Reducing Complexity of Process Tailoring Transformations Generation

Silvestre, Luís; Bastarrica, María Cecilia; Ochoa, Sergio F.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25156-1_11

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are certain complexities involved in defining and applying tailoring transformations in current transformation languages; hence, process engineers and project managers find it too difficult to define the transformations. To address this issue, an MDE-based tool is proposed in [27] that uses the Mega-model introduced in [26] to hide the complexities involved in defining the transformations.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, we compare our proposed approach with exis based on the support that they provide for feasibility analysis, en process, management of configuration complexity, and post-de these are the four activities that we had identified as areas requir isting model-driven SPrLE approaches (as explained in Section 2 sults of evaluating our approach and existing model-driven SPrL their support for these four activities. It should be mentioned that t [27,30,32] and approaches for proposing general SPrLs for specifi been excluded from this comparison, as they cannot be consider neering approaches for constructing bespoke SPrLs.…”

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 7 shows the results of evaluating our approach and existing model-driven SPrLE approaches based on their support for these four activities. It should be mentioned that tool-focused approaches [27,30,32] and approaches for proposing general SPrLs for specific domains [33,34] have been excluded from this comparison, as they cannot be considered as specialized engineering approaches for constructing bespoke SPrLs. Results of the comparison are explained below:  Construct validity: The first threat to construct validity is misunderstanding the questions in the post-questionnaire; to deal with this, we added explanations to each measure.…”

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 7 shows the results of evaluating our approach and existing model-driven SPrLE approaches based on their support for these four activities. It should be mentioned that tool-focused approaches [27,30,32] and approaches for proposing general SPrLs for specific domains [33,34] have been excluded from this comparison, as they cannot be considered as specialized engineering approaches for constructing bespoke SPrLs.  Construct validity: The first threat to construct validity is misunderstanding the questions in the post-questionnaire; to deal with this, we added explanations to each measure.…”

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Model-Driven Approach for Software Process Line Engineering

Agh

Ramsin

2023

Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become increasingly preferable to construct bespoke software development processes according to the specifications of the project at hand; however, defining a separate process for each project is time consuming and costly. One solution is to use a Software Process Line (SPrL), a specialized Software Product Line (SPL) in the context of process definition. However, instantiating an SPrL is a slow and error-prone task if performed manually; an adequate degree of automation is therefore essential, which can be achieved by using a Model-Driven Development (MDD) approach. Furthermore, we have identified specific shortcomings in existing approaches for SPrL Engineering (SPrLE). To address the identified shortcomings, we propose a novel MDD approach specifically intended for SPrLE; this approach can be used by method engineers and project managers to first define an SPrL, and then construct custom processes by instantiating it. The proposed approach uses a modeling framework for modeling an SPrL, and applies transformations to provide a high degree of automation when instantiating the SPrL. The proposed approach addresses the shortcomings by providing an adequate coverage of four activities, including Feasibility analysis, Enhancing the core process, Managing configuration complexity, and Post-derivation enhancement. The proposed approach has been validated through an industrial case study and an experiment; the results have shown that the proposed approach can improve the processes being used in organizations, and is rated highly as to usefulness and ease of use.

show abstract

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 7 shows the results of evaluating our approach and existing model-driven SPrLE approaches based on their support for these four activities. It should be mentioned that tool-focused approaches [27,30,32] and approaches for proposing general SPrLs for specific domains [33,34] have been excluded from this comparison, as they cannot be considered as specialized engineering approaches for constructing bespoke SPrLs.  Construct validity: The first threat to construct validity is misunderstanding the questions in the post-questionnaire; to deal with this, we added explanations to each measure.…”

Section: Comparative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations