Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 2777–2786 | Cite as

Artefacts in software engineering: a fundamental positioning

  • Daniel Méndez FernándezEmail author
  • Wolfgang Böhm
  • Andreas Vogelsang
  • Jakob Mund
  • Manfred Broy
  • Marco Kuhrmann
  • Thorsten Weyer
Expert’s Voice


Artefacts play a vital role in software and systems development processes. Other terms like documents, deliverables, or work products are widely used in software development communities instead of the term artefact. In the following, we use the term ‘artefact’ including all these other terms. Despite its relevance, the exact denotation of the term ‘artefact’ is still not clear due to a variety of different understandings of the term and to a careless negligent usage. This often leads to approaches being grounded in a fuzzy, unclear understanding of the essential concepts involved. In fact, there does not exist a common terminology. Therefore, it is our goal that the term artefact be standardised so that researchers and practitioners have a common understanding for discussions and contributions. In this position paper, we provide a positioning and critical reflection upon the notion of artefacts in software engineering at different levels of perception and how these relate to each other. We further contribute a metamodel that provides a description of an artefact that is independent from any underlying process model. This metamodel defines artefacts at three levels. Abstraction and refinement relations between these levels allow correlating artefacts to each other and defining the notion of related, refined, and equivalent artefacts. Our contribution shall foster the long overdue and too often underestimated terminological discussion on what artefacts are to provide a common ground with clearer concepts and principles for future software engineering contributions, such as the design of artefact-oriented development processes and tools.


Software engineering artefacts Metamodelling Propaedeutics Syntax of artefacts Semantics of artefacts Equivalence of artefacts 



  1. 1.
    Altmanninger, K., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: A survey on model versioning approaches. Int J Web Inf Syst 5, 271 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Böhm, W., Vogelsang, A.: An artifact-oriented framework for the seamless development of embedded systems. In: Dritter Workshop zur Zukunft der Entwicklung softwareintensiver eingebetteter Systeme (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun, C., Wortmann, F., Hafner, M., Winter, R.: Method construction: a core approach to organizational engineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, P., Broy, M., Houdek, F., Kirchmayr, M., Müller, M., Penzenstadler, B., Pohl, K., Weyer, T.: Guiding requirements engineering for software-intensive embedded systems in the automotive industry. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 29, 21–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broy, M.: A logical approach to systems engineering artifacts: semantic relationships and dependencies beyond traceability-from requirements to functional and architectural views. Int. J. Softw. Syst. Model 60, 1 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunet, G., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Nejati, S., Niu, N., Sabetzadeh, M.: A manifesto for model merging. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butting, A., Greifenberg, T., Rumpe, B., Wortmann, A.: On the Need for Artifact Models in Model-Driven Systems Engineering Projects. Applications and Foundations. Software Technologies, New Delhi (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kathleen, C., Palmquist, M.: Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Soc. Forces 70, 601 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhrmann, M., Méndez Fernández, D.: From pragmatic to systematic software process improvement: an evaluated approach. IET Softw. 9, 157–165 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhrmann, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Groeber, M.: Towards artifact models as process interfaces in distributed software projects. In: Proceedings of the 153h of the 8th International Conference on on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølverg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modelling. IEEE Softw. 23, 40 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Méndez Fernández, D., Penzenstadler, B., Kuhrmann, M., Broy, M.: A meta model for artefact-orientation: fundamentals and lessons learned in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Baumann, A., de Carne, H.: Field study on requirements engineering: investigation of artefacts, project parameters, and execution strategies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 162–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG. Software and Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model (SPEM) Specification V. 2.0. Technical Standard formal/2008-04-01, Object Management Group (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parnas, D.L., Clements, P.C.: A rational design process: how and why to fake it. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(2), 251–257 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silva, M., Oliveira, T., Bastos, R.: Software artifact meta-model: an approach to software artifact authoring (2008).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Méndez Fernández
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wolfgang Böhm
    • 1
  • Andreas Vogelsang
    • 2
  • Jakob Mund
    • 3
  • Manfred Broy
    • 1
  • Marco Kuhrmann
    • 4
  • Thorsten Weyer
    • 5
  1. 1.Technical University of MunichGarchingGermany
  2. 2.Technical University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Tableau Germany GmbHMunichGermany
  4. 4.Clausthal University of TechnologyGoslarGermany
  5. 5.University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations