Process Model Based Incremental Project Planning

  • Edward Fischer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6017)


It is widely accepted that process models can significantly increase the likelihood of a project to finish successfully. A very basic aspect of actually using a process model is to derive a project plan thereof and keep it up to date. However, this is a tedious task – especially when each document might undergo numerous revisions. Thus, automation is needed. However, current approaches based on workflows or change management systems do not provide incremental update mechanisms: process engineers have to define them by themselves – especially when they develop an organization specific process model. On the other hand, incremental model transformations, known from the model driven development domain, are to low-level to be of practical use. In fact, proper high-level model transformation languages are yet subject to research. In this paper we present a process language which integrates both: process modeling languages and incremental model transformations.


Project Planning Process Models Incremental Transformation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tichy, W.F.: RCS—A System for Version Control. Software—Practice and Experience 15(7), 637–654 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kofmann, M., Perjous, E.: MetaDiff a Model Comparision FrameworkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: Model Comparison: A Key Challenge for Transformation Testing and Version Control in Model Driven Software Development. In: Best practices for model-driven software development (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelter, U., Wehren, J., Niere, J.: A Generic Difference Algorithm for UML Models“ in Software Engineering. LNI, vol. 64, pp. 105–116. GI (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt, M., Gloetzner, T.: Constructing difference tools for models using the SiDiff framework. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2008, pp. 947–948. ACM, Leipzig (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartelt, C.: An Optimistic Three-way Merge - Based on a Meta-Model Independent Modularization of Models to Support Concurrent Evolution. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on MoDSE 2008 at CSMR 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giese, H., Wagner, R.: Incremental Model Synchronization with Triple Graph Grammars.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Mayr, S. (ed.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dang, D., Gogolla, M.: On Integrating OCL and Triple Graph Grammars. In: Models in Software Engineering: Workshops and Symposia At MODELS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldschmidt, T., Uhl, A.: Retainment Rules for Model Transformations”. In: 1st International Workshop on Model Co-Evolution and Consistency Management (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fluri, B.: Assessing Changeability by Investigating the Propagation of Change Types. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckley, C.D., Pulsipher, D.W., Scott, K.: Implementing IBM(R) Rational(R) ClearQuest(R): An End-to-End Deployment Guide. IBM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ma, J., et al.: Customizing Lotus Notes to Build Software Engineering Tools. In: Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Business Machines Corp., ”Jazz” (2009),
  16. 16.
    Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Experience in Using a Process Language to Define Scientific Workflow and Generate Dataset Provenance. In: ACM SIGSOFT 16th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, November 2008, pp. 319–329 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sutton Jr., S.M., Osterweil, L.J.: The Design of a Next-Generation Process Language. In: In Proc. of 5th ACM SIGSOFT FSE 5, September 1997, pp. 142–158 (1997) (UM-CS-1997-054)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ternité, T.: Process lines: a product line approach designed for process model development. In: Proceedings of the 35th EUROMICRO SEAA, SPPI Track (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ternité, T., Kuhrmann, M.: Das V-Modell XT 1.3 Metamodell, Technical Report, number TUM-I0905, Technische Universität München (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhrmann, M., Ternité, T.: V-Modell XT 1.3 - Neuerungen für Anwender und Prozessingenieure. In: Proceedings of 16 Workshop der Fachgruppe WI-VM der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., April 2009, Germany Shaker Verlag (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG), Software Process Engineering Meta-Model, version 2.0, (April 2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    KBSt, Official Website of the V-Model XT (2009),
  23. 23.
    W. Kranz, D. Rauh, flyXT – Das neue Vorgehensmodell der EADS DE“, In Proceedings of Software & Systems Engineering Essentials, Berlin, 2009. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conradi, R., et al.: EPOS: Object-oriented cooperative process modelling. In: Software Process Modelling and Technology, pp. 33–70. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fernström, C.: PROCESS WEAVER: Adding process support to UNIX. In: Proceedings of ICSP, pp. 12–26 (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Junkermann, G., et al.: MERLIN: Supporting cooperation in software development through a knowledge-based environment. In: Software Process Modelling and Technology, pp. 103–129. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deiters, W., Gruhn, V.: Managing software processes in the environment melmac. In: Proc. Of the Fourth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Practical Software Development Environments (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaiser, G.E., et al.: Experience with process modeling in the MARVEL software development environment kernel. In: Proceedings of 23rd HICCS (1990)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Workflow Management Coalition. Workflow Standard, Workflow Process Definition Interface – XML Process Definition Language, Document Number WFMCTC-1025 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kindler, E., Wagner, R.: Triple Graph Grammars: Concepts, Extensions, Implementations, and Application Scenarios, Technical report, University of Paderborn (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S.: Incremental model synchronization for multiple updates. In: Proceedings of GRaMoT 2008. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Federal Administration of Switzerland, The HERMES Method (2007),
  33. 33.
    Sipser, M.: Introduction to the Theory of Computation. PWS Publishing. In: Measuring complexity section 7.1, pp. 226–228. PWS Publishing (1997) ISBN 0-534-94728-XGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salembier, P., Garrido, L.: Binary partition tree as an efficient representation for image processing, segmentation, and information retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 561–576 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer SciencesClausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany

Personalised recommendations