Modelling software process variability: an empirical study

Martínez-Ruiz, Tomás; García, Félix; Piattini, Mario; Münch, Jürgen

doi:10.1049/iet-sen.2010.0020

Cited by 51 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the field of software processes, one approach relies on the variability mechanisms that SPEM 2.0 provides in order to model a general process model with variability [11]. The vSPEM approach [12] extends SPEM 2.0 with variability mechanisms empirically evaluated as more understandable [13]. Still in the field of software processes, another approach [3] provides a metamodel for an SPL, that must be specialized according to the process metamodel and the variability to capture.…”

Section: Use Of Cvl Independently Of the Process Metamodelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging CVL to Manage Variability in Software Process Lines

Rouille

Combemale

Barais

et al. 2012

2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Variability on project requirements often implies variability on software processes. To manage such variability, Software Process Lines (SPLs) can be used to represent commonality (i.e., common practices) and variability (i.e., differences) of a set of related software processes. To this end, some Software Process Modeling Languages (SPMLs) natively integrate variability mechanisms. Nevertheless, such a coupling between the SPML and the variability mechanisms i) requires to interpret the requirements variability in terms of the processes variability, ii) limits the reuse of the requirements variability for other purposes (e.g., the development itself), and iii) is a barrier to the use of advances from the field of variability management. In this paper, we propose an approach to apply the Common Variability Language (CVL from the OMG consortium) for requirement variability modeling and its binding to the processes. This work is illustrated on a family of industrial Java development processes. Our approach enables the definition of an SPL and the automatic derivation of a process from this SPL according to the requirements of a given project. The variability is managed separately from the process model and benefits from existing tools coming from process modeling community and CVL.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Cvl Independently Of the Process Metamodelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging CVL to Manage Variability in Software Process Lines

Rouille

Combemale

Barais

et al. 2012

2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a complement of this work we also looked at vSPEM [7], [8], which is an extension of the Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel Specification (SPEM, [6] for modeling software processes, that could be taken into account for BPMN variability. There is a specific line of work for software process families based on SPEM where variants of the process are obtained by tailoring the core process.…”

Section: Vspemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides SPEM provides ways for variability modeling, it has some limitations. In this context, there is a variability extension for SPEM (v-SPEM, [7], [8]) which follows a very simple variability by restriction approach. The customization process in the software process area is called process tailoring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

BPMN 2.0 based modeling and customization of variants in business process families

Delgado

Calegari

2017

2017 XLIII Latin American Computer Conference (CLEI)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Business processes may accept variants based on specific business requirements of an organization, leading to the definition of a process family. There are many proposals for the modeling of the common and variable parts of a process family, as well as to support the customization of each process variant (i.e., process configuration or tailoring). In this article, we present the results of a detailed study about the modeling and customization of process families based on the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN 2.0) standard, and we introduce BPMNext, a novel approach devised for this purpose. The language is an adaptation of BPMN 2.0 based on the ideas provided by vSPEM, a language for the modeling of software processes families. We also present a supporting tool and its application to a real case study about the assignment of positions in exchange programs.

show abstract

“…Effectiveness has been adopted in several researches (Abdelnabi et al, 2004;Basili and Selby, 1987;Coteli, 2013;Martinez-Ruiz et al, 2011) as a way of measuring whether a certain task achieved its goals with completeness and/or accuracy for a given domain, taking into account the number of errors made by a user (ISO/IEC, 2004). The work of Basili and Selby (1987) uses effectiveness for detecting faults at comparing testing strategies; participants are asked to detect faults by applying a certain strategy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability Resolution and Product Configuration with SMarty: An Experimental Study on UML Class Diagrams

Marcolino¹,

OliveiraJr²,

Gimenes³

et al. 2017

Journal of Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variability management is one of the most important activities during software product line development and evolution. Current literature presents several approaches for variability management, especially based on UML, such as, PLUS and SMarty. A systematic process with guidelines support SMarty. Existing literature for these kind of approaches provides slight experimental evidence of their effectiveness at product configuration. Thus, this is considered fundamental for transferring technology to the industry. This paper provides experimental evidence on the product configuration capability of SMarty by comparing it to PLUS, one of the most cited product-line method in literature. The experimental study provides incipient evidence that SMarty is more effective for resolving variabilities and configuring consistent products at UML class level. Thus, overall obtained results indicated the capability of SMarty at configuring specific products.

show abstract

Modelling software process variability: an empirical study

Cited by 51 publications

References 16 publications

Leveraging CVL to Manage Variability in Software Process Lines

Leveraging CVL to Manage Variability in Software Process Lines

BPMN 2.0 based modeling and customization of variants in business process families

Variability Resolution and Product Configuration with SMarty: An Experimental Study on UML Class Diagrams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About