Contemplating systematic software reuse in a project-centric company

ABSTRACT

Systematic software reuse is still the most promising strategy for increasing productivity and improving quality in the software industry. Although it is simple in concept, successful software reuse implementation is difficult in practice. A reason put forward for this is the dependence of software reuse on the context in which it is implemented. This paper describes an interpretive case study aimed at investigating the potential for the implementation of systematic software reuse in a project-centric company. The study confirmed the need for systematic software reuse and identified the reuse issues that could present challenges. The study also revealed a number of problems relating to the project-centric structure for which systematic reuse provides potential solutions.

REFERENCES

• 1: William B. Frakes , Kyo Kang, Software Reuse Research: Status and Future, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.31 n.7, p.529-536, July 2005 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2005.85]
• 2: Douglas C. Schmidt , Frank Buschmann, Patterns, frameworks, and middleware: their synergistic relationships, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 03-10, 2003, Portland, Oregon
• 3: Miguel A. Laguna , Bruno González-Baixauli , Oscar López , Francisco J. García, Introducing Systematic Reuse in Mainstream Software Process, Proceedings of the 29th Conference on EUROMICRO, p.351, September 01-06, 2003
• 4: Software product lines: practices and patterns, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2001
• 5: Krzysztof Czarnecki , Ulrich W. Eisenecker, Components and generative programming (invited paper), Proceedings of the 7th European software engineering conference held jointly with the 7th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.2-19, September 06-10, 1999, Toulouse, France
• 6: Ivar Jacobson , Martin Griss , Patrik Jonsson, Making the Reuse Business Work, Computer, v.30 n.10, p.36-42, October 1997 [doi>10.1109/2.625300]
• 7: US Air Force, Guidelines for Successful Acquisition and Management of Software-Intensive Systems: Weapon Systems Command and Control Systems Management Information Systems, Condensed Version 4.1. 2003: Department of the Air Force: Software Technology Support Center.
• 8: L. B. S. Raccoon, Fifty years of progress in software engineering, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.22 n.1, p.88-104, Jan. 1997 [doi>10.1145/251759.251878]
• 9: Pree, W., Component-Based Software Development - A New Paradigm in Software Engineering? Software Concepts and Tools. Vol. 18. 1997: Springer-Verlag. 169--174.
• 10: Ralph E. Johnson, Frameworks = (components + patterns), Communications of the ACM, v.40 n.10, p.39-42, Oct. 1997 [doi>10.1145/262793.262799]
• 11: Mari Matinlassi, Comparison of Software Product Line Architecture Design Methods: COPA, FAST, FORM, KobrA and QADA, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, p.127-136, May 23-28, 2004
• 12: Jan Bosch, Design and use of software architectures: adopting and evolving a product-line approach, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 2000
• 13: Alexander Ran, Software isn't built from Lego blocks, Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on Software reusability, p.164-169, May 21-23, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/303008.303079]
• 14: Carlson, B., Software Reuse is Dead, Long Live Software Reuse. Weblogic Developer's Journal, 2004. 1.
• 15: Pasetti, A. and Pree, W. A Reusable Architecture for Satellite Control Software. in IEEE/AIAA 19th Digital Avionics Systems Conference. 2000. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
• 16: Desouza, K. C., J. J. Raider, and T. H. Davenport, Intellectual Asset Reuse in Software Development, in Research Note. 2003, Accenture Institute for Strategic Change.
• 17: Clements, P. C. Successful Product Line Engineering Requires More Than Reuse. in WISR8 - Eighth Annual Workshop of Instituitionalizing Software Reuse. 1997. Ohio State University.
• 18: Günter Böckle , Jesús Bermejo Muñoz , Peter Knauber , Charles W. Krueger , Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite , Frank van der Linden , Linda M. Northrop , Michael Stark , David M. Weiss, Adopting and Institutionalizing a Product Line Culture, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Product Lines, p.49-59, August 19-22, 2002
• 19: Peter Knauber , Giancarlo Succi, Perspectives on Software Product Lines: report on Second International Workshop on Software Product Lines: Economics, Architectures, and Implications workshop at 23^rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.27 n.2, March 2002 [doi>10.1145/511152.511159]
• 20: Linda M. Northrop, SEI's Software Product Line Tenets, IEEE Software, v.19 n.4, p.32-40, July 2002 [doi>10.1109/MS.2002.1020285]
• 21: Schmid, K. and I. John. Developing, Validating and Evolving an Approach to Product Line Benefit and Risk Assessment. in EuroMicro'02 - 28th Euromicro Conference. 2002.
• 22: D. L. Parnas, On the Design and Development of Program Families, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.2 n.1, p.1-9, January 1976 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1976.233797]
• 23: SEI. A Framework for Software Product Line Practice Version 4.2. 2006 {cited 6 January 2007}; Available from: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines/framework.html.
• 24: Klaus Schmid , Martin Verlage, The Economic Impact of Product Line Adoption and Evolution, IEEE Software, v.19 n.4, p.50-57, July 2002 [doi>10.1109/MS.2002.1020287]
• 25: Avison, D. and S. Elliot, Scoping the Discipline of Information Systems, in Information Systems: The State of the Field, J. L. King, Editor. 2006, J Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ. p. 3--18.
• 26: Tricoglus, G., Living the Theoretical Principles of Critical Ethnography in Educational Research. Educational Action Research, 2001. 9(1): p. 135--148.
• 27: Heinz K. Klein , Michael D. Myers, A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems, MIS Quarterly, v.23 n.1, p.67-93, March 1999 [doi>10.2307/249410]
• 28: Michael Myers, Investigating information systems with ethnographic research, Communications of the AIS, v.2 n.4es, Dec. 1999
• 29: Korpela, M., A. Mursu, and H. A. Soriyan. Two Times Four Integrative Levels of Analysis: A Framework. in IFIP TC8/WG 8.2 Working Conference. 2001. Boise, Idaho, USA.: Kluver Academic.
• 30: Morse, J. M. and L. Richards, Readme First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods. 2002, California: Sage Publications.
• 31: Andy Lynex , Paul J. Layzell, Organisational considerations for software reuse, Annals of Software Engineering, 5, p.105-124, 1998
• 32: Peter Knauber , Dirk Muthig , Klaus Schmid , Tanya Widen, Applying Product Line Concepts in Small and Medium-Sized Companies, IEEE Software, v.17 n.5, p.88-95, September 2000 [doi>10.1109/52.877873]
• 33: Bühne, S., et al. Exploring the Context of Product Line Adoption. in PFE 2003. 2004: Springer-Verlag.
• 34: John D. McGregor , Linda M. Northrop , Salah Jarrad , Klaus Pohl, Guest Editors' Introduction: Initiating Software Product Lines, IEEE Software, v.19 n.4, p.24-27, July 2002 [doi>10.1109/MS.2002.1020282]
• 35: Northrop, L. M., Foreword. IEEE Software, 2002(July/August 2002).
• 36: Scott Henninger, Accelerating the Successful Reuse of Problem Solving Knowledge Through the Domain Lifecycle, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Reuse, p.124, April 23-26, 1996
• 37: Stake, R. E., The Art of Case Study Research. 1995, Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques

General Terms:
Design, Performance

Keywords:
action research, ethnography, interpretive case study, project-centric, software product line engineering, software product lines, software reuse, systematic software reuse