Skip to main content

Interpretable process models for software development and workflow

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Process Technology (EWSPT 1995)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 913))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Guiding software development via an enacted process model has by now become state-of-the-art, leading to Software Engineering Environments. Similarly administrative office work also largely follows pre-defined procedures, laws, and regulations, which essentially also establish a process model. Computer support for this field is currently hotly discussed under the catch word of ‘work flow’.

We explore similarities and differences of both fields with respect to a variety of characteristics. It concludes that both fields obey the same basic paradigm, i.e. describing the desired processes by a process model and enacting this model by a process mechanism. The characteristics are sufficiently similar to justify a common approach, but at the same time there exist significant differences which make it necessary to use different implementations for software development and administrative processes.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bergsmann J.: Workflow im gewerblichen Bereich.-Diplomarbeit, Kepler Universität Linz, Sommer 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bröhl A.P., Dröschel W. (eds.): Das V-Modell — Der Standard für die Softwareentwicklung mit Praxisleitfaden.-Oldenbourg 1993

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chroust G.: Application Development Project Support (ADPS) — An Environment for Industrial Application Development.-ACM Software Engineering Notes, vol. 14 (1989) no. 5, pp. 83–104

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chroust G.: Modelle der Software-Entwicklung — Aufbau und Interpretation von Vorgehensmodellen.-Oldenbourg Verlag, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chroust G., Leymann F.: Interpretable Process Models for Software Development and Administration.-Trappl R. (ed.): Cybernetics and Systems Research 92, Vienna, April 1992, World Scientific Singapore 1992, pp. 271–278

    Google Scholar 

  6. Deutsches Institut für Normung: DIN ISO 9000: Leitfaden zur Auswahl und Anwendung der Normen zu Qualitätsmanagement, Elementen eines Qualitäts-Sicherungssystems und zu Qualitätssicherungs-Nachweisstufen.-Beuth Verlag 1987

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dowson M., Wileden J.C.: A Brief Report on the International Workshop on the Software Process and Software Environments.-SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes vol. 10 (1985) No. 3, pp. 19–23

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eliadis D.: SPM, the lost component.-Software Magazine, 10. Okt. 1991, pp.11–12

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haase V., Messnarz R., Koch G., Kugler H.J., Decrinis P.: Bootstrap: Fine-Tuning Process Assessment.-IEEE Software vol. 11 (1994), no. 4, pp. 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hammer M., Champy J.: Business Reeengineering-Die Radikalkur für das Unternehmen.-Campus Frankfurt/M, 3. Auflage, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hansen H.R.: Arbeitsbuch Wirtschaftsinformatik I.-Fischer Verlag 1993

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hruschka P.: Information Hiding Module kommuniziert gezielt.-Computer Woche, 8. April 1983, pp. 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Huenke H. (ed.): Software Engineering Environments.-Proceedings, Lahnstein, BRD, 1980, North Holland 1981

    Google Scholar 

  14. Humphrey W.S.: Managing the Software Process.-Addison-Wesley Reading Mass. 1989

    Google Scholar 

  15. Inst. f. Internat. Research.-Dokument Management Systeme — Eine Produkt-und Marktübersicht.-IMACO GmbH, Inst. f. Internat. Research, Zürich, Sept 1994

    Google Scholar 

  16. Knöll H.D., Suk W.: Eine graphische Sprache für kommerzielle Programmiersysteme.-Schriftenreihe Inst. f. Angew. Wirtschaftsinformatik, No.2, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  17. McDermid J. (ed.): Integrated project support environments.-P. Peregrinus Ltd. London 1985

    Google Scholar 

  18. Merbeth G.: MAESTRO-IPSE — die Integrierte Software-Produktions-Umgebung von Softlab.-Balzert H. (ed.): CASE — Systeme und Werkzeuge.-B-I Wissenschaftsverlag 1989, pp.213–234

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paulk M.C. et. al.: Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1.-IEEE Software vol. 10 (1993) July 1993, pp. 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidt S.: Büro-Informationssysteme — Ein Überblick.-Informatik-Spektrum vol. 12 (1989) No. 1, pp. 19–30

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sommerville I. (ed.): Software Engineering Environments.-P. Peregrinus Ltd. London 1986

    Google Scholar 

  22. Glossary — A Workflow Managment Coalition Specification.-Workflow Management Coalition, Belgium Nov. 1994

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wiesboeck H.: Anforderungen an ein Kanzlei-Informationssystem der öffentlichen Verwaltung.-ADV (ed.): EDV in den 90er Jahren: Jahrzehnt der Anwender — Jahrzehnt der Integration.-ADV 1990, pp. 719–728.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wileden J.C., Dowson M. (eds.): Internat. Workshop on the Software Process and Software Environments.-Software Eng. Notes vol. 11 (1986) No. 4, pp. 1–74

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Wilhelm Schäfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chroust, G. (1995). Interpretable process models for software development and workflow. In: Schäfer, W. (eds) Software Process Technology. EWSPT 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 913. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-59205-9_50

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-59205-9_50

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-59205-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49224-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics