1. Report on: Workshop on Process Modeling Technologies Lee Osterweil University of Massachusetts Sue Koolmanojwong USC-CSSE

2. Problem: How to Sort Through a Profusion of Approaches to Software Process?

3. Monday’s Workshop Presentation of four approaches Discussion of how to sort through the alternatives

4. Phase 1: Presentation of Four Different Technologies Eclipse Process Framework Composer (EPFC) / Rational Method Composer System Dynamics Object Petri-Nets Little-JIL

5. Modeling Software Engineering Processes using Eclipse Process Framework Composer (EPFC) / Rational Method Composer (RMC) Molly Phongpaibul, Sue Koolmanojwong March 17, 2008

6. Professional Desires: - Simplicity - Templates - Examples - Guidance Who Uses EPFC/RMC? Process Author Produces: - Base methods - Plug ins Management Requires: - Realistic consistency - Viable governance - Improved ROI Service Provider Provides: - Training - Consulting - Mentoring - Adoption services Wants to: - Build tools - Sell tools - Sell services Tool Provider Needs: - Teachable material - Teach process development - Use in student projects - Bring research to mainstream Academia Process Coach Performs: - Tailoring - Publishing - Support - Training Source: www.eclipse.org/epf

7. Process Representation

8. Process Elements Representation

9. Form-based Editor

10. One Key advantage: Scalability Method content repository approximately contains –100s Work products –30-50 roles –1,000+ tasks –Around 100 delivery processes Commercial Extension Company Proprietary Extension RUP OpenSourcePractices IBM Global Services

11. Other Advantages Reusability Compatibility Universality

12. Modeling System and Software Engineering Processes with System Dynamics Ray Madachy USC Center for Systems and Software Engineering madachy@usc.edu Annual Research Review March 17, 2008

13. System Dynamics Notation System represented by x’(t)= f(x,p). x: vector of levels (state variables), p: set of parameters Legend: Example system:

14. Dynamic ODC COQUALMO Portion Portion for Requirements Completeness defects only:

15. Dynamic ODC COQUALMO Sample Outputs Example of applying increased V&V for Execution Testing and Tools at 18 months:

16. Some Advantages Rests on established, respected work –Jay Forrester (1950s) Is a Macro approach Can address the highest level issues Yields nice analytic answers

17. System Diagram

18. 03/17/0818 LiGuo Huang lghuang@engr.smu.edu Department of Computer Science & Engineering Southern Methodist University Modeling Value-Based Process with Object Petri-Nets

19. 03/17/0819 VBSQA-OPN System Net – VBSQA Process Framework

20. 03/17/0820 Developer’s Object Net System Acquirer’s Object Net VBSQA-OPN Object Nets – Stakeholders ’ Process Instances

21. 03/17/0821 VBSQA Process Generator – Based on VBSQA-OPN Model

22. 03/17/0822 VBSQA Process Simulator – ROI of Synchronous Stakeholder Interaction Activities DIMS Top-Priority Q-attributes: Performance, Evolvability

23. Some Advantages Petri Nets have interesting well-defined properties Coordination of different views –Separation of concerns Graphical notation Particularly useful for concurrency

24. The Little-JIL Process Definition Language Leon J. Osterweil (ljo@cs.umass.edu) Lab. For Advanced SE Research University of Massachusetts USC Center for Software and Systems Engineering 17 March 2008

25. The “Step” is the central Little- JIL abstraction TheStepName Interface Badge (parameters, resources, agent) Prerequisite Badge Postrequisite Badge Substep sequencing Handlers X Artifact flows Exception type continuation

26. Trivial Example Elaboration of Design Step

28. Little-JIL Environment Architecture Process Definition Various Editors Resources Definition Artifacts Definition Execution Engine (Juliette) Agents Agendas Coordination Structure Resource Repository Artifact Repository Agenda Manager Analyzers Properties Flavers Simulator Fault Tree Analyzer User Interface Manager Process Programmer

29. Some Advantages Broad semantics Precise semantics Analysis Growing toolset

30. Phase 2: What to Make of All of This?

31. What to Make of All This? Which is good for what? What are we missing? What needs are not covered? Can we compare and contrast? Can we combine best features?

32. A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages by Medvidovic and Taylor as a model? Comparison of Software Architecture technologies Technologies are rows Features are columns Lots of work to fill in the entries

33. The paper by Taylor and Medvidovic as a model? Comparison of Software Architecture technologies Technologies are rows Features are columns Lots of work to fill in the entries Can we do something like that for Process modeling technologies?

34. A Possible Approach What should we be doing? –What goals do stakeholders have? –Columns of a matrix (??) What are we currently doing? –What do we say our goals are? What are we really doing? –What do our technologies address? –Rows of a matrix (??)

35. Process Stakeholders Process performer Process engineer Manager Customer End user Educator/trainer Tool provider Researcher Union representative Regulator Standardizer (e.g. OMG) Domain specific stakeholder …….. MORE?

36. Stakeholder Goals for Process Technology Ambiguity tolerance Analysis Automation Compliance Composability Cost effectiveness / save money Coverage Efficiency Evolvability Implementability / doable Interchangability Learnability Maintainability manager’s satisfaction Marketability Minimum cost of the product No job loss Non-interference (with other standards) Optimal time of the product / speed Precision Prepare negotiation stance Process analysis Process management Profit Purpose fulfillment Quality Reasoning Reinvention Repeatability Reusability Risk mitigation Satisfiability Satisfy high value stakeholders Scalability Tailorability Teachability Understandability Usability Verifiability/ conformance Work rule MORE

37. Goals Technologies seem to be addressing Comprehension Coordination Automation Education and training Continuous improvement Deep understanding Planning and control Reinvention Strategic management Communication Standardization Analysis Risk mitigation Agility These don’t match the previous list very well

38. First Attempt to Structure and Organize the Goals Survey some example stakeholder communities Top level goals Some decomposition into subgoals

39. Goals for Researchers, Educators Understanding, comprehension –Understanding, comprehension –Education –Training –Dissemination –Radical reinvention Improvement –Of workforce More (,) better workers Better management Better resource allocation –Of process itself Faster, better, cheaper –Of product More better ilities in the product

40. Possible Research roadmap Refine and organize list of goals Turn it into a list of desired capabilities –The columns of a matrix Identify a list of technologies –The four presented here are only a start –Some come from other disciplines E.g. business process, workflow, service architecture Study which technologies do what well Identify gaps in coverage Suggest syntheses

41. Something for CSSE to Lead?