Process Evolution Supported by Rationale: An Empirical Investigation of Process Changes

  • Alexis Ocampo
  • Jürgen Münch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3966)


Evolving a software process model without a retrospective and, in consequence, without an understanding of the process evolution, can lead to severe problems for the software development organization, e.g., inefficient performance as a consequence of the arbitrary introduction of changes or difficulty in demonstrating compliance to a given standard. Capturing information on the rationale behind changes can provide a means for better understanding process evolution. This article presents the results of an exploratory study with the goal of understanding the nature of process changes in a given context. It presents the most important issues that motivated process engineers changing important aerospace software process standards during an industrial project. The study is part of research work intended to incrementally define a systematic mechanism for process evolution supported by rationale information.


Process Element Process Standard European Space Agency Process Engineer Activity Description 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dutoit, H.A., Paech, B.: Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Stuttgart (Expected date of publication: Beginning of 2006) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen, M.N., Conradi, R.: Towards a rigorous approach for managing process evolution. In: Montangero, C. (ed.) EWSPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1149, Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruegge, B., Dutoit, A.H.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering. Using UML, Patterns, and Java, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandinelli, S., Fugetta, A., Ghezzi, C.: Software Process Model Evolution in the SPADE environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19, 1128–1144 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madhavji, N.: Environment evolution: The Prism model of changes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(5), 380–392Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nejmeh, B.A., Riddle, W.E.: The PERFECT Approach to Experience-based Process Evolution. In: Zelkowitz, M. (ed.) Advances in Computers, Academic Press, London (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhuta, J., Boehm, B., Meyers, S.: Process Elements: Components of Software Process Architectures. In: Software Process Workshop, China (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basili, V., McGarry, F.: The Experience Factory: How to Build and Run One. In: 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts (May 1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper No. 131, Institut für Grundlagen der Plannung, Universität Stuttgart, Germany (1970)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, J.: A Qualitative Decision Management System. In: Winston, P.H., Shellard, S. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence at MIT: Expanding Frontiers, vol. 1, pp. 104–133. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Belloti, V., Moran, T.: Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 6, 201–250 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluver Academic, Boston (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) Standards. (Last checked 2006-01-06), available at:
  14. 14.
    Ground Segment Tailoring of ECSS for ESOC (SETG), (Last checked 2006-01-06), available at:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexis Ocampo
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations