Incremental Process Modeling through Stakeholder-Based Hybrid Process Simulation

  • Xu Bai
  • Liguo Huang
  • Supannika Koolmanojwong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5543)


Both the process modeling and process simulation are necessary components of process automation. A Process Modeling Language (PML) is a set of description tools that define processes attributes and constrains in a specific domain. Process modeling stakeholders may have different levels of dependencies on different types of PMLs. They also have various perspectives for modeling a process. Discrete and continuous PMLs are complimentary in modeling the process at different levels of abstraction and to address different stakeholders’ perspectives. The hybrid process simulation combines micro-level discrete process models with the macro-level continuous process models to capture process dynamics and deploy process optimization. This paper proposes an incremental approach based on the hybrid simulation in modeling a software process at different levels of abstraction in order to address different stakeholders’ perspectives. By addressing stakeholders’ concerns in hybrid simulation at each process segment, this approach incrementally integrates internal process dynamics and modifications due to external changes into process model that cannot be easily achieved by individually using discrete or continuous modeling approaches.


Process Modeling Process Simulation Process Automation Process Modeling Language Hybrid Process Simulation Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pall, G.A.: Quality Process Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., Sutton Jr., S.M., McCall, E.K., Wise, A., Osterweil, L.J.: Little-jil/juliette: a process definition language and interpreter. In: ICSE 2000: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software Engineering, pp. 754–757. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osterweil, L.J.: Jil and little-jil process programming languages. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) EWSPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1487, p. 152. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang, L., Boehm, B., Hu, H., Ge, J., Lü, J., Qian, C.: Applying the value/petri process to erp software development in china. In: ICSE 2006: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 502–511. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madachy, R.J., Boehm, B.W.: Software Process Modeling With System Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bai, X., Huang, L.: A stakeholder perspective in evaluating process modeling languages and hybrid process simulation. Technical Report (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldi, M., Gai, S., Jaccheri, M.L., Lago, P.: E3: object-oriented software process model design, pp. 279–292 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jäger, D., Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Using uml for software process modeling. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 24(6), 91–108 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruhn, V.: Managing software processes in the environment melmac. In: SDE 4: Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Software development environments, pp. 193–205. ACM Press, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bandinelli, S., Fuggetta, A., Ghezzi, C., Lavazza, L.: Spade: an environment for software process analysis, design, and enactment, pp. 223–247 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutton Jr., S.M., Osterweil, L.J.: The design of a next-generation process language. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 22(6), 142–158 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zamli, K.Z.: Process modeling languages: A literature review. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science 14(2), 26–37 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    An, L., Jeng, J.J.: On developing system dynamics model for business process simulation. In: WSC 2005: Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation, Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2068–2077 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raffo, D.M., Kellner, M.I.: Predicting the impact of potential process changes: A quantitative approach to process modeling. Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wakeland, W.W., Martin, R.H., Raffo, D.: Using design of experiments, sensitivity analysis, and hybrid simulation to evaluate changes to a software development process: a case study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 9(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abdel-Hamid, T., Madnick, S.E.: Software project dynamics: an integrated approach. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lehman, M., Ramil, J.F.: The impact of feedback in the global software process. Journal of Systems and Software 46, 123–134 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell, A., Mander, K., Brown, D.: Strategies for lifecycle concurrency and iteration - a system dynamics approach. Journal of Systems and Software 46(2-3), 151–161 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tvedt, J.D.: An extensible model for evaluating the impact of process improvements on software development cycle time. PhD thesis, Tempe, AZ, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, H., Jeffery, R., Zhu, L.: Investigating test-and-fix processes of incremental development using hybrid process simulation. In: WoSQ 2008: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Software quality, pp. 23–28. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin, R.H., Raffo, D.: A model of the software development process using both continuous and discrete models. In: Software Process: Improvement and Practice, vol. 5(2-3), pp. 147–157. John Wiley Sons, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Madachy, R.J.: Software Process Dynamics. Wiley, IEEE Press (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kellner, M.I., Feiler, P.H., Finkelstein, A., Katayama, T., Osterweil, L.J., Penedo, M.H., Rombach, H.D.: Ispw-6 software process example. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, 1991, pp. 176–186 (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xu Bai
    • 1
  • Liguo Huang
    • 1
  • Supannika Koolmanojwong
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.Center for Systems and Software EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations