Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Software Process Workshop

SPW 2006: Software Process Change pp 15–38Cite as

Assessing 3-D Integrated Software Development Processes: A New Benchmark

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 3966))

Abstract

The increasing complexity and dynamic of software development have become the most critical challenges for large projects. As one of the new emerged methodologies to these problems, TRISO-Model uses an integrated three-dimensional structure to classify and organize the essential elements in software development. In order to simulate and evaluate the modeling ability of TRISO-Model, a new benchmark is created in this paper, called SPW-2006 Example, by extending the ISPW-6 Example. It may be used to evaluate other software process models, and/or to evaluate software organizations, software projects and also software development processes, particularly 3-D integrated software development processes. With the SPW-2006 Example and its evolution for quantitative evaluation to 3-D integrated software development processes, a new approach of TRISO-Model based assessment and improvement is enabled.

Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 60573082).

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Li, M.: Expanding the Horizons of Software Development Processes: A 3-D Integrated Methodology. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 54–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Wise, A., et al.: Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering. In: Proc. of the Automated Software Engineering Conf. pp. 155–163 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belkhatir, N., et al.: Adele/Tempo: An Environment to Support Process Modeling and Enaction. In: Finkelstein, A., et al. (eds.) Software Process Modelling and Technology, pp. 187–217. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boehm, B.W., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ruhe, M., Jeffery, R., Wieczorek, I.: Cost Estimation for Web Applications. In: Proc. of 25th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE 25), pp. 270–279 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boehm, B., Jain, A.: An Initial Theory of Value-Based Software Engineering. In: Aurum, A., et al. (eds.) Value-Based Software Engineering, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Humphrey, W.S.: Introduction to the Personal Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Curtis, B., et al.: People Capability Maturity Model. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reifer, D.: Ten Deadly Risks in Internet and Intranet Software Development. IEEE Software, 12–14 (March/April 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chrissis, M.B., et al.: CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boehm, B., Port, D.: Balancing Discipline and Flexibility with the Spiral Model and MBASE. Crosstalk 11(12), 23–28 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Estublier, J.: Software are Processes Too. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 25–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Rombach, H.D.: Integrated Software Process & Product Lines. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 83–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Osterweil, L.J.: Integrating Microprocess and Macroprocess Software Research. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 68–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Warboys, B.: Active Models: A Possible Approach to the Integration of Objective and Subjective Process Models. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 100–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruiz, M., et al.: A Dynamic Integrated Framework for Software Process Improvement. Software Quality Journal 10, 181–194 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kellner, M.I., Madachy, R.J., Raffo, D.M.: Software Process Simulation Modeling: Why? What? How? Journal of Systems and Software 46(2/3), 91–105 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruiz, M., et al.: Using Dynamic Modeling and Simulation to Improve the COTS Software Process. In: Bomarius, F., Iida, H. (eds.) PROFES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3009, pp. 568–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Donzelli, P., Iazeolla, G.: Hybrid Simulation Modeling of the Software Process. Journal of Systems and Software 59, 227–235 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin, R.H., Raffo, D.: A Model of the Software Development Process Using both Continuous and Discrete Models. Software Process Improvement and Practice 5, 147–157 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Neu, H., Becker-Kornstaedt, U.: Learning and Understanding a Software Process through Simulation of its Underlying Model. In: Henninger, S., Maurer, F. (eds.) LSO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2640, pp. 81–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. David, N., et al.: Towards an Emergence-Driven Software Process for Agent-Based Simulation. In: Sichman, J.S., Bousquet, F., Davidsson, P. (eds.) MABS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2581, pp. 89–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Sim, S.E., et al.: Using Benchmarking to Advance Research: A Challenge to Software Engineering. In: Proc. of the 25th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 74–83 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wang, Y., King, G.: A New Approach to Benchmark-Based Process Improvement. In: Proc. of European Software Process Improvement 2000, pp. 140–149 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kellner, M.I., et al.: ISPW-6 Software Process Example. In: Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on Software Process, pp. 176–186. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Avrilionis, D., et al.: OPSIS: A View Mechanism for Software Processes which Supports their Evolution and Reuse. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 38–47 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lot, C.M., Rombach, H.D.: A MVP-L1 Solution for the Software Process Modeling Problem. In: Proc. of 6th Int. Software Process Workshop (ISPW 6) (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Junkermann, G., et al.: Merlin: Supporting Cooperation in Software Development through a Knowledge-based Environment. In: Software Process Modelling and Technology, pp. 103–127. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Belkhatir, N., Estublier, J., Melo, W.L.: Software Process Modeling in Adele: the ISPW-7 Example. In: Proc. of the 7th International Software Process Workshop, pp. 48–50 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Brooks, F.P.: No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. OMG: Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, Version 1.1 (formal/2005-01-06) (2005), http://www.omg.org

  32. Kruchten, P.: A Process Engineering MetaModel (2001), http://www.forsoft.de/zen/sdpp02/papers/Kruc01.pdf

  33. Kobryn, C.: UML 2001: A Standardization Odyssey. Communications of the ACM 42(10), 29–37 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. OMG: MOF Core Specification, Version2.0 (ptc/2003-10-04) (2003), http://www.omg.org

  35. Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Greenwood, R.M.: Using CSP and System Dynamics as Process Engineering Tools. In: Proc. of the 2nd European Workshop on Process Technology, Trondheim, Norway, September 7-8, 1992, pp. 138–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yasumoto, K., et al.: Software Process Description Using LOTOS and its Enaction. In: Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 169–178 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall Pearson (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fogle, S., et al.: The Benchmarking Process: One Team’s Experience. IEEE Software, 40–47 (September/October 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Card, D., Zubrow, D.: Benchmarking Software Organizations. IEEE Software, 16–18 (September/October 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  41. CMU SEI: The Capability Maturity Model Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  42. International Standard: ISO 9001 Quality Management System – Requirements (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chiew, V., Wang, Y.: Software Engineering Process Benchmarking. In: Oivo, M., Komi-Sirvio, S. (eds.) PROFES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2559, pp. 519–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang, Q., Li, M.: Measuring and Improving Software Process in China. In: Proc. of 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), pp. 183–192 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gray, E., et al.: An Incremental Approach to Software Process Assessment and Improvement. Software Quality Journal 13, 7–16 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. International Standard: ISO/IEC 15504 - 1-9, Software Process Assessment – Parts 1-9 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wang, Y., Bryany, A.: Process-Based Software Engineering: Building the Infrastructures. Annals of Software Engineering 14, 9–37 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Pfahl, D., Birk, A.: Using Simulation to Visualise and Analyse Product-Process Dependencies in Software Development Projects. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Emam, K.E.: The ROI from Software Quality. Auerbach Publications, Taylors & Francis Group (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Lab of Computer Science and Lab for Internet Software Technologies, Institute of Software at Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 4 South Fourth Street, Zhong Guan Cun, Beijing, 100080, China

    Mingshu Li

Authors
  1. Mingshu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Massey University, New Zealand

    Qing Wang

  2. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway

    Dietmar Pfahl

  3. Portland State University, 631 SW Harrison St., Portland, OR, USA

    David M. Raffo

  4. School of Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, AL10 9AB, Hatfield, Herts, UK

    Paul Wernick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Li, M. (2006). Assessing 3-D Integrated Software Development Processes: A New Benchmark. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M., Wernick, P. (eds) Software Process Change. SPW 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3966. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11754305_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11754305_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-34199-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-34201-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation