Advertisement

Software Process Management: A Model-Based Approach

  • L. García-Borgoñon
  • J. A. García-García
  • M. Alba
  • M. J. Escalona
Conference paper

Abstract

Business processes constitute one major asset in an organization and software businesses are not an exception. Processes definition, maintenance, and management are key aspects to control and define how to build software systems up and also to support decision-making. In this paper, a model-based approach is proposed to facilitate these processes. Thus, a global environment for business processes in software development is presented. The final results are illustrated through the NDTQ-Framework, a solution based on this approach that is currently being used in software development organizations.

Keywords

Business Process Unify Modeling Language Software Process Business Process Management Business Process Execution Language 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research study has been supported by the Tempros project (TIN2010-20057-C03-02) and Red CaSA (TIN 2010-12312-E) of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain, and NDTQ-Framework project of the Junta de Andalucía, Spain (TIC-5789).

References

  1. 1.
    Lonchamp J (1993) A structured conceptual and terminological framework for software process engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on the software process continuous software process improvement, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 12207:2008 (2008) Systems and software engineering – software life cycle processes. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 15288:2008 (2008) Systems and software engineering – system life cycle processes. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC TR 24744:2007 (2007) Software and systems engineering – life cycle management – guidelines for process description. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaiser G, Barghuti N, Sokolsky M (1990) Preliminary experience with process modeling in the marvel SDE kernel. In: Proceedings IEEE 23th Hawaii ICSS software trackGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bandinelli SC, Fuggetta A, Ghezzi C (1993) Software process model evolution in the SPADE environment. IEEE T Software Eng 19(12):1128–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conradi R, Jaceheri M, Mazzi C, Nguyen M, Aarsten A (1992) Design, use and implementation of SPELL, a language for software process modeling and evolution. Software Process Technology, pp 167–177Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Nitto E, Lavazza L, Schiavoni M, Tracanella E, Trombetta M (2002) Deriving executable process descriptions from UML. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2002), Compendex, pp 155–165Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chou S-C (2002) A process modeling language consisting of high level UML-based diagrams and low Level process language. J Object Technol 1(4):137–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bendraou R, Gervais M-P, Blanc X (2006) UML4SPM: an executable software process modeling language providing high-level abstractions. Enterprise distributed object computing conference 2006 EDOC 06 10th IEEE International, vol. 6, no. 511731, pp 297–306Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG (2008) SPEM, software & systems process engineering metamodel specification. http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 24744:2007 (2007) Software engineering – metamodel for development methodologies. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2005) The rationale of powertype-based metamodelling to underpin software development methodologies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling, vol. 43, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG (2011) MOF, meta object facility. http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.4.1
  15. 15.
    Koudri A, Champeau J (2010) MODAL: a SPEM extension to improve co-design process models. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on new modeling concepts for today’s software processes: software process, vol. 6195, pp 248–259Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Escalona MJ, Aragon G (2008) NDT. a model-driven approach for web requirements. IEEE T Software Eng 34(3):377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ITIL, Information technology infrastructure library. http://www.itil-officialsite.com
  18. 18.
    Chrissis MB, Konrad M, Shrum S (2003) CMMI: guidelines for process integration and product improvement. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, p 688Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 29119 Software engineering – software testing standard. International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Project Management Institute (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – fourth edition. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, p 459Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    (2011) NDT-Suite. www.iwt2.org
  22. 22.
    García-García JA, Cutilla CR, Escalona MJ, Alba M (2011) NDT-glossary. A MDE approach for glossary generation. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on enterprise information systems. ICCEISGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG (2011) BPMN, business process modeling notation, Version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
  24. 24.
    OASIS (2007) WS-BPEL, Web services business process execution language, Version 2.0. http://www.oasis-open.org/standards#wsbpelv2.0
  25. 25.
    Ellner R, Al-Hilank S, Drexler J, Jung M, Kips D, Philippsen M (2010) eSPEM – a SPEM extension for enactable behavior modeling. In: Kühne T, Selic B, Gervais M-P, Terrier F (eds) EdsModelling foundations and applications, vol 6138. Springer, Berlin, pp 116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ardagna D, Ghezzi C, Mirandola R (2008) Rethinking the use of models in software architecture. In: Becker S, Plasil F, Reussner R (eds) Quality of software architectures models and architectures, vol 5281. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt DC (2006) Model-driven engineering. Computer 39(2):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Der Straeten R, Mens T, Van Baelen S (2009) Challenges in model-driven software engineering. In: Models in software engineering. Lect Notes Comp Sci 5421:35–47Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fuentes L, Vallecillo A (2004) Una introducción a los perfiles UML. Novática 168:6–11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. García-Borgoñon
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. A. García-García
    • 1
  • M. Alba
    • 1
  • M. J. Escalona
    • 1
  1. 1.IWT2 Research GroupUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Instituto Tecnológico de AragónZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations