Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2973839.2973850acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Preliminary Empirical Evidence on SPrL Variability Management with EPF and SMartySPEM

Published: 19 September 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Every day increases the level of demand by customers in regard to the quality and complexity of software systems. Because of this, companies are increasingly customizing their software processes according to market and project needs. A systematic way is the use of the Software Process Line strategy (SPrL), in which each product derived from the line is a specific software process. Therefore, variability management is an essential activity. This paper presents an empirical study comparing the compositional and the annotative approaches in representing variability in SPrLs taking into consideration a SCRUM-based SPrL. Eclipse Process Framework was chosen to represent the compositional approach, whereas SMartySPEM was considered to the annotative approach. The approaches were compared taking into account the sequential exploratory strategy based on mixed-methods. A qualitative empirical study comparing these approaches was planned, executed and previously published with relation to the following set of criteria: modularity, traceability, error detection, granularity and systematic management of variability. Such study was based on the expertise of software process experts and provided important information for the hypothesis formulation about systematic management of variability, the main dependent variable of this quantitative study. Thus, the quantitative study presented in this paper analyzes the effectiveness of variability representation. As the main contribution of this paper, we present preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of variability management, allowing supporting the gathering of solid evidence for further research in academic and industrial set about the compositional and annotative approaches for variability management in SPrLs. As a result of this quantitative empirical study it was not statistically possible to confirm that the annotative approach is more effective than the compositional approach.

References

[1]
J. A. H. Alegría and M. C. Bastarrica. Building Software Process Lines with CASPER. In International Conference on Software and System Process, pages 170--179, 2012.
[2]
F. A. Aleixo. Uma Abordagem Anotativa para Gerência de Variabilidades em Linhas de Processos de Software: Concepção, Implementação e Avaliação. Doutorado, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, UFRN, Rio Grande do Norte-RN, 2013.
[3]
F. A. Aleixo, M. Freire, D. Alencar, E. Campos, and U. Kulesza. A Comparative Study of Compositional and Annotative Modelling Approaches for Software Process Lines. In Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, pages 51--60, 2012.
[4]
F. A. Aleixo, U. Kulesza, M. A. Freire, D. A. da Costa, and E. C. Neto. Modularizing software process lines using model-driven approaches - a comparative study. In L. A. Maciaszek, A. Cuzzocrea, and J. Cordeiro, editors, Modularizing Software Process Lines using Model-driven Approaches - A Comparative Study., pages 120--125, 2012b.
[5]
F. A. Aleixo, U. Kulesza, M. A. Freire, and W. Santos. Uma Abordagem para Gerência e Customização de Variabilidades em Processos de Software. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software, pages 118--127, 2010.
[6]
F. A. Aleixo, U. Kulesza, and E. OliveiraJr. Modeling Variabilities from Software Process Lines with Compositional and Annotative Techniques: a Quantitative Study. International Conference on Product-Focused Software Development and Process Improvement, 19:153--168, 2013.
[7]
O. Armbrust, M. Katahira, Y. Miyamoto, J. Münch, H. Nakao, and A. Ocampo. Scoping Software Process Lines. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 14(3):181--197, May 2009.
[8]
V. R. Basili, G. Caldiera, and H. D. Rombach. The Goal Question Metric Approach. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley, 1994.
[9]
J. Bosch, R. Capilla, and R. Hilliard. Trends in Systems and Software Variability. IEEE Software, 32(3):44--51, 2015.
[10]
M. K. Chemuturi and T. M. Cagley. Mastering Software Project Management: Best Practices, Tools and Techniques. J. Ross Publishing, Inc., 2010.
[11]
J. W. Creswell and V. L. P. Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE, 2010.
[12]
J. W. Dias and E. OliveiraJr. Modeling Variability in Software Process with EPF Composer and SMartySPEM: an Empirical Qualitative Study. International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 283--293, 2016.
[13]
T. Dyba, R. Prikladnicki, K. Ronkko, C. Seaman, and J. Sillito. Qualitative Research in Software Engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 16:425--429, 2011.
[14]
T. Dybå R. Prikladnicki, K. Rönkkö, C. Seaman, and J. Sillito. Qualitative research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 16(4):425--429, 2011.
[15]
ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 12207:2008 - Systems and Software Engineering -- Software Life Cycle Processes. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization, 2008.
[16]
N. Juristo and A. M. Moreno. Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Springer, Madrid, 2010.
[17]
C. Kästner. Virtual Separation of Concerns: Toward Preprocessors 2.0. PhD thesis, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, 2010.
[18]
C. Kästner and S. Apel. Integrating Compositional and Annotative Approaches for Product Line Engineering. In GPCE Workshop on Modularization, Composition and Generative Techniques for Product Line Engineering, pages 35--40, 2008.
[19]
C. Kästner, S. Apel, and M. Kuhlemann. Granularity in Software Product Lines. In International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 311--320, 2008.
[20]
F. J. v. d. Linden, K. Schmid, and E. Rommes. Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Industrial Practice in Product Line Engineering. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2007.
[21]
J. Munch, O. Armbrust, M. Kowalczyk, and M. Soto. Software Process Definition and Management. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012.
[22]
E. OliveiraJr, M. G. Pazin, I. M. S. Gimenes, U. Kulesza, and F. A. Aleixo. SMartySPEM: a SPEM-based Approach for Variability Management in Software Process Lines. International Conference on Product-Focused Software Development and Process Improvement, pages 169--183, 2013.
[23]
D. Rombach. Integrated Software Process and Product Lines. In International Conference on Unifying the Software Process Spectrum, pages 83--90, 2005.
[24]
C. B. Seaman. Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, pages 557--572, 1999.
[25]
C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Host, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslén. Experimentation in Software Engineering, volume 44. Springer, 2012.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Variability Representation in Software Process with the SMartySPEM ApproachUML-Based Software Product Line Engineering with SMarty10.1007/978-3-031-18556-4_17(369-391)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2022
  • (2019)Software process line as an approach to support software process reuseInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2019.08.007116:COnline publication date: 1-Dec-2019
  • (2018)Comparing SMartySPEM and vSPEM for Modeling Variability in Software ProcessesProceedings of the XVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3275245.3275253(71-80)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2018
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBES '16: Proceedings of the XXX Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
September 2016
167 pages
ISBN:9781450342018
DOI:10.1145/2973839
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

  • SBC: Brazilian Computer Society

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 September 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Eclipse Process Framework
  2. Estudo Empírico
  3. SMartySPEM
  4. Variabilidade em Processo de Software

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • None

Conference

SBES '16
SBES '16: 30th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
September 19 - 23, 2016
Maringá, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 427 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 26 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Variability Representation in Software Process with the SMartySPEM ApproachUML-Based Software Product Line Engineering with SMarty10.1007/978-3-031-18556-4_17(369-391)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2022
  • (2019)Software process line as an approach to support software process reuseInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2019.08.007116:COnline publication date: 1-Dec-2019
  • (2018)Comparing SMartySPEM and vSPEM for Modeling Variability in Software ProcessesProceedings of the XVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3275245.3275253(71-80)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2018
  • (2018)Empirical study on software process variability modelling with SMartySPEM and vSPEMIET Software10.1049/iet-sen.2017.006112:6(536-546)Online publication date: Dec-2018

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media