Assessing 3-D Integrated Software Development Processes: A New Benchmark

  • Mingshu Li
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3966)


The increasing complexity and dynamic of software development have become the most critical challenges for large projects. As one of the new emerged methodologies to these problems, TRISO-Model uses an integrated three-dimensional structure to classify and organize the essential elements in software development. In order to simulate and evaluate the modeling ability of TRISO-Model, a new benchmark is created in this paper, called SPW-2006 Example, by extending the ISPW-6 Example. It may be used to evaluate other software process models, and/or to evaluate software organizations, software projects and also software development processes, particularly 3-D integrated software development processes. With the SPW-2006 Example and its evolution for quantitative evaluation to 3-D integrated software development processes, a new approach of TRISO-Model based assessment and improvement is enabled.


Software Development Software Process Software Development Process Dynamic Semantic Software Process Improvement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Li, M.: Expanding the Horizons of Software Development Processes: A 3-D Integrated Methodology. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 54–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wise, A., et al.: Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering. In: Proc. of the Automated Software Engineering Conf. pp. 155–163 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belkhatir, N., et al.: Adele/Tempo: An Environment to Support Process Modeling and Enaction. In: Finkelstein, A., et al. (eds.) Software Process Modelling and Technology, pp. 187–217. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruhe, M., Jeffery, R., Wieczorek, I.: Cost Estimation for Web Applications. In: Proc. of 25th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE 25), pp. 270–279 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B., Jain, A.: An Initial Theory of Value-Based Software Engineering. In: Aurum, A., et al. (eds.) Value-Based Software Engineering, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Introduction to the Personal Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtis, B., et al.: People Capability Maturity Model. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reifer, D.: Ten Deadly Risks in Internet and Intranet Software Development. IEEE Software, 12–14 (March/April 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chrissis, M.B., et al.: CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boehm, B., Port, D.: Balancing Discipline and Flexibility with the Spiral Model and MBASE. Crosstalk 11(12), 23–28 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Estublier, J.: Software are Processes Too. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 25–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rombach, H.D.: Integrated Software Process & Product Lines. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 83–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Integrating Microprocess and Macroprocess Software Research. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 68–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warboys, B.: Active Models: A Possible Approach to the Integration of Objective and Subjective Process Models. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 100–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruiz, M., et al.: A Dynamic Integrated Framework for Software Process Improvement. Software Quality Journal 10, 181–194 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kellner, M.I., Madachy, R.J., Raffo, D.M.: Software Process Simulation Modeling: Why? What? How? Journal of Systems and Software 46(2/3), 91–105 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruiz, M., et al.: Using Dynamic Modeling and Simulation to Improve the COTS Software Process. In: Bomarius, F., Iida, H. (eds.) PROFES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3009, pp. 568–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donzelli, P., Iazeolla, G.: Hybrid Simulation Modeling of the Software Process. Journal of Systems and Software 59, 227–235 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin, R.H., Raffo, D.: A Model of the Software Development Process Using both Continuous and Discrete Models. Software Process Improvement and Practice 5, 147–157 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neu, H., Becker-Kornstaedt, U.: Learning and Understanding a Software Process through Simulation of its Underlying Model. In: Henninger, S., Maurer, F. (eds.) LSO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2640, pp. 81–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    David, N., et al.: Towards an Emergence-Driven Software Process for Agent-Based Simulation. In: Sichman, J.S., Bousquet, F., Davidsson, P. (eds.) MABS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2581, pp. 89–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sim, S.E., et al.: Using Benchmarking to Advance Research: A Challenge to Software Engineering. In: Proc. of the 25th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 74–83 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, Y., King, G.: A New Approach to Benchmark-Based Process Improvement. In: Proc. of European Software Process Improvement 2000, pp. 140–149 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kellner, M.I., et al.: ISPW-6 Software Process Example. In: Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on Software Process, pp. 176–186. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Avrilionis, D., et al.: OPSIS: A View Mechanism for Software Processes which Supports their Evolution and Reuse. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 38–47 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lot, C.M., Rombach, H.D.: A MVP-L1 Solution for the Software Process Modeling Problem. In: Proc. of 6th Int. Software Process Workshop (ISPW 6) (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Junkermann, G., et al.: Merlin: Supporting Cooperation in Software Development through a Knowledge-based Environment. In: Software Process Modelling and Technology, pp. 103–127. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Belkhatir, N., Estublier, J., Melo, W.L.: Software Process Modeling in Adele: the ISPW-7 Example. In: Proc. of the 7th International Software Process Workshop, pp. 48–50 (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brooks, F.P.: No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    OMG: Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, Version 1.1 (formal/2005-01-06) (2005),
  32. 32.
    Kruchten, P.: A Process Engineering MetaModel (2001),
  33. 33.
    Kobryn, C.: UML 2001: A Standardization Odyssey. Communications of the ACM 42(10), 29–37 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG: MOF Core Specification, Version2.0 (ptc/2003-10-04) (2003),
  35. 35.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Greenwood, R.M.: Using CSP and System Dynamics as Process Engineering Tools. In: Proc. of the 2nd European Workshop on Process Technology, Trondheim, Norway, September 7-8, 1992, pp. 138–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yasumoto, K., et al.: Software Process Description Using LOTOS and its Enaction. In: Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 169–178 (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall Pearson (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fogle, S., et al.: The Benchmarking Process: One Team’s Experience. IEEE Software, 40–47 (September/October 2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Card, D., Zubrow, D.: Benchmarking Software Organizations. IEEE Software, 16–18 (September/October 2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    CMU SEI: The Capability Maturity Model Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education (1994)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    International Standard: ISO 9001 Quality Management System – Requirements (2000) Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chiew, V., Wang, Y.: Software Engineering Process Benchmarking. In: Oivo, M., Komi-Sirvio, S. (eds.) PROFES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2559, pp. 519–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang, Q., Li, M.: Measuring and Improving Software Process in China. In: Proc. of 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), pp. 183–192 (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gray, E., et al.: An Incremental Approach to Software Process Assessment and Improvement. Software Quality Journal 13, 7–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    International Standard: ISO/IEC 15504 - 1-9, Software Process Assessment – Parts 1-9 (2000) Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang, Y., Bryany, A.: Process-Based Software Engineering: Building the Infrastructures. Annals of Software Engineering 14, 9–37 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pfahl, D., Birk, A.: Using Simulation to Visualise and Analyse Product-Process Dependencies in Software Development Projects. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Emam, K.E.: The ROI from Software Quality. Auerbach Publications, Taylors & Francis Group (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingshu Li
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Lab of Computer Science and Lab for Internet Software TechnologiesInstitute of Software at Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations