Advertisement

Customizing the PuLSETM product line approach to the demands of an organization

  • Klaus Schmid
  • Tanya Widen
Session 9: Applications, Part 2
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1780)

Abstract

It is well-known that software processes need to be adapted to the specifics of the organization, the application domain, and the development techniques of the environments in which they are used. This is particularly important for reuse processes as they impact the whole software life-cycle and the reuse of artifacts creates additional relationships among multiple process instances (projects). Nevertheless the support for tailoring existing reuse approaches is at best weak. As a consequence of this realization we made customization support for the method a first rate objective while developing the Product Line Software Engineering method (PuLSETM).

The technology used for customization is called PulSE Baselining and Customization (PuLSE-BC). This approach relies on an explicit characterization of the environment and the explicit connection of these characteristics to customizable properties of a process. In this paper, we describe the technical foundations of this approach and illustrate them with an example.

Keywords

Product Line Evaluation Strategy Software Product Line Reference Architecture Technical Component 
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]
    V. Basili, G. Caldiera, and D. Rombach. Experience Factory. In J. Marciniak, editor, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, volume 1, pages 469–476. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    V. Basili and D. Rombach. Tailoring the software process to project goals and environments. Technical report, University of Maryland, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Bayer, O. Flege P. Knauber, R. Laqua, D. Muthig, K. Schmid, T. Widen, and J.-M. DeBaud. Pulse: A methodology to develop software product lines. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR'99), pages 122–131, Los Angeles, CA, USA, May 1999. ACM.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Inderpal Bhandari, Michael Halliday, Eric Tarver, David Brown, Jarir Chaar, and Ram Chillarege. A case study of software process improvement during development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(12):1157–1170, December 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.-M. DeBaud and K. Schmid. A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 34–43, Los Angeles, CA, USA, May 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Department of Defense—Software Reuse Initiative, Version 3.1. Domain Scoping Framework, Volume 2: Technical Description, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Wolfgang Droeschel. Das V-Modell. Der Standard fuer die Softwareentwicklung mit Praxisleitfaden. R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Kenneth M. Dymond. A Guide to the CMM(sm). Understanding the Capability Maturity Model(sm) for Software. Process Inc US, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Dennis J. Frailey. Defining a corporate-wide software process. In Mark Dowson, editor, Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, pages 113–120, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and S. Peterson. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, November 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Nazim H. Madhavji and Maria H. Penedo. Guest editor's introduction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(12):1125–1127, December 1993. Special Issue on the Evolution of Software Processes.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Münch. Anpassung von Vorgehensmodellen im Rahmen ingenieur-mässiger Softwarequalitätssicherung. In 6. Workshop der GI-Fachgruppe 5.1.1: “Vorgehensmodelle, Prozessverbesserung und Qualitätsmanagement”, 19.—20.04.1999, Kaiserslautern. To appear.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Jürgen Münch, Markus Schmitz, and Martin Verlage. Tailoring großer Prozeßmodelle. In Tagungsband des 3. Workshops der GI-FG 5.1.1.—Vorgehensmodelle—Einfürung, betrieblicher Einsatz, Werkzeug-Unterstützung und Migrations, GMD-Studien Nr. 311, number GMD-Studien Nr. 311, pages 63–71, Berlin, August 1997.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Graciela Pérez, Khaled El Emam, and Nazim H. Madhavji. Evaluating the congruence of a software process model in a given environment. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Software Process, pages 49–62, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation. Reuse Adoption Guidebook, Version 02.00.05, November 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation, Technical Report SPC-92019-CMC. Reuse-Driven Software Processes Guidebook, Version 02.00.03, November 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS), Technical Report STARS-VC-A025/001/00. Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, Version 2.0, June 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Schmid
    • 1
  • Tanya Widen
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Einrichtung für Experimentelles Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations