A comprehensive product line scoping approach and its validation

ABSTRACT

Product Line Engineering is a recent approach to software development that specifically aims at exploiting commonalities and systematic variabilities among functionally overlapping systems in terms of large scale reuse. Taking full advantage of this potential requires adequate planning and management of the reuse approach as otherwise huge economic benefits will be missed due to an inappropriate alignment of the reuse infrastructure.Key in product line planning is the scoping activity, which aims at focussing the reuse investment where it pays. Scoping actually happens on several levels in the process: during the domain analysis step (analysis of product line requirements) a focusing needs to happen just like during the decision of what to implement for reuse. The latter decision has also important ramifications for the development of an appropriate reference architecture as it provides the reusability requirements for this step.In this paper, we describe an integrated approach that has been developed, improved, and validated over the last few years. The approach fully covers the scoping activities of domain scoping and reuse infrastructure scoping and was validated in several industrial case studies.

REFERENCES

• 1: Sergio Bandinelli and Goiuria Sagarduy. A unifying framework for reuse economic models. Technical Report ESI-1996-Reuse03, European Software Institute, 1996.
• 2: Joachim Bayer , Oliver Flege , Peter Knauber , Roland Laqua , Dirk Muthig , Klaus Schmid , Tanya Widen , Jean-Marc DeBaud, PuLSE: a methodology to develop software product lines, Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on Software reusability, p.122-131, May 21-23, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/303008.303063]
• 3: Andrew Beitz and Janne Jarvinnen. FAME --- An approach for software process assessment. Technical Report 001.00/E, Fraunhofer IESE, 2000.
• 4: Jan Bosch, Software product lines: organizational alternatives, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, p.91-100, May 12-19, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 5: Jan Bosch, Michel Jaring, Susanne Johnsson, Klaus Schmid, Steffen Thiel, Bernhard Thomé, and Siegfried Trosch; Klaus Schmid (Ed.). Task 1.2: Domain analysis: Consortiumwide deliverable on scoping. Deliverable of the ESAPS Project, Eureka Σ! 2023 Programme, ITEA Project 99005, 2001.
• 6: Lionel C. Briand , Khaled El Emam , Frank Bomarius, COBRA: a hybrid method for software cost estimation, benchmarking, and risk assessment, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software engineering, p.390-399, April 19-25, 1998, Kyoto, Japan
• 7: Paul Clements, Cristina Gacek, Peter Knauber, and Klaus Schmid. Successful software product line development in a small organization. In Paul Clements and Linda Northrop, editors, Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns, chapter 11. Addison Wesley Longman, 2001.
• 8: Patricia Collins Cornwell. HP domain analysis: Producing useful models for reusable software. Hewlett-Packard Journal, 47(4), August 1996.
• 9: James C. Dager, Cummins's experience in developing a software product line architecture for real-time embedded diesel engine controls, Proceedings of the first conference on Software product lines : experience and research directions: experience and research directions, p.23-45, November 2000, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 10: Margaret J. Davis. Reuse strategy model: Planning aid for reuse-based projects. Technical Report CDRL 5159, Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS), 1993.
• 11: Jean-Marc DeBaud , Klaus Schmid, A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines, Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, p.34-43, May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/302405.302409]
• 12: Ken Dymond. A Guide to the CMM --- Understanding the Capability Maturity Model for Software. Process Inc. US, fourth edition, 1996.
• 13: Khaled El Emam and Lionel C. Briand. Costs and benefits of software process improvement. Technical Report 047.97/E, Fraunhofer IESE, 1997.
• 14: Khaled El Emam, Jean-Normand Drouin, and Walcélio Melo. SPICE --- The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE Computer Society, 1998.
• 15: Manuel Eduardo Jaime Esqueda. Product line streamlining: A methodology to guide product costing and decision-making. Master's thesis, Sloan School of Management, June 1998.
• 16: International Organisation for Standardisation (Ed.). ISO/IEC TR 15504-2 "Information Technology --- Software Process Assessment --- Part 2: A Reference Model for Processes and Process Capability". 1998.
• 17: Georg Gawol. Produktsimulationen mit Java im Internet. Master's thesis, Fachhochschule Frankfurt am Main, Fachbereich MND, Allgemeine Informatik, 1999.
• 18: Paul E. Green and Abba M. Krieger. Models and heuristics for product line selection. Marketing Science, 4(1):1-19, 1985.
• 19: James Herbsleb, Anita Carleton, James Rozum, Jane Siegel, and David Zubrow. Benefits of CMM-based software process improvement: Initial results. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-013, Software Engineering Institute, 1994.
• 20: Project Management Institute. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 2000 Edition, chapter Chapter 5: Project Scope Management. Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA 19073-3299, USA, 2000.
• 21: 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, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, November 1990.
• 22: Peter Knauber and Klaus Schmid. Using a quantitative approach for defining generic components: A case study. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW'4), pages 131-135, 2000.
• 23: Pasi Kuvaja, Jouni Similä, Lech Krzanki, Adriana Bicego, Samuli Saukkonen, and Günter Koch. Software Process Assessment and Improvement --- The Bootstrap Approach. Blackwell Business, 1994.
• 24: Charlotte H. Mason and George R. Milne. An approach for identifying cannibalization within product line extensions and multi-brand strategies. Journal of Business Research, 31:163-170, 1994.
• 25: Richard D. McBride and Fred S. Zufryden. Integer programming approach to the optimal product line selection problem. Marketing Science, 7(2):126-140, 1988.
• 26: A. Mili , S. Fowler Chmiel , R. Gottumukkala , L. Zhang, An integrated cost model for software reuse, Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, p.157-166, June 04-11, 2000, Limerick, Ireland [doi>10.1145/337180.337199]
• 27: Jeffrey S. Poulin. Measuring Software Reuse. Addison-Wesley, 1997.
• 28: David C. Rine , Robert M. Sonnemann, Investments in reusable software. A study of software reuse investment success factors, Journal of Systems and Software, v.41 n.1, p.17-32, April 1998 [doi>10.1016/S0164-1212(97)10003-6]
• 29: David Robertson and Karl Ulrich. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39(4):19-31, 1998.
• 30: Kevin J. Sullivan , David Notkin , Alfonso Fuggetta , John Favaro, First workshop on economics-driven software engineering research (EDSER-1), Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, p.699-700, May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/302405.302965]
• 31: Klaus Schmid. A framework for product line quality model development. IESE Report, No. 047.00/E, 2000.
• 32: Klaus Schmid. Product line mapping method. Technical Report 028.00/E, Fraunhofer IESE, 2000.
• 33: Klaus Schmid, Scoping software product lines: an analysis of an emerging technology, Proceedings of the first conference on Software product lines : experience and research directions: experience and research directions, p.513-532, November 2000, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 34: Klaus Schmid, An Initial Model of Product Line Economics, Revised Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering, p.38-50, October 03-05, 2001
• 35: Klaus Schmid and Isabel John. Case study of a product line benefit and risk analysis. In Peter Knauber and Klaus Pohl, editors, 1. Deutscher Software-Produktlinien Workshop (DSPL-1), Kaiserslautern, November 2000, pages 15-22.
• 36: Klaus Schmid and Isabel John. Product line development as a rational, strategic decision. In Klaus Schmid and Birgit Geppert, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Product Line Engineering in Early Steps: Planning, Modeling, and Managing (PLEES'01), 2001.
• 37: Klaus Schmid , Michael Schank, PuLSE-BEAT -- A Decision Support Tool for Scoping Product Lines, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Architectures for Product Families, p.65-75, March 15-17, 2000
• 38: Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation. Reuse Adoption Guidebook, Version 02.00.05, November 1993.
• 39: Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation, Technical Report SPC-92019-CMC. Reuse-Driven Software Processes Guidebook, Version 02.00.03, November 1993.
• 40: Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS), Technical Report STARS-VC-A025/001/00. Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, Version 2.0, 1996.
• 41: Steffen Thiel, Stefan Ferber, and Martin Mergel. An overview of methods supporting product line development. Deliverable BOSCH-WP1-T1.2-01, ITEA-ESAPS Project, June 2000.
• 42: Peter Toft , Derek Coleman , Joni Ohta, A cooperative model for cross-divisional product development for a software product line, Proceedings of the first conference on Software product lines : experience and research directions: experience and research directions, p.111-132, November 2000, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 43: David M. Weiss , Chi Tau Robert Lai, Software product-line engineering: a family-based software development process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures
            Subjects: Patterns (e.g., client/server, pipeline, blackboard)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures
            Subjects: Domain-specific architectures
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Software configuration management

General Terms:
Algorithms, Design, Performance