Defining the Process for Making Software System Modernization Decisions

  • Jarmo J. Ahonen
  • Henna Sivula
  • Jussi Koskinen
  • Heikki Lintinen
  • Tero Tilus
  • Irja Kankaanpää
  • Päivi Juutilainen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4034)


This paper outlines a process for software system modernization decisions. The rationale of the process is explained and the process is defined in a way that allows its adaptation for other organizations and situations. The process is a light-weight one and is based on the use of objective data. The procedures for collecting the data are explained. The process has been used to solve a real industrial decision making situation in which the process was successful.


Business Process User Satisfaction Software Maintenance Trigger Level Wrong Data 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lientz, B., Swanson, E.: Problems in application software maintenance. Communications of the ACM 24, 763–769 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erlikh, L.: Leveraging legacy system dollars for eBusiness. IT Pro., 17–23 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seacord, R.C., Plakosh, D., Lewis, G.A.: Modernizing Legacy Systems. The SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lehman, M.M., Perry, D.E., Ramil, J.F.: Implications of evolution metrics on software maintenance. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 208–217. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banker, R.D., Datar, S.M., Kemerer, C.F., Zweig, D.: Software complexity and maintenance costs. Communications of the ACM 36, 81–94 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koskinen, J., Ahonen, J.J., Sivula, H., Tilus, T., Lintinen, H.: Software modernization decision criteria: An empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, CSMR 2005, pp. 324–331. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saastamoinen, H.: On the Handling of Exceptions in Information Systems. Studies in computer science, economics and statistics, vol. 28, University of Jyväskylä, PhD Thesis (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    SEI: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1, Continuous Representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-028, ESC-TR-2002-028, CMU/SEI (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO: ISO/IEC TR2 15504, Part 1 – Part 9, Information Technology — Software Process Assessment. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sneed, H.: Planning the reengineering of legacy systems. IEEE Software 12, 24–34 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Lucia, A., Fasolino, A.R., Pompella, E.: A decisional framework for legacy system management. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM 2001, pp. 642–651 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SEI: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1, Staged Representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TE-029, ESC-TR-2002-029, CMU/SEI (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kankaanpää, I., Sivula, H., Ahonen, J.J., Tilus, T., Koskinen, J., Juutilainen, P.: ISEBA — a framework for IS evolution benefit assessment. In: Remenyi, D. (ed.) Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Academic Conferences Limited, pp. 255–264 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sahin, I., Zahedi, F.: Policy analysis for warranty, maintenance and upgrade of software systems. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 13, 469–493 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Visaggio, G.: Value-based decision model for renewal processes in software maintenance. Annals of Software Engineering 9, 215–233 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bennett, K., Ramage, M., Munro, M.: Decision model for legacy systems. IEE Proc. — Software 146, 153–159 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L., Pickard, L.M., Jones, P.W., Hoaglin, D.C., Emam, K.E., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28, 721–734 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pickard, L.M., Kitchenham, B.A., Jones, P.: Combining empirical results in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 40, 811–821 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitchenham, B.A., Travassos, G.H., von Mayrhauser, A., Niessink, F., Schneidewind, N.F., Singer, J., Takada, S., Vehvilainen, R., Yang, H.: Towards an ontology of software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance 11, 365–389 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarmo J. Ahonen
    • 1
  • Henna Sivula
    • 2
  • Jussi Koskinen
    • 2
  • Heikki Lintinen
    • 2
  • Tero Tilus
    • 2
  • Irja Kankaanpää
    • 2
  • Päivi Juutilainen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KuopioKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Information Technology Research InstituteUniversity of JyväskyläAgoraFinland

Personalised recommendations