Abstract
This paper proposes a 4-dimensional software product family engineering evaluation model. The 4 dimensions relate to the software engineering concerns of business, architecture, organisation and process. The evaluation model is meant to be used within organisations to determine the status of their own software family engineering. Evaluation results may be used for benchmarking or improvement plans.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
America, P., Obbink, H., van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F.: CoPAM: A Component-Oriented Platform Architecting Method Family for Product family Engineering. In: Proceedings SPLC 2001, pp. 167–180 (2001)
Basili, V., Caldiera, G., McGarry, F., Pajersky, R., Page, G., Waligora, S.: The Software Engineering Laboratory – an operational Software Experience Factory. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 1992, pp. 370–381 (1992)
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Experience Factory. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 469–476. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)
Bosch, J.: Maturity and Evolution in Software Product Lines: Approaches, Artefacts and Organization. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 257–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines – Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)
CMMISM for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Version 1.1, Continuous Representation (CMMISE/ SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1, Continuous), Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-011, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2002)
CMMISM for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Version 1.1, Staged Representation (CMMI-SE/SW/ IPPD/SS, V1.1, Staged), Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2002)
Känsälä, K., Voltti, P.: How Nokia moved from SW-CMM to CMMI in a year. In: European SEPG Conference, London, UK, June 16-19 (2003)
Känsälä, K.: Assessing the maturity of Nokia’s SW product lines. Dagstuhl Seminar 03151 on Product family Development. April 7-10, Dagstuhl, Germany (2003)
van der Linden, F.: Software Product families in Europe: The Esaps and Café Projects. IEEE Software, 41-49 (July/August 2002)
Northrop, L., et al.: A Framework for Software Product Line Practice Version 4.1, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/plp/framework.html
Paulk, M., et al.: Capability Maturity Model of Software, Version 1.1. Tech Report CMU/SEI-93-TR24, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1993)
Thomas, M., McGarry, F.: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Process Improvement. IEEE Software, 12-13 (July 1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
van der Linden, F., Bosch, J., Kamsties, E., Känsälä, K., Krzanik, L., Obbink, H. (2004). Software Product Family Evaluation. In: van der Linden, F.J. (eds) Software Product-Family Engineering. PFE 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3014. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24667-1_27
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-21941-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24667-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive