Support for the Process Engineer: The Spearmint Approach to Software Process Definition and Process Guidance

  • Ulrike Becker-Kornstaedt
  • Dirk Hamann
  • Ralf Kempkens
  • Peter Rö
  • Martin Verlage
  • Richard Webby
  • Jörg Zettel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1626)


The software development process and its related activities are described, implemented, analyzed, and changed by so-called Process Engineers. Process Engineers provide descriptions of software development processes to Process Performers. Because the processes usually are complex, support is needed for both Process Engineers and Process Performers. This paper reports the development and application of the process modeling environment Spearmint1. The architecture of Spearmint allows for a flexible definition and addition of views which are used for retrieving filtered and tailored presentations of the process models. One distinct view, namely the Electronic Process Guide used for dissemination of process information and guidance of Process Performers, is discussed in more detail. The Spearmint environment has been validated in industrial process engineering cases.


Process Engineering Process Guidance 


  1. [1]
    Jim Arlow, Sergio Bandinelli, Wolfgang Emmerich, and Luigi Lavazza. A fine-grained Process Modelling Experiment at British Airways. Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 3(3):105–131, November 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    James W. Armitage and Marc I. Kellner. A conceptual schema for process definitions and models. In Dewayne E. Perry, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process, pages 153–165. IEEE Computer Society Press, October 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Denis Avrilionis, Pierre-Yves Cunin, and Christer Fernström. OPSIS: A view mechanism for software processes which supports their evolution and reuse. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 38–47. IEEE Computer Society Press, March 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Sergio Bandinelli, Alfonso Fuggetta, Luigi Lavazza, Maurizio Loi, and Gian Pietro Picco. Modeling and improving an industrial software process. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(5):440–454, May 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Ulrike Becker, Dirk Hamann, Jürgen Münch, and Martin Verlage. MVP-E: A Process Modeling Environment. IEEE TCSE Software Process Newsletter, (10):10–15, Fall 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Ulrike Becker, Dirk Hamann, and Martin Verlage. Descriptive Modeling of Software Processes. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Software Process Improvement (SPI’ 97), Barçelona, Spain, December 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Bræk and O. Haugen. Engineering Real-time Systems: An object-oriented Methodology using SDL. Prentice Hall, New York, London, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.E. Cook and A.L. Wolf. Balboa: A framework for event-based process data analysis. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Software Process, pages 99–110, Chicago, IL, USA, June 1998. ISPA Press.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    European Computer Manufacturers Association. Reference model for frameworks of software engineering environments. Technical Report TR-55, ECMA, 114 Rue du Rhone, 1204 Geneva, Switzerland, June 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Volker Gruhn and Juri Urbainczk. Software process modeling and enactment: An experience report related to problem tracking in an industrial project. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 13–21, Kyoto, Japan, April 1998. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Watts S. Humphrey. Managing the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Marc I. Kellner. Software process modeling support for management planning and control. In Mark Dowson, editor, Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, pages 8–28. IEEE Computer Society Press, August 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Marc I. Kellner, Ulrike Becker-Kornstaedt, William E. Riddle, Jennifer Tomal, and Martin Verlage. Process guides: Effective guidance for process participants. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Software Process, pages 11–25, Chicago, IL, USA, June 1998. ISPA Press.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Chi Y. Lin, Tarek Abdel-Hamid, and Joseph S. Sherif. Software-engineering process simuation model. Journal of Systems and Software, 38(3):263–277, September 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Jaques Lonchamp. A structured conceptual and terminological framework for software process engineering. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Software Process, pages 41–53. IEEE Computer Society Press, February 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dewayne E. Perry, Nancy A. Staudenmayer, and Votta, Jr., Lawrence G. Understanding and improving time usage in software development. In Alfonso Fuggetta and Alexander Wolf, editors, Software Process, Trends in Software, chapter 5, pages 111–135. John Wiley & Sons, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Martin Verlage. An approach for capturing large software development processes by integration of views modeled independently. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pages 227–235, San Francisco Bay, CA, USA, June 1998. Knowledge Systems Institute, Skokie, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Richard Webby and Ulrike Becker. Towards a Logical Schema Integrating Software Process Modeling and Software Measurement. In Rachel Harrison, editor, Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering Workshop: Process Modelling and Empirical Studies of Software Evaluation, pages 84–88, Boston, USA, May 1997.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Richard Webby, Peter Rösch, and Martin Verlage. Spearmint–a prototype tool for visualising complex software processes. In Proceedings of the Third Biennial World Conference on Integrated Design & Process Technology (IDPT’98), volume 4, pages 297–304, Berlin, Germany, July 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike Becker-Kornstaedt
    • 1
  • Dirk Hamann
    • 1
  • Ralf Kempkens
    • 1
  • Peter Rö
    • 1
  • Martin Verlage
    • 1
  • Richard Webby
    • 2
  • Jörg Zettel
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE)KaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Empirical Software Research (CAESAR)School of Information Systems The University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations