Simulation in software engineering training

ABSTRACT

Simulation is frequently used for training in many application areas like aviation and economics, but not in software engineering. We present the SESAM project which focuses on software engineering education using simulation. In the SESAM project a simulator was developed. Using this simulator, a student can take the role of a software project manager. The simulated software project can be finished within a couple of hours because it is simulated in “quick-motion” mode.In this paper, the background and goals of the SESAM project are presented. A new simulation model, the so called QA model, is introduced. The model behavior is demonstrated by investigating and comparing different strategies for software development. The results of experiments based on the QA model are reported. Finally, conclusions are drawn from the experiments and future work is outlined.

REFERENCES

• 1: Tarek K. Abdel-Hamid , Stuart E. Madnick, Lessons learned from modeling the dynamics of software development, Communications of the ACM, v.32 n.12, p.1426-1438, Dec. 1989 [doi>10.1145/76380.76383]
• 2: Balci, O. Validation, Verification, and Testing Techniques throughout the Life Cycle of a Simulation Study. Annals of Operations Research 33, (1994), 121-173.
• 3: Barry W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1981
• 4: Boehm, B.W. Industrial Software Metrics Top 10 List. IEEE Software 4, 5 (1987), 84-85.
• 5: Boehm, B., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Westland, C., Madachy, R., Selby, R. Cost Models for Future Software Life Cycle Processes: COCOMO 2.0. Annals of Software Engineering 1, (1995).
• 6: Hartmut Bossel, Modeling and simulation, A. K. Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, 1994
• 7: Bryan, G.E. Not All Programmers Are Created Equal. In: Thayer, R.H. (Ed.) Software Engineering Project Management (2nd Ed.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, USA, 1997, 346-355.
• 8: Collofello, J.S., et al. Using Software Process Simulation to Assist Software Development Organizations in Mak-ing Good Enough Quality Decisions. Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 1998 (SCSC98).
• 9: Drappa, A. Quantitative Modellierung von Softwareprojekten. Doctoral Dissertation, Shaker- Verlag, Aachen, 2000.
• 10: Drappa, A., Ludewig, J. Quantitative Modeling for the Interactive Simulation of Software Projects. Journal of Systems and Software 46, No. 2-3 (April 1999), 113-122.
• 11: Norman Fenton , Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Software metrics (2nd ed.): a rigorous and practical approach, PWS Publishing Co., Boston, MA, 1997
• 12: IEEE Std 1044-1993. IEEE Standard Classification for Software Anomalies. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1993.
• 13: Michael Jackson , Pamela Zave, Deriving specifications from requirements: an example, Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Software engineering, p.15-24, April 24-28, 1995, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/225014.225016]
• 14: Capers Jones, Applied software measurement (2nd ed.): assuring productivity and quality, McGraw-Hill, Inc., Hightstown, NJ, 1996
• 15: Kouchakdjian, A., Basili, V.R. Evaluation of the Cleanroom Methodology in the SEL. Proceedings of the Software Engineering Workshop, NASA Goddard, Greenbelt, USA, 1989.
• 16: Averill M. Law , W. David Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1997
• 17: Melchisedech, R., Deininger, M., Drappa, A., Hoff, H., Krau~, S., Li, J., Ludewig, J., Mandl-Striegnitz, P. SESAM - A Software Engineering Education Tool Based on Graph Grammars. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS) 58, 1996, 198-221.
• 18: Philip W. Metzger , John Boddie, Managing a programming project (3rd ed.): processes and people, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996
• 19: Adam A. Porter , Philip M. Johnson, Assessing Software Review Meetings: Results of a Comparative Analysis of Two Experimental Studies, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.23 n.3, p.129-145, March 1997 [doi>10.1109/32.585501]
• 20: Roger S. Pressman, Software engineering (3rd ed.): a practitioner's approach, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1992
• 21: Rus, I., Collofello, J., Lakey, P.: Software Process Simulation for Reliability Management. Journal of Systems and Software 46, No. 2-3 (April 1999), 173-182.
• 22: H. Sackman , W. J. Erikson , E. E. Grant, Exploratory experimental studies comparing online and offline programming performance, Communications of the ACM, v.11 n.1, p.3-11, Jan. 1968 [doi>10.1145/362851.362858]
• 23: Lawrence G. Votta, Jr., Does every inspection need a meeting?, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.18 n.5, p.107-114, Dec. 1993
• 24: Edward F. Weller, Lessons from Three Years of Inspection Data, IEEE Software, v.10 n.5, p.38-45, September 1993 [doi>10.1109/52.232397]
• 25: Wheeler, D.A., Brykczynski, B., Meeson, R.N. Software Peer Reviews. In: Thayer, R.H. (Ed.) Software Engineering Project Management (2nd Ed.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, USA, 1997, 454-469.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Software quality assurance (SQA)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.6 SIMULATION AND MODELING

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Curriculum
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management
          Subjects: Training
      K.6.3 Software Management
          Subjects: Software process

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors, Management, Measurement, Performance, Reliability, Theory

Keywords:
experiment, quality assurance, simulation, software engineering education, software process modeling, training