Advertisement

The influence of software engineering paradigms on individual and team project results

  • William Junk
  • Paul Oman
Session 13: Funding, Practica, and Principles
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 640)

Abstract

For years there has been debate over which software development paradigm is best. There are many anecdotal reports extolling the advantages of prototyping over specifying approaches, but few controlled studies have been performed to quantify the differences between them. We report on some observations drawn about individual and team projects conducted in our software engineering practica and we describe a series of controlled experiments comparing spiral-prototyping to specifying in team projects. In the team developments we found that the prototyped products were completed with less effort, had lower complexity metric values, had fewer reported defects, and were rated higher on the customer's subjective evaluation of quality. We also found that management of the spiral-prototyping process is a critical element in project success or failure. Because of the experimental controls employed in our study and the realism of the programming projects performed, we believe that these results are valid equally outside the academic environment.

Keywords

Software Development Software Engineering Team Project Finite State Machine Individual Project 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    F. L. Bauser, “Software Engineering,” Information Processing 71, Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. W. Boehm, T. E. Gray, and T. Seewaldt, “Prototyping Versus Specifying: A Multiproject Experiment,“ IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol SE-10(3), 1984, pp. 290–302.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. W. Boehm, “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement,” IEEE Computer, May 1988, pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    James Collofello and Scott Woodfield, “A Project-Unified Software Engineering Course Sequence,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 14, pp. 13–19, Feb. 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bill Curtis, Herb Krasner, Vincent Shen, and Neil Iscoe, “On Building Software Process Models Under the Lamppost,” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, March 30–April 2, 1987, pp. 96–103.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Scott Gordon and James M. Bieman, “Rapid Prototyping and Software Quality: Lessons from Industry,” Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, October 1991, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sallie Henry, “A Project Oriented Course on Software Engineering,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 15, pp. 57–61, Feb. 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watts S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Jagielski, “Visual Simulation of Finite State Machines,” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol 20(4), December 1988, pp. 38–40.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    William Junk and Paul Oman, “Comparing the Effectiveness of Software Development Paradigms: Spiral-Prototyping vs. Specifying,” Proceedings of Ninth Annual Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, October 1991, pp. 2–18.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    William Junk and Karen Van Houten, Guidelines for Preparing the Software Requirements Specification, University of Idaho Computer Science Department, January 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    William Junk and Karen Van Houten, Guidelines for Preparing the Software Design Description, University of Idaho Computer Science Department, February 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roger Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winston W. Royce, “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems,” Proceedings of IEEE WESCON, August 1970, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mary Shaw and James Momoyko, Models for Undergraduate Project Courses in Software Engineering, CMU/SEI-TR-10, August 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. M. Tanik and R. Yeh, “Rapid Prototyping in Software Development,” IEEE Computer, May 1989, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin Woodward and Keith Mander, “On Software Engineering Education: Experiences with the Software Hut Game,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. E-25, pp. 10–14, Feb. 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scott Woodfield and James Collofello, “Some Insights and Experiences in Teaching Team Project Courses,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 15, pp. 62–65, Feb. 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Junk
    • 1
  • Paul Oman
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of IdahoMoscow

Personalised recommendations