Skip to main content

Changing Role of SPI – Opportunities and Challenges of Process Modeling

  • Conference paper
Software Process Improvement (EuroSPI 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 4257))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Software process modeling is gaining acceptance because of the evolving Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM) language. While carrying out empirical process research in software companies in order to model reusable process components with SPEM, we have faced issues that concern Software Process Improvement (SPI) more generally. To understand the general context we have structured these issues into five important aspects of SPI. In this paper we present each aspect through its challenges and opportunities from the process modeling point of view. Consequently, we claim that by overcoming the challenges, process modeling will bring new concrete opportunities for SPI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Object Management Group. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification - Version 1.1 (January 5, 2005), formal/05-01-06

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fuggetta, A.: Software process: A roadmap. In: ICSE - Future of SE Track, pp. 25–34 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Improving software process improvement. IEEE Software 19(4), 2–9 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. CMMI Product Team. CMMI for systems engineering and software engineering (cmmi-se/sw, v1.1) - staged representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-002, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (December 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. ISO/IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. ISO/IEC 12207, Information technology - Software life cycle processes (August 1, 1995), ISO/IEC 12207:1995

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cockburn, A.: Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Software, 64–71 (July/August 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline, A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wells, D.: Extreme programming: A gentle introduction (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.extremeprogramming.org/

  10. Msf Homepage (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/teamsystem/msf/

  11. Backlund, et al.: Transfer of development process knowledge through method adaptation and implementation. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2003) (June 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. The frameworks quagmire (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.software.org/quagmire/

  13. Halvorsen, C.P., Conradi, R.: A taxonomy to compare SPI frameworks. In: Ambriola, V. (ed.) EWSPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2077. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Eclipse process framework project Homepage (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.eclipse.org/epf/

  15. Object Management Group. Business Process Modeling Notation Specification - Final Adopted Specification (2006), dtc/06-02-01

    Google Scholar 

  16. Knowledge Based Systems Inc. Integrated definition methods home page (Accessed on June 22, 2006), http://www.idef.com/

  17. Becker, et al. (eds.): Process Management - A Guide for the Design of Business Processes. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davenport, J.: Don’t write another process. Methods & Tools 12(3), 2–14 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Järvi, A., Mäkilä, T.: Observations on modeling software processes with SPEM process components. In: Proceedings of The 9th Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools, Tartu, Estonia (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  20. McFeeley, B.: IDEAL: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburg, PA (February 1996), CMU/SEI-96-HB-001

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners views. The Journal of Systems and Software 66, 23–33 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: Motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners views. The Journal of Systems and Software 62, 85–96 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Järvi, A., Mäkilä, T., Hakonen, H. (2006). Changing Role of SPI – Opportunities and Challenges of Process Modeling. In: Richardson, I., Runeson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds) Software Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4257. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11908562_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11908562_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-47695-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47696-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics