Model-Driven Development Challenges and Solutions - Experiences with Domain-Specific Modelling in Industry

Juha-Pekka Tolvanen, Steven Kelly


Model-Driven Development is reported to succeed the best when modelling is based on domain-specific languages. Despite significant benefits MDD has not been applied as widely as expected. Costly definition of languages and related generators with tooling, their maintenance when the domain is not stable, challenges in scalability, and collaboration are some reasons that several studies mention. We believe these statements are justifiable but only when applying traditional programming tooling for modelling. Instead we show with data from practice that many of the challenges reported can be solved when using tools built for modelling in the first place.


  1. Bordeleau, F., 2104. Papyrus and Open Source Modeling - - Status, Strategy, and Plan. Presentation at Ericsson Modeling Days, 4 November 2014, Kista, Sweden.
  2. Cheng, B., Combemale, B., France, R., Jézéquel, J.-M., Rumpe, B., (eds), 2015. Globalizing Domain-Specific Languages, Springer, LNCS 9400.
  3. Djukic, V., Popovic, A., Tolvanen, J.-P. 2014. Using domain-specific modeling languages for medical device development,
  4. Dzidek, W.J., Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C., 2008. A Realistic Empirical Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of UML in Software Maintenance, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol 34 No 3, May/June 2008.
  5. El Kouhen, A., Dumoulin, C., Gérard, S., and Boulet, P., 2012. Evaluation of Modelling Tools Adaptation. CNRS HAL. /68/41/PDF/Evaluation_of_Modelling_Tools_Adaptati on.pdf.
  6. France, R., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M. 2013. Why it is so hard to use models in software development: observation. Software & Systems Modeling, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp. 665-668.
  7. Gómez, A., Tisi, M., Sunyé, G., Cabot, J. (2015) MapBased Transparent Persistence for Very Large Models. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, Springer, pp 19-34.
  8. Izquierdo, J. L. C., Cabot, J., López-Fernández, J. J., Cuadrado, J. S., Guerra, E., & de Lara, J. 2013. Engaging end-users in the collaborative development of domain-specific modelling languages. Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering (pp. 101-110). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  9. Kelly, S. 1998. CASE Tool Support for Co-operative Work in Information System Design. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems in the WWW (pp. 49-69).
  10. Kelly, S., 2013. Empirical Comparison of Language Workbenches. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (pp. 33-38).
  11. Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.-P., 2008. Domain-Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code Generation. Wiley.
  12. Kern, H., Kühne, S., Hummel, A., 2011. Towards a comparative analysis of meta-metamodels. In DSM'11, Proceedings of the compilation of the colocated workshops on DSM'11, TMC'11, AGERE!7811, AOOPES'11, NEAT'11, VMIL'11, SPLASH 7811 workshops, ACM.
  13. Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S., De Lara, J., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Tisi., M., Cabot, J. 2013. A Research Roadmap Towards Achieving Scalability in Model Driven Engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalability in Model Driven Engineering, ACM.
  14. Kärnä, J., Tolvanen, J.-P, Kelly, S. 2009. Evaluating the use of domain-specific modeling in practice. Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling.
  15. Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A., 2005. When and How to Develop Domain-Specific Languages, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 316-344.
  16. Mewes, K., 2009. Domain-specific Modelling of Railway Control Systems with Integrated Verification and Validation, dissertation, University of Bremen.
  17. MetaCase, 2000. Case Study: MetaEdit+ Revolutionized the Way Nokia Develops Mobile Phone Software.
  18. MetaCase, 2014. MetaEdit+ 5.1 Manuals.
  19. Mohagheghi, P., Gilani, W., Stefanescu, A., Fernandez, M., Nordmoen, B., Fritzsche, M. 2011. Where does model-driven engineering help? Experiences from three industrial cases. Software & Systems Modeling, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp. 619-639.
  20. Obeo, 2014. “18%: The average cost reduction of a project with the MDA approach”. 0209081524/
  21. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. 1996. Method rationale in method engineering and use. Method Engineering (pp. 87-93). Chapman & Hall.
  22. OptimalJ, 2003. TheServerSide-Symposium-June-2003-Coverage.
  23. Pagán, J. E., Molina, J. G. 2014. Querying large models efficiently. Information and Soft-ware Technology 56(6), pp. 586-622.
  24. Petre, M. 2014. “No shit” or “Oh, shit!”: responses to observations on the use of UML in professional practice, Software & Systems Modeling, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp. 1225-1235.
  25. Preschern, C., Kajtazovic, N., Kreiner, C. (2014). Evaluation of Domain Modeling Decisions for two identical Domain Specific Languages. International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering, Lecture Notes on Software Engineering (LNSE), Vol. 2, No.1.
  26. Puolitaival, O.-P., 2011. Home automation DSL case, Presentation at Code Generation Conference (
  27. Puolitaival, O.-P., Kanstrén, T., Rytky, V.-M, Saarela, A. (2011) Utilizing Domain-Specific Modelling for Software Testing, The 3rd International Conference on Advances in System Testing and Validation Lifecycle, October 23-29, 2011, Barcelona, Spain.
  28. Rossi, M., Ramesh, B., Lyytinen, K., & Tolvanen, J. P. 2004. Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(9), 12.
  29. Sadrieh, A., Bahri, P. 2014. Novel Domain-Specific Language Framework for Controllability Analysis, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Volume 33, pp. 559-564.
  30. Sadrieh, A., Bahri, P., 2014. Novel Domain-Specific Language Framework for Controllability Analysis. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Elsevier, Volume 33, pp. 559-564.
  31. Safa, L. 2007. The making of user-interface designer a proprietary DSM tool. In 7th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modelling (DSM).
  32. Sprinkle, J., Mernik, M., Tolvanen, J-P., Spinellis, D., 2009. What Kinds of Nails Need a Domain-Specific Hammer? IEEE Software, July/Aug.
  33. Ströbele, T., 2005. EclipseUML-UMLundEclipse, presentation at OOP Conference, 24-28 January, 2005, Munich, Germany.
  34. Tolvanen, J.-P., Luoma, J., Chen, D., -J. 2014. Reaping the benefits of architectural modelling in embedded design. Embedded, November.
  35. Warmer, J., Bast, W. 2011. Developing an Insurance Product Modeling Workbench. Presentation at Code Generation Conference 2001, Cambridge, UK.
  36. Welke, R.J., 1998. The CASE Repository: More than another database application. In Proceedings of 1988 INTEC Symposium Systems Analysis and Design: A Research Strategy, Atlanta, Georgia, Cotterman, W.W. and J.A. Senn (eds.), Georgia State University.
  37. Whittle, J.; Hutchinson, J.; Rouncefield, M., 2014. The State of Practice in Model-Driven Engineering, IEEE Software, vol.31, no.3, pp.79-85.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Tolvanen J. and Kelly S. (2016). Model-Driven Development Challenges and Solutions - Experiences with Domain-Specific Modelling in Industry . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: IndTrackMODELSWARD, (MODELSWARD 2016) ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 711-719. DOI: 10.5220/0005833207110719

in Bibtex Style

author={Juha-Pekka Tolvanen and Steven Kelly},
title={Model-Driven Development Challenges and Solutions - Experiences with Domain-Specific Modelling in Industry},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: IndTrackMODELSWARD, (MODELSWARD 2016)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: IndTrackMODELSWARD, (MODELSWARD 2016)
TI - Model-Driven Development Challenges and Solutions - Experiences with Domain-Specific Modelling in Industry
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - Tolvanen J.
AU - Kelly S.
PY - 2016
SP - 711
EP - 719
DO - 10.5220/0005833207110719