ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Requirements engineering for product families
Full text PdfPdf (137 KB)
Source International Conference on Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering table of contents
Limerick, Ireland
Pages: 61 - 69  
Year of Publication: 2000
ISBN:1-58113-206-9
Authors
Juha Kuusela  Nokia Research Center, Software Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 407, FIN-00045 NOKIA GROUP
Juha Savolainen  Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, P.O. Box 9700, 02015 HUT, Finland
Sponsors
IEEE-CS : Computer Society
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
Irish Comp Soc : Irish Computer Society
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 19,   Downloads (12 Months): 123,   Citation Count: 6
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/337180.337189
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In search for improved software quality and high productivity, software reuse has become a key research area. One of the most promising reuse approaches is product families. However, current practices in requirements engineering do not support product families. This paper describes a definition hierarchy method for requirements capturing, structuring, analysis and documentation. This method helps to identify architectural drivers of the product family and shows how different products in the family vary.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
Barbacci M., Klein M., Weinstock C., Principles for Evaluation the Quality Attributes of a Software Architecture, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-036, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, March 1997.
 
4
Barbacci M., Carriere J., Feiler P., Kazman R., Klein M:, Lipson H., Longstaff T., Weinstock C., Steps in an Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method: Quality Attribute Models and Analysis, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-97-TR-029, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, May 1998.
 
5
Kazman R., et.al., The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-97-TR-029, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, May 1998.
 
6
 
7
Kang K., Cohen S., Hess J., Novak W., Peterson S., Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, November 1990.
 
8
 
9
IEEE Recommended Best Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, IEEE Standard 830-1998, IEEE, 1998
 
10
 
11
 
12
Cohen S., Stanley J., Peterson W., Krut R., Application of Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis to the Army Movement Control Domain, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-91-TR-028, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, June1992.
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
Mazur G., "QFD for Small Business - A Shortcut through the Maze of Matrices," in Proceedings of the Sixth Symphosium on Quality Function Deployment, QFD Institute, June 1994.
 
17
Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) for Non-Federal Applications, Advisory Circular, 150/5220-16B, 1995, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).


Collaborative Colleagues:
Juha Kuusela: colleagues
Juha Savolainen: colleagues