Inter-organisational Approach in Rapid Software Product Family Development — A Case Study

  • Varvana Myllärniemi
  • Mikko Raatikainen
  • Tomi Männistö
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4039)


Software product families provide an efficient means of reuse between a set of related products. However, software product families are often solely associated with intra-organisational reuse. This paper presents a case study of Fathammer, a small company developing games for different mobile devices. Reuse at Fathammer takes place at multiple levels. The game framework and engine of Fathammer is reused by partner companies that in turn produce game assets to be reused by Fathammer while developing games for various devices. Very rapid development of games is a necessity for Fathammer, whereas maintainability of games is not important. The above characteristics in particular distinguish Fathammer from other case studies and practices usually presented in the product family literature. The results show the applicability and challenges of software product family practices in the context of multiple collaborating companies and a fast-changing domain.


Product Family Game Development Software Product Line Global Software Development Game Developer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines—Practices and Patterns. Addison Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosch, J.: Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adapting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. Addison Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Linden, F., Bosch, J., Kamsties, E., Känsälä, K., Obbink, H.: Software product family evaluation. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 110–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosch, J.: Software product families in Nokia. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, pp. 2–6. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, S.: Product line state of the practice report. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TN-017, Software Engineering Institute (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raatikainen, M., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: CASFIS—approach for studying software product families in industry. In: Proc. of the 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability Management (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raatikainen, M., Männistö, T., Soininen, T.: Case study questions for studying industrial software product families. Technical Report HUT-SoberIT-C10, Helsinki University of Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ATLAS.ti: User’s manual and reference, version 4.2 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Linden, F.: Software product families in Europe: The Esaps and Cafe projects. IEEE Software 19(4), 41–49 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mannion, M.: Organizing for software product line engineering. In: Proc. of Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Ommering, R., Bosch, J.: Widening the scope of software product lines—from variation to composition. In: Proc. of Software Product Line Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maccari, A., Heie, A.: Managing infinite variability in mobile terminal software. Software—Practice and Experience 35(6), 513–537 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herbsleb, J., Moitra, D.: Global software development. IEEE Software 18(2), 16–20 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bosch, J.: Software product lines: Organizational alternatives. In: Proc. of International Conference on Software Engineering (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaring, M., Bosch, J.: A taxonomy and hierarchy of variability dependencies in software product family engineering. In: Proc. of Computer Software and Applications Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halmans, G., Pohl, K.: Communicating the variability of a software-product family to customers. Software and Systems Modeling 2(1), 15–36 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallsteinsen, S., Fægri, T.E., Syrstad, M.: Patterns in product family architecture design. In: van der Linden, F.J. (ed.) PFE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3014, pp. 261–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice. Addison Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Svahnberg, M., van Gurp, J., Bosch, J.: A taxononomy of variability realization techniques. Software—Practice and Experience 35(8), 705–754 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gacek, C., Knauber, P., Schmid, K., Clements, P.: Successful software product line development in a small organisation. Technical Report IESE-Report No. 013.01/E, Fraunhofer IESE (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Salion, inc.: A software product line case study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-038, Software Engineering Institute (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alves, V., Matos, P.J., Cole, L., Borba, P., Ramalho, G.: Extracting and evolving mobile games product lines. In: Proc. of Software Product Line Conference (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Varvana Myllärniemi
    • 1
  • Mikko Raatikainen
    • 1
  • Tomi Männistö
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Business and Engineering Institute (SoberIT)Helsinki University of TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations