Automated Quality Analysis of Software Engineering Method Models

Masud Fazal-Baqaie, Frank Kluthe

Abstract

Using a suitable software engineering method (SEM) for a specific project and following it properly is important for the resulting software quality. However, SEMs described in natural language are often ambiguous and lack automated guidance for the team members, causing impediments for the project. The model-based approach Method Engineering with Method Services and Method Patterns (MESP) allows to model enactable SEM models by composing pre-defined building blocks. Up to now, the quality of MESP models had to be checked manually which was tedious and error-prone at times. In this paper, we present an automated design-time quality analysis for MESP SEM models. In particular, our analysis allows to automatically evaluate generic quality characteristics relevant for all SEM models as well as specific quality requirements specified using MESP method patterns. We integrated the quality analysis framework into the MESP Workbench and our evaluation shows that the analysis is fast enough to provide timely feedback even for large SEM models.

References

  1. Aalst, W. M. P. and Hee, K. M. (2002). Workflow management: Models, methods, and systems. MIT Press.
  2. Bendraou, R. et al. (2007). Definition of an Executable SPEM 2.0. In 14th Asia-Pacific Softw. Eng. Conf. , pages 390-397. IEEE.
  3. Bendraou, R. et al. (2010). A Comparison of Six UMLBased Languages for Software Process Modeling. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., 36(5):662-675.
  4. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information & Softw. Technology, 38(4):275- 280.
  5. Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., and Harmsen, A. F. (1998). Assembly Techniques for Method Engineering. In Pernici, B. and Thanos, C., editors, Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Advanced information systems engineering, volume 1413 of LNCS, pages 381-400. Springer.
  6. Cervera, M. et al. (2011). Turning Method Engineering Support into Reality. In Ralyté, J., Mirbel, I., and Deneckère, R., editors, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, volume 351, pages 138-152. Springer.
  7. Chen, B. et al. (2008). Analyzing medical processes. In Proceedings of the 30th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pages 623-632. ACM.
  8. Cockburn, A. (2000). Selecting a project's methodology. IEEE Software, 17(4):64-71.
  9. Ellner, R. et al. (2012). An Integrated Tool Chain for Software Process Modeling and Execution. In Störrle et al., editors, Joint Proc. of the 8th European Conf. on Modelling Foundations and Applications, pages 73- 82. Technical University of Denmark.
  10. Fazal-Baqaie, M. and Engels, G. (to appear in 2016). Managing Software Processes Evolution by AssemblyBased Method Engineering with MESP. In Kuhrmann et al., editors, Managing Software Process Evolution. Springer.
  11. Fazal-Baqaie, M., Gerth, C., and Engels, G. (2014). Breathing life into situational software engineering methods. In Jedlitschka et al., editors, Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. of Product Focused Software Process Improvement, volume 8892, pages 281-284. Springer.
  12. Fazal-Baqaie, M., Luckey, M., and Engels, G. (2013). Assembly-Based Method Engineering with Method Patterns. In Wagner, S. and Lichter, H., editors, Proc. of the Software Engineering 2013, volume 215 of LNI, pages 435-444. GI.
  13. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., and O'Kane, T. (2003). Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4):64-70.
  14. Harmsen, A. F. (1997). Situational method engineering. Moret Ernst & Young.
  15. Henderson-Sellers, B. et al. (2014). Situational Method Engineering. Springer.
  16. Khaluf, L., Gerth, C., and Engels, G. (2011). Pattern-based modeling and formalizing of business process quality constraints. In Mouratidis, H. and Rolland, C., editors, 23rd Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, volume 6741 of LNCS, pages 521-535. Springer.
  17. Kruchten, P. (1999). The rational unified process: An introduction. Object technology series. Addison-Wesley.
  18. OASIS (2007). Web Services Business Process Execution Language.
  19. OMG (2008). Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel Specification (SPEM).
  20. OMG (2011). Business Process Model and Notation.
  21. OMG (2014). Object Constraint Language.
  22. Rougemaille, S. et al. (2009). Methodology Fragments Definition in SPEM for Designing Adaptive Methodology: A First Step. In Luck, M. and Gomez-Sanz, J. J., editors, Proc. of the 9th int. workshop on Agentoriented software engineering, volume 5386 of LNCS, pages 74-85. Springer.
  23. Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2013). The Scrum Guide.
  24. Steinberg, D. et al. (2009). EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison-Wesley.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Fazal-Baqaie M. and Kluthe F. (2016). Automated Quality Analysis of Software Engineering Method Models . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 527-534. DOI: 10.5220/0005743205270534


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward16,
author={Masud Fazal-Baqaie and Frank Kluthe},
title={Automated Quality Analysis of Software Engineering Method Models},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2016},
pages={527-534},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005743205270534},
isbn={978-989-758-168-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Automated Quality Analysis of Software Engineering Method Models
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - Fazal-Baqaie M.
AU - Kluthe F.
PY - 2016
SP - 527
EP - 534
DO - 10.5220/0005743205270534