Process Model Engineering Lifecycle: Holistic Concept Proposal and Systematic Literature Review

Schramm, Joachim; Dohrmann, Patrick; Rausch, Andreas; Ternité, Thomas

doi:10.1109/seaa.2014.26

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When it comes to updating or replicating a literature study, one problem is the literature database as such. For example, in a student study activity, we aimed at replicating and updating a previously conducted SLR [47] of which we had the full research protocol available. The replication package also included text files containing the database-specific search strings.…”

Section: Don't Trust Old Results Setsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Applying the introduced search strategies may result in more than one search string, which then can be customized for the different search engines. A practical problem remains: the length and complexity of the search strings, and the ability or limitations of literature databases to process search queries of and above a certain complexity (as observed when trying to replicate [47]). That is, the major question is which alternative is better: One integrated long search string or multiple shorter ones, as exemplarily shown in Table 6.…”

Section: Search Strings and Search Enginesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some studies, we saw an explicit and intentional limitation of the search; for instance, instead of searching a whole library, authors of a study limited themselves to particular conferences or journals [47]. Such an approach promises the advantage of having a more focused result set by avoiding overhead [22].…”

Section: Find the Right Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the pragmatic design of literature studies in software engineering: an experience-based guideline

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic literature studies have received much attention in empirical software engineering in recent years. They have become a powerful tool to collect and structure reported knowledge in a systematic and reproducible way. We distinguish systematic literature reviews to systematically analyze reported evidence in depth, and systematic mapping studies to structure a field of interest in a broader, usually quantified manner. Due to the rapidly increasing body of knowledge in software engineering, researchers who want to capture the published work in a domain often face an extensive amount of publications, which need to be screened, rated for relevance, classified, and eventually analyzed. Although there are several guidelines to conduct literature studies, they do not yet help researchers coping with the specific difficulties encountered in the practical application of these guidelines. In this article, we present an experience-based guideline to aid researchers in designing systematic literature studies with special emphasis on the data collection and selection procedures. Our guideline aims at providing a blueprint for a practical and pragmatic path through the plethora of currently available practices and deliverables capturing the dependencies among the single steps. The guideline emerges from various mapping studies and literature reviews

show abstract

Section: Don't Trust Old Results Setsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Search Strings and Search Enginesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the pragmatic design of literature studies in software engineering: an experience-based guideline

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Variability operations are a meaningful instrument to support process variability, however, as discussed in, e.g., [12], there is a gap in process frameworks regarding the capability to model flexible processes and as discussed in [5,3] there is a gap regarding process flexibility and the adaptation of process metamodels [20]. Martínez et al [12] found activities the most frequently modified process assets, followed by artifacts and roles.…”

Section: Relation To Existing Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Development of flexible software process lines with variability operations

Schramm

Dohrmann

Kuhrmann

2015

Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Software processes evolve over time and several approaches were proposed to support the required flexibility. Yet, little is known whether these approaches sufficiently support the development of large software processes. A software process line helps to systematically develop and manage families of processes and, as part of this, variability operations provide means to modify and reuse pre-defined process assets. Objective: Our goal is to evaluate the feasibility of variability operations to support the development of flexible software process lines. Method: We conducted a longitudinal study in which we studied 5 variants of the V-Modell XT process line for 2 years. Results: Our results show the variability operation instrument feasible in practice. We analyzed 616 operation exemplars addressing various customization scenarios, and we found 87 different operation types contributed by 3 metamodel variants developed by different teams in different contexts. Conclusions: Although variability operations are only one instrument among others, our results suggest this instrument useful to implement variability in real-life software process lines.

show abstract

“…However, many standardized development processes only serve as general reference models [4,9], and each company adapts them to their particular requirements. Inadequate implementation does not usually influence the common development process, leading to discrepancies between newly defined development processes and actually executed activities and their subsequent outcomes [10]; thus, the intended benefits from new processes are mostly lost.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantically Valid Integration of Development Processes and Toolchains

Schramm

Andelfinger

Fischer

et al. 2022

Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an indispensable component of today’s world economy and an increasing success factor in production and other processes, as well as products, software needs to handle a growing number of specific requirements and influencing factors that are driven by globalization. Two common success factors in the domain of Software Systems Engineering are standardized software development processes and process-supported toolchains. Development processes should be formally integrated with toolchains. The sequence and the results of toolchains must also be validated with the specifications of the development process on several levels. The outcome of a conceptual deductive analysis is that there is neither a formal general mapping nor a generally accepted validation mechanism for the challenges that such an integrated concept faces. To close this research gap, this paper focuses on the core issue of the integration of development processes and toolchains in order to create benefits for modeling and automatization in the domain of systems engineering. Therefore, it describes a self-developed integration approach related to the recently introduced prototypical technical implementation TOPWATER. A unified metamodel specifies how processes and toolchains are linked by a general mapping mechanism that considers test options for the structural, content, and semantic levels.

show abstract

Process Model Engineering Lifecycle: Holistic Concept Proposal and Systematic Literature Review

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

On the pragmatic design of literature studies in software engineering: an experience-based guideline

On the pragmatic design of literature studies in software engineering: an experience-based guideline

Development of flexible software process lines with variability operations

Semantically Valid Integration of Development Processes and Toolchains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About