Using CSP and system dynamics as process engineering tools

  • R. Mark Greenwood
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 635)


This paper describes how two modelling techniques, Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) and Forrester's System Dynamics, could be exploited by a process engineer. These techniques have very different backgrounds: CSP is a specification language for concurrent systems, while System Dynamics is a technique of control theory and management science. Consequently each gives a different view of the process being modelled. We illustrate that both views are valuable and that comparing them can aid model development. This raises the issue of having a number of models giving different views of a software process as an alternative to a specialised process modelling language.


Process Modelling CSP System Dynamics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    T.K. Abdel-Hamid. The dynamics of software project staffing: A system dynamics based simulation approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(2):109–119, February 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.K Abdel-Hamid and S.E. Madnick. Lessons learned from modelling the dynamics of software development. Communications of the ACM, 32(12):1426–1438, December 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.F. Bruynooghe, J.M. Parker, and J.S. Rowles. PSS: A system for process enactment. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, Redondo Beach, California USA, October 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Fernström and L. Ohlsson. Integration needs in process enacted environments. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, pages 142–158, Redondo Beach, California USA, October 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.A. Forrester. Principles of Systems. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Griffiths. MASP/DL: The ALF language for process modelling. ICL Technical Journal, 8(1):139–145, May 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Henderson. Enact: a functional, object-oriented modelling language, Reference Manual, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N.H. Madhavji. The process cycle. Software Engineering Journal, 6(5):234–242, September 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N.H. Madhavji and W. SchÄfer. Prism — methodology and process-oriented environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(12):1270–1283, December 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Mi and W. Scacchi. A knoledge-based environment for modeling and simulating software engineering processes. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2(3):281–294, September 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Richmond, S. Peterson, and P. Vescuso. An Academic User's Guide to STELLA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y. Sugiyama and E. Horowitz. Building your own software development environment. Software Engineering Journal, 6(5):317–331, September 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B.C. Warboys. The IPSE 2.5 project: Process modelling as the basis for a support environment. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software Development, Environments and Factories, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Mark Greenwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthampton

Personalised recommendations