
  • René Wörzberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science 3RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.SAP ResearchCEC KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Applied Computer Science IUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations