Philippe Kruchten
ABSTRACT
Over the last 30 years we have tried very hard the rich process models approach, and we have not been extremely successful at it. Maybe we should try "lean and mean" software process models, rather than making them "richer." At minimum, we should try to analyze why the rich approaches have not worked; where they failed. Could it be that we were trying to solve the wrong problem? or that the real problems by far overshadow the process model issue? Or maybe the whole construction paradigm we use for software development is not suitable anymore? My position is that we should try the route of very simple software process models, to ensure a wider applicability, greater versatility, and acceptance. Possibly these new process models would be based on other paradigms of software or system development than the "technical-rational" construction idea. I would be wary of richer process models.
- Osterweil, L. J. 1987. Software Processes Are Software Too. 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1987), (Monterey, CA, March 1987), 2--13, IEEE. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Feiler, P., Dart, S., and Downey, G. 1988. Evaluation of the Rational Environment, Technical report Carnegie Mellon University/SEI-88-TR-015. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P. and Övergaard, G. 1992. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Boston. Google Scholar
- IBM 2003. Rational Unified Process. IBM Rational Software, Cupertino, CA, USA.Google Scholar
- Kruchten, Ph. 1998. The Rational Unified Process - An Introduction. 1st ed. Addison-Wesley, Boston. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacobson, I., Booch, G., and Rumbaugh, J. 1999. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Boston. Google ScholarDigital Library
- OMG 2002. The Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM), Spec. formal/02-11-14, OMG, Needham, MA.Google Scholar
- ISO/IEC Std. 24744:2007. Software Engineering Metamodel for Development Methodologies (SEMDM). ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Bendraou, R., Jezequel, J.-M., Gervais, M.-P., and Blanc, X. 2010. A Comparison of Six UML-Based Languages for Software Process Modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36, 662--675. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vidgen, R. and Wang, X. 2006. Organizing for Agility: a Complex Adaptive Systems perspective on Agile Software Development Process. 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), (Göteborg, Sweden).Google Scholar
- Agile Alliance 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. http://agilemanifesto.org/.Google Scholar
- Ralph, P. 2010. Comparing Two Software Design Process Theories. Global Perspectives on Design Science Research: Proceedings of the 5fth International Conference, DESRIST. Springer-Verlag, 61--76. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeffrey, H. J. 1996. Addressing the essential difficulties of software engineering. Journal of Systems and Software 32, 2, 157--79. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kruchten, Ph. 2010. A conceptual model of software development. https://files.me.com/philippe.kruchten/1q00nw.Google Scholar
- Kruchten, Ph. 2010. Contextualizing Agile Software Development. EuroSPI 2010 Conf. (Grenoble, Sept.1-3).Google Scholar
- Ambler, S. 2009. The Agile Scaling Model (ASM): Adapting Agile Methods for Complex Environments. IBM Rational Software, Somers, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- de St. Exupéry, A. 1939. Terre des Hommes. Gallimard, Paris, France.Google Scholar
- Larman, C., Kruchten, Ph., and Bittner, K. 2002. How to fail with the RUP - Seven steps to pain and suffering. http://cf.agilealliance.org/articles/system/article/file/941/file.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Rus, I., Neu, H., and Münch, J. 2003. A Systematic Methodology for Developing Discrete Event Simulation Models of Software Development Processes. International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling (ProSim 2003), Portland, OR, IEEE.Google Scholar
- Hoda, R., Kruchten, P., Noble, J., and Marshall, S. 2010. Oct. 17-21). Agility in Context. OOPSLA 2010 at SPLASH, (Reno, NV Oct. 17-21) 74--88, ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gabriel, R. P. 2002, Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big, at: www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A plea for lean software process models
Recommendations
Domain Modeling of Software Process Models
ICECCS '00: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Complex Computer SystemsAbstract: The paper presents a novel application involving two important software engineering research areas: process modeling and software reuse. The Spiral Model is a risk-driven process model, which, depending on the specific risks associated with a ...
Software Process Models and Project Performance
In this paper we review the progress in software process research and the role of process improvement in enhancing business outcomes of software projects. We first describe the process view of software development. Next, we review the literature on ...
Software processes: how important is your domain?
ICSSP 2014: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System ProcessThere was a time when researching software processes meant just that – we were interested in making sure that the process for software development was effective. We did not really have to worry about the domains in which our software was used – well, ...
Comments