Automation of Upgrade Process for Enterprise Resource Planning Systems

  • Algirdas Laukaitis
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 403)


This paper presents a framework for semi-automatic process of enterprise resource planning (ERP) system upgrade. We suggest to change currently accepted practice of manual upgrade process when domain expert-programmer works through all localizations and transforms them manually to the new version of ERP system. The core idea for this framework is to induce the software code transformation patterns from completed upgrade projects and then to refine these patterns by using knowledge of ERP upgrade expert. These patterns lets us to increase productivity of upgrade process by improving automatic code alignment and annotation and by providing code transformation to the new version of ERP system. The price for these improvements is a requirement for upgrade expert to move from traditional 4/GL ERP programming language to stochastic meta-programming language which is used to describe code alignment and code transformation patterns.


ERP system upgrade code alignment rules induction knowledge representation automatic code generation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Angluin, D., Smith, C.H.: Inductive Inference: Theory and Methods. ACM Computing Surveys 15(3), 237–269 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baum, L.E.: An inequality and associated maximization technique in statistical estimation of probabilistic functions of a Markov process. Inequalities 3, 1–8 (1972)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buffenbarger, J.: Syntactic software merging. In: Estublier, J. (ed.) ICSE-WS 1993/1995 and SCM 1993/1995. LNCS, vol. 1005, pp. 153–172. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dempster, A.E., Laird, N.M., Rubin, D.B.: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 39(B), 1–38 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gold, E.M.: Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10(5), 447–474 (1967)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrenberg, M.: Microsoft Dynamics AX, A New Generation in ERP (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gold, E.M.: Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10(5), 447–474 (1967)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horwitz, S., Prins, J., Reps, T.: Integrating Noninterfering Versions of Programs. ACMTransactions on Programming Languages and Systems 11(3), 345–387 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunt, J.W., McIlroy, M.D.: An algorithm for diferential file comparison. Computer Science Technical Report 41, Bell Laboratories (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunt, J.W., Szymanski, T.G.: A fast algorithm for computing longest common subsequences. Commun. ACM 20(5), 350–353 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laukaitis, A.: Automation of Merging in ERP Revision Control. Information and Software Technologies Communications in Computer and Information Science 319, 1–14 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laukaitis, A., Vasilecas, O.: Multi-alignment templates induction. INFORMATICA 19(4), 535–554 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMillan, C., Hariri, N., Poshyvanyk, D., Cleland-Huang, J., Mobasher, B.: Recommending source code for use in rapid software prototypes. In: 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 848–858 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mens, T.: A Formal Foundation for Object-Oriented Software Evolution. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel - Faculty of Science - Departement of Computer Science - Programming Technology Lab (August 1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mens, T.: A state-of-the-art survey on software merging. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(5), 449–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Dynamics NAV (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Needleman, S.B., Wunsch, C.D.: A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology 48(3), 443–453 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul, S., Prakash, A.: A framework for source code search using program patterns. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 6(20), 463–475 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roy, C.K., Cordy, J.R.: A survey on software clone detection research. Technical Report. Queens University at Kingston (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, T.M., Waterman, M.S.: Identification of Common Molecular Subsequences. Journal of Molecular Biology 147, 195–197 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zaremski, A., Jeannette, M.W.: Specification Matching of Software Components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(4), 333–369 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Algirdas Laukaitis
    • 1
  1. 1.Vilnius Gediminas Technical UniversityVilnius-40Lithuania

Personalised recommendations