Who cares about Software Process Modelling? A First Investigation about the Perceived Value of Process Engineering and Process Consumption
0 likes412 views
The study investigates the perceived value of software process paradigms among process engineers and consumers, suggesting that the choice of paradigm may not significantly impact actual process consumption. The findings indicate that while process engineers value artefact-oriented frameworks, process consumers tend to rate activity-oriented exports more favorably. The research emphasizes the need for further experimentation to deepen understanding of these paradigms.
Who cares about Software Process Modelling? A First Investigation about the Perceived Value of Process Engineering and Process Consumption
- 1. Technische Universität München Who cares about Software Process Modelling? A First Investigation about the PerceivedValue of Process Engineering and Process Consumption Joint work with Marco Kuhrmann,TUM Alexander Knapp, University of Augsburg Daniel Méndez Technische Universität München Germany PROFES 2013 Paphos, Cyprus 13.06.2013 @mendezfe
- 2. Software Processes • Blueprint of all relevant artefacts, activities, and roles ➡ Have underlying paradigm: Context: Software Process Modelling Activity Orientation A Artefact Orientation B SW Process Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation Software Process Modelling • Systematic design and implementation of a software process ➡ Usually conducted as part of an SPI initiative A. Activity orientation (e.g., RUP) B. Artefact orientation (e.g.,V-Modell XT)
- 3. Software Process Paradigms Current State of (reported) Evidence Activity Orientation Artefact Orientation • Current view based on mapping study (EASE’ 13) ➡Only few reports on evaluation papers • Current view based on own experiences & case studies ➡Indicate to benefits regarding quality in artefacts and flexible process
- 4. Software Process Paradigms The truth remains...
- 5. Current studies focus on • Requirements engineering (having its own particularities) and/or • Socio-economic contexts with given experiences, expectations and desires about particular paradigms (based on particular goals) Why Experimentation? Taking some steps back ➡ Need for experimentation • What implications have the paradigms in “nearly context-free” situations: – No expectations and limited experiences – Without particular pre-defined improvement goals
- 6. Experimental Set-Up Goals and Coarse Setting Research Objectives Analyse the perceived value of a chosen paradigm from the perspective of process engineers and process consumers in context of process life cycle Working hypothesis The selection of a paradigm for establishing a process management does not affect its actual consumption. Research questions (condensed) 1. How suitable is a paradigm to cover the needs of process engineers? 2. To what extent does a paradigm matter to process consumers? • Controlled environment / setting • Pre-defined treatments & assessment criteria • Randomisation Still no controlled experiment with statistical hypothesis testing
- 7. Process Framework • Process Frameworks with underlying paradigm-associated meta model and tool support • Activity orientation: Eclipse Process Framework (Composer) • Artefact orientation:V-Modell XT (Editor) Experimental Set-Up Cases and Subjects Process • Workshop organisation process of a German interest group on “Software Development Processes” / German Computer Society Subjects • Two groups covering each both roles (process engineers and process consumers) • 8 Students from the course “Software Engineering Processes”
- 8. Experimental Set-Up Data Collection Procedure Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Audit Analysis Concept Implementation Concept Consolidation Implementation (Software Process) Interviews Process Engineers Process Consumers Context • Overview as details of phases • Covered in lecture • Conducted as own workshop Procedure • Assignment of subjects into two groups / paradigms • Consolidation by lecturers • Cross-examination at the end (audit)
- 9. Workshops Goals and Results Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation
- 10. Workshops Goals and Results Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation Goals 1. Understand process 2. Elicit and sort process elements input
- 11. Workshops Goals and Results Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation Goals 1. First sketch of process elements 2. Clustering and dependencies Artefacts Process structure
- 12. Workshops Goals and Results Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation Goals 1.Tool-supported implementation 2. Export process documentation
- 13. Workshops Goals and Results Analysis Conceptualisation Construction Evaluation Goals 1. Evaluation (engineers) 2. Evaluation/Audit (consumers) 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 Q1-8: Overall completeness of artefacts Q1-9: Completeness roles Q1-10: Completeness artefacts Q1-11: Completeness relationships Q1-12: Completeness activities Q1-13: Completeness overall process EPF V-Modell XT 4,67 5,00 6,00 6,33 7,00 7,00 6,67 5,67 6,33 6,67 6,00 4,20 3,80 3,00 4,00 5,20 6,00 6,20 4,40 3,80 4,75 4,67 Q2-1: HTML export completeness Q2-2: HTML export accessibility Q2-3: Overall process presentation Q2-4: Process verifiability Q2-5: Implementation completeness Q2-6: Completeness rolesQ2-7: Completeness artefacts Q2-8: Completeness relationships Q2-9: Completeness activities Q2-10: Implementation adequateness Q2-11: Process consistency EPF VMXT
- 14. • Artefact-oriented framework supports – Completeness in artefacts and responsibilities (roles) – Completeness of relationshps • Activity-oriented framework supports – Completeness in activities, but also... – Overall completeness of artefacts 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 Q1-8: Overall completeness of artefacts Q1-9: Completeness roles Q1-10: Completeness artefacts Q1-11: Completeness relationships Q1-12: Completeness activities Q1-13: Completeness overall process EPF V-Modell XT Evaluation from Process Engineers
- 15. 4,67 5,00 6,00 6,33 7,00 7,00 6,67 5,67 6,33 6,67 6,00 4,20 3,80 3,00 4,00 5,20 6,00 6,20 4,40 3,80 4,75 4,67 Q2-1: HTML export completeness Q2-2: HTML export accessibility Q2-3: Overall process presentation Q2-4: Process verifiability Q2-5: Implementation completeness Q2-6: Completeness rolesQ2-7: Completeness artefacts Q2-8: Completeness relationships Q2-9: Completeness activities Q2-10: Implementation adequateness Q2-11: Process consistency EPF VMXT Evaluation from Process Consumers • Activity-oriented process export overall better rated than artefact-oriented export, e.g.: – Process consistency – Completeness relationships • Not expected: Activity-oriented process export rated as better regarding – Completeness artefacts – Completeness roles
- 16. ? Summary • Artefact orientation seems to be perceived of higher value by process engineers • No similar effects for value perceived by process consumers – Activity-oriented export rated overall better – Most surprising: artefact completeness rater better in activity-oriented export Threats to validity? • Construct: Completeness of criteria? • Internal validity: Mistakes during export? • External: Barely given, but necessary first step! Our impression: We are still here... ➡Future work: • Further experimentation (starter kit available soon!) • More differentiated view on paradigms
- 17. Thank you!