Skip to main content

A Conceptual Model for the Selection of Methods for Software Engineering Process Improvement

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD 2023)

Abstract

One way of improving the efficiency of system development is through the adoption of new methods. These, upon adoption, can provide the development team with the capabilities to address the current challenges. Once a team decides to follow this path, selecting which methods to adopt is a task ahead. The state-of-the-art provides a plethora of options. The criteria should be choosing methods yielding the highest net benefit towards the adoption goal. Many criteria influence the assessment of methods’ value. Knowing which ones are relevant and how they are related is essential to complete this task with excellence. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model describing elements of the decision-making process when selecting software engineering methods to be adopted by development teams. We aim to make explicit much of the knowledge involved in this process, i.e., mechanisms and influencing factors, to foster proper value assessment of methods. For researchers, our work can serve as guidelines to describe methods, for the industry, the model allows the comparison of assessment methods and better-motivated business plans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/. Accessed: 07.05.2023

  2. Ågerfalk, P.J., Wistrand, K.: Systems development method rationale: a conceptual framework for analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS’03) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis. Requirements Eng. 15(4), 439–458 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amorim, T., Vogelsang, A., Dias Canedo, E.: Decision support for process maturity improvement in model-based systems engineering. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software and System Processes (ICSSP’22) (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amorim, T., Vogelsang, A., Pudlitz, F., Gersing, P., Philipps, J.: Strategies and best practices for model-based systems engineering adoption in embedded systems industry. In: Proceedings of the 41st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP 2019) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Andersson, B., Guarino, N., Johannesson, P., Livieri, B.: Towards an ontology of value ascription. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2016), vol. 283 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.C.: An empirical study on the potential usefulness of domain models for completeness checking of requirements. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24(4), 2509–2539 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The (2nd Edition) (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series). Addison-Wesley Professional (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bourque, P., Fairley, R.E. (eds.): SWEBOK: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, version 3.0 edn. (2014). https://www.swebok.org/, Accessed: 07.05.2023

  10. Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ebert, F., Castor, F., Novielli, N., Serebrenik, A.: Confusion in code reviews: reasons, impacts, and coping strategies. In: 2019 IEEE 26th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 49–60 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez-Perez, C., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method construction by goal analysis. In: Information Systems Development, pp. 79–91. Springer, US, Boston (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Héder, M.: From nasa to eu: the evolution of the trl scale in public sector innovation. Innov. J. 22, 1 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Horkoff, J., et al.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study. Requirements Eng. 24(2), 133–160 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0280-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kambil, A., Ginsberg, A., Bloch, M.: Re-inventing value propositions. NYU Stern School of Business Research Paper Series

    Google Scholar 

  16. Merriam-Webster: Context. In: Merriam-Webster.com dictionary (2021). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context. Accessed: 07.05.2023

  17. Pankowska, M.: Business motivation model for information system architecture development support. J. Softw. Syst. Dev. (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Papatheocharous, E., Wnuk, K., Petersen, K., Sentilles, S., Cicchetti, A., Gorschek, T., Shah, S.M.A.: The grade taxonomy for supporting decision-making of asset selection in software-intensive system development. Inf. Softw. Technol. 100, 1–17 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. PMI: PMI’s Pulse of the Profession (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zúñiga y Postigo, G.: An ontology of economic objects. Mpra paper, University Library of Munich, Germany (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sales, T.P., Baião, F.A., Guizzardi, G., Almeida, J.P.A., Guarino, N., Mylopoulos, J.: The common ontology of value and risk. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER’18) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sales, T.P., Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G., Mylopoulos, J.: An ontological analysis of value propositions. In: 2017 IEEE 21st International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 184–193 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thalheim, B.: Towards a theory of conceptual modelling. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 45–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thomson, P.: Static analysis. Commun. ACM 65(1), 50–54 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vogelsang, A., Amorim, T., Pudlitz, F., Gersing, P., Philipps, J.: Should I Stay or Should I Go? On Forces that Drive and Prevent MBSE Adoption in the Embedded Systems Industry (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the German Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) within project SpesML (Sysml workbench für die SPES methodik) under grant 01IS20092C.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiago Amorim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Amorim, T., Vogelsang, A. (2023). A Conceptual Model for the Selection of Methods for Software Engineering Process Improvement. In: Shishkov, B. (eds) Business Modeling and Software Design. BMSD 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 483. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36757-1_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36757-1_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-36756-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-36757-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics