Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representing Process Variation with a Process Family

  • Conference paper
Software Process Dynamics and Agility (ICSP 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 4470))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The formalization of process definitions has been an invaluable aid in many domains. However, noticeable variations in processes start to emerge as precise details are added to process definitions. While each such variation gives rise to a different process, these processes might more usefully be considered as variants of each other, rather than completely different processes. This paper proposes that it is beneficial to regard such an appropriately close set of process variants as a process family. The paper suggests a characterization of what might comprise a process family and introduces a formal approach to defining families based upon this characterization. To illustrate this approach, we describe a case study that demonstrates the different variations we observed in processes that define how dispute resolution is performed at the U.S. National Mediation Board. We demonstrate how our approach supports the definition of this set of process variants as a process family.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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. Alonso, G., et al.: Advanced transaction model in workflow context. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, New Orleans, February 1996, pp. 574–581 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altintas, I., et al.: Kepler: An Extensible System for Design and Execution of Scientific Workflows. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, Santorini Island, Greece, pp. 423–424 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Muthig, D.: Component-based product line development: The KobrA approach. In: Proceedings of the The First International Software Product Line Conference, Denver, CO, pp. 289–309 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Batory, D., O’Malley, S.: The design and implementation of hierarchical software systems with reusable components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1, 355–398 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belkhatir, N., Estublier, J., Walcelio, M.L.: ADELE-TEMPO: an environment to support process modelling and enaction. In: Software Process Modeling and Technology, pp. 187–222 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Briggs, R.O.: On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 573–582 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Process Programming to Support Medical Safety: A Case Study on Blood Transfusion. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 347–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dami, S., Estublier, J., Amiour, M.: APEL: A Graphical Yet Executable Formalism for Process Modeling. Automated Software Engineering International Journal 5, 61–69 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deming, W.E.: Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Emmerich, W., Gruhn, V.: FUNSOFT Nets: a Petri-Net based Software Process Modeling Language. In: IWSSD ’91: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Como, Italy, pp. 175–184 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Foster, H., et al.: Using a Rigorous Approach for Engineering Web Service Compositions: A Case Study. In: SCC ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 217–224 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gacek, C., Anastasopoules, M.: Implementing product line variabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Software reusability, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 109–117 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M.F., Sheth, A.P.: An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases 3, 119–153 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghezzi, C., et al.: A Unified High-Level Petri Net Formalism for Time-Critical Systems. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering 17, 160–172 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Griss, M., Favaro, J., d’Alessandro, M.: Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, pp. 76–85 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5, 293–333 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henneman, E.A., et al.: Increasing Patient Safety and Efficiency in Transfusion Therapy Using Formal Process Definitions. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse: Architecture, Process and Organization for Business Success. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jarzabek, S., Zhang, H., Zhang, W.: XVCL: XML-Based Variant Configuration Language. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’03, pp. 803–811. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Katsh, E., Osterweil, L., Sondheimer, N.K.: Process Technology for Achieving Government Online Dispute Resolution. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Digital Government Research, Seattle, WA (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kellner, M.I.: Software Process Modeling Support for Management Planning and Control. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, Redondo Beach, CA, pp. 8–28 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kiczales, G., et al.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Jarzabek, S., Knauber, P.: Synergy between Component-Based and Generative Approaches. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC 1999 and ESEC-FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, pp. 2–19. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Kolfschoten, G.L., et al.: A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for Collaboration Engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 611–621 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kyo, C., et al.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain Specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Workflow-Based Applications. IBM Systems Journal 36, 102–123 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayer, R.J., et al.: IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-engineering Applications. Knowledge Based Systems, Inc. (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines–Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Osterweil, L.J.: Software Processes Are Software, Too, Revisited. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, pp. 540–558 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Using Process Definitions to Facilitate the Specifications of Requirements. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Process Technology to Facilitate the Conduct of Science. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 403–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Royer, J.-C., Noyé, J., Pavel, S.: Dynamic Configuration of Software Product Lines in ArchJava. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 90–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Prehofer, C.: Feature-Oriented Programming: A Fresh Look at Objects. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 419–443. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Raunak, M.S., Osterweil, L.J.: Effective Resource Allocation for Process Simulation: A Position Paper. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, St. Louis, MO (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Suzuki, M., Katayama, T.: Meta-Operations in the Process Model HFSP for the Dynamics and Flexibility of Software Processes. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, Redondo Beach, CA, pp. 202–217. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Svahnberg, M., Bosch, J.: A Taxonomy of Variability Realization Techniques. Software Practices and Experience 35, 705–754 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. van Ommering, R., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The Koala Component Model for Consumer Electronics Software. IEEE Computer 33, 78–85 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Weigert, O.: Business Process Modeling and Workflow Definition with UML (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Weiss, D.M., Lai, C.T.R.: Software product-line engineering: a family-based software development process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wise, A., et al.: Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the Automated Software Engineering Conference, Grenoble, France (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Advanced Software Engineering Research (LASER), University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 140 Governors Drive, Amherst, MA 01003,  

    Borislava I. Simidchieva, Lori A. Clarke & Leon J. Osterweil

Authors
  1. Borislava I. Simidchieva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori A. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leon J. Osterweil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Qing Wang Dietmar Pfahl David M. Raffo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Simidchieva, B.I., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J. (2007). Representing Process Variation with a Process Family. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds) Software Process Dynamics and Agility. ICSP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-72425-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-72426-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation