Abstract
The formalization of process definitions has been an invaluable aid in many domains. However, noticeable variations in processes start to emerge as precise details are added to process definitions. While each such variation gives rise to a different process, these processes might more usefully be considered as variants of each other, rather than completely different processes. This paper proposes that it is beneficial to regard such an appropriately close set of process variants as a process family. The paper suggests a characterization of what might comprise a process family and introduces a formal approach to defining families based upon this characterization. To illustrate this approach, we describe a case study that demonstrates the different variations we observed in processes that define how dispute resolution is performed at the U.S. National Mediation Board. We demonstrate how our approach supports the definition of this set of process variants as a process family.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alonso, G., et al.: Advanced transaction model in workflow context. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, New Orleans, February 1996, pp. 574–581 (1996)
Altintas, I., et al.: Kepler: An Extensible System for Design and Execution of Scientific Workflows. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, Santorini Island, Greece, pp. 423–424 (2004)
Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Muthig, D.: Component-based product line development: The KobrA approach. In: Proceedings of the The First International Software Product Line Conference, Denver, CO, pp. 289–309 (2000)
Batory, D., O’Malley, S.: The design and implementation of hierarchical software systems with reusable components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1, 355–398 (1992)
Belkhatir, N., Estublier, J., Walcelio, M.L.: ADELE-TEMPO: an environment to support process modelling and enaction. In: Software Process Modeling and Technology, pp. 187–222 (1994)
Briggs, R.O.: On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 573–582 (2006)
Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Process Programming to Support Medical Safety: A Case Study on Blood Transfusion. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 347–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)
Dami, S., Estublier, J., Amiour, M.: APEL: A Graphical Yet Executable Formalism for Process Modeling. Automated Software Engineering International Journal 5, 61–69 (1998)
Deming, W.E.: Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)
Emmerich, W., Gruhn, V.: FUNSOFT Nets: a Petri-Net based Software Process Modeling Language. In: IWSSD ’91: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Como, Italy, pp. 175–184 (1991)
Foster, H., et al.: Using a Rigorous Approach for Engineering Web Service Compositions: A Case Study. In: SCC ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 217–224 (2005)
Gacek, C., Anastasopoules, M.: Implementing product line variabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Software reusability, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 109–117 (2001)
Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M.F., Sheth, A.P.: An Overview of Workflow Management: From Process Modeling to Workflow Automation Infrastructure. Distributed and Parallel Databases 3, 119–153 (1995)
Ghezzi, C., et al.: A Unified High-Level Petri Net Formalism for Time-Critical Systems. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering 17, 160–172 (1991)
Griss, M., Favaro, J., d’Alessandro, M.: Integrating Feature Modeling with the RSEB. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, pp. 76–85 (1998)
Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5, 293–333 (1996)
Henneman, E.A., et al.: Increasing Patient Safety and Efficiency in Transfusion Therapy Using Formal Process Definitions. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2006)
Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1989)
Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse: Architecture, Process and Organization for Business Success. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1997)
Jarzabek, S., Zhang, H., Zhang, W.: XVCL: XML-Based Variant Configuration Language. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’03, pp. 803–811. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)
Katsh, E., Osterweil, L., Sondheimer, N.K.: Process Technology for Achieving Government Online Dispute Resolution. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Digital Government Research, Seattle, WA (2004)
Kellner, M.I.: Software Process Modeling Support for Management Planning and Control. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, Redondo Beach, CA, pp. 8–28 (1991)
Kiczales, G., et al.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Jarzabek, S., Knauber, P.: Synergy between Component-Based and Generative Approaches. In: Nierstrasz, O., Lemoine, M. (eds.) ESEC 1999 and ESEC-FSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1687, pp. 2–19. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Kolfschoten, G.L., et al.: A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for Collaboration Engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 611–621 (2006)
Kyo, C., et al.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain Specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)
Leymann, F., Roller, D.: Workflow-Based Applications. IBM Systems Journal 36, 102–123 (1997)
Mayer, R.J., et al.: IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-engineering Applications. Knowledge Based Systems, Inc. (1992)
Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines–Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)
Osterweil, L.J.: Software Processes Are Software, Too, Revisited. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, MA, pp. 540–558 (1997)
Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Using Process Definitions to Facilitate the Specifications of Requirements. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)
Osterweil, L.J., et al.: Process Technology to Facilitate the Conduct of Science. In: Li, M., Boehm, B., Osterweil, L.J. (eds.) SPW 2005. LNCS, vol. 3840, pp. 403–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Royer, J.-C., Noyé, J., Pavel, S.: Dynamic Configuration of Software Product Lines in ArchJava. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 90–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Prehofer, C.: Feature-Oriented Programming: A Fresh Look at Objects. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 419–443. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Raunak, M.S., Osterweil, L.J.: Effective Resource Allocation for Process Simulation: A Position Paper. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, St. Louis, MO (2005)
Suzuki, M., Katayama, T.: Meta-Operations in the Process Model HFSP for the Dynamics and Flexibility of Software Processes. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, Redondo Beach, CA, pp. 202–217. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)
Svahnberg, M., Bosch, J.: A Taxonomy of Variability Realization Techniques. Software Practices and Experience 35, 705–754 (2005)
van Ommering, R., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: The Koala Component Model for Consumer Electronics Software. IEEE Computer 33, 78–85 (2000)
Weigert, O.: Business Process Modeling and Workflow Definition with UML (1998)
Weiss, D.M., Lai, C.T.R.: Software product-line engineering: a family-based software development process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)
Wise, A.: Little-JIL 1.5 Language Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (2006)
Wise, A., et al.: Using Little-JIL to Coordinate Agents in Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the Automated Software Engineering Conference, Grenoble, France (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Simidchieva, B.I., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J. (2007). Representing Process Variation with a Process Family. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds) Software Process Dynamics and Agility. ICSP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-72425-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-72426-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)