Eclipse process framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:22, 5 May 2008

Revision as of 21:38, 6 May 2008

Line 10:

==Issues to Resolve==

The tool is now relatively mature (except for some usability issues, typical of open source projects sans human factors) but the generation of open sourced process plug-ins remains problematic as adoption of the tool still requires substantial work in process authoring. IBM has some proprietoryproprietary pluginsplug-ins available for its Rational Method Composer but they are based upon the proprietoryproprietary RUP process model. The small opensourceopen source agile models available don't scale well to large programs. Many IEEE/ISO/SAE/CMMI and other standards models have not been modelledmodeled. The potential here is vast if IBM markets EPF/RMC to the standards organisationsorganizations who already sell representations of their standards.

Static page generation is useful, as a reference site, but additional effort has to occur 1) to move towards process orchestration (based upon SPEM models) and 2) provision of training resources (potentially by including SCORM/IMS modes for export). Process training, within organisationsorganizations, is of paramount concern and the amount of rework to push EPF output into SCORM/IMS ready structures for presentation in an eLearning environments (on top of the initial process authoring effort) is prohibitive. Model transformation technology may help here.

Of particular note is the fact that OMG appears to lag behind the standards organizations in the harmonizing efforts that have been going on within the software engineering world. For example, ISO/IEC IEEE/EIA 12207 have a model of software engineering process that is not reflected in the OMG model (process, activity, task) and consequently needs a mapping into the SPEM model.

The usability concerns wont be addressed until there is large scale adoption of the approach and interoperability issues around plug-ins drive the design to its optimum.

==See also==