Search

Software engineering is decision intensive. Evidence‐based software engineering is suggested for decision‐making concerning the use of methods and technologies when developing software. Software development often includes the reuse of software assets, for example, open‐source components. Which components to use have implications on the quality of the software (e.g., maintainability). Thus, research is needed to support decision‐making for composite software. This paper presents a roadmap for research required to support evidence‐based decision‐making for choosing and integrating assets in composite software systems. The roadmap is developed as an output from a 5‐year project in the area, including researchers from three different organizations. The roadmap is developed in an iterative process and is based on (1) systematic literature reviews of the area; (2) investigations of the state of practice, including a case survey and a survey; and (3) development and evaluation of solutions for asset identification and selection. The research activities resulted in identifying 11 areas in need of research. The areas are grouped into two categories: areas enabling evidence‐based decision‐making and those related to supporting the decision‐making. The roadmap outlines research needs in these 11 areas. The research challenges and research directions presented in this roadmap are key areas for further research to support evidence‐based decision‐making for composite software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Software reuse is often seen as a cost avoidance rather than a gained value. This results in a rather one-sided debate where issues such a resource control, release schedule, quality, or reuse in more than one release are neglected. Aims We propose a reuse value assessment framework, intended to provide a more nuanced view of the value and costs associated with different reuse candidates. Method This framework is constructed based on findings from an interview study at a large software development company. Results The framework considers the functionality, compliance to standards, provided quality, and provided support of a reuse candidate, thus enabling an informed comparison between different reuse candidates. Furthermore, the framework provides means for tracking the value of the reused asset throughout subsequent releases. Conclusions The reuse value assessment framework is a tool to assist in the selection between different reuse candidates. The framework also provides a means to assess the current value of a reusable asset in a product, which can be used to indicate where maintenance efforts would increase the utilized potential of the reusable asset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Value stream mapping (VSM) is one of the several Lean practices, which has recently attracted interest in the software engineering community. In other contexts (such as military, health and production), VSM has achieved considerable improvements in processes and products. The goal is to capitalize on these benefits in the software intensive product development context. The primary contribution is that we are extending the definition of waste to fit in the software intensive product development context. As traditionally in VSM everything that is not considered valuable is waste, we do this practically by looking at value beyond the customer perspective and using the software value map. An evaluation has been conducted through an industrial case study. First, the instantiation and motivations for selecting certain strategies have been provided. Second, the outcome of the VSM is described in detail. The instantiation of VSM via workshops was considered good as workshops allowed active interaction and discussion stakeholders' groups that are distant from each other in the regular work. With respect to waste and improvement identification, the participants were able to identify similar improvement suggestions. In a retrospective, the value stream approach was perceived positively by the practitioners with respect to process and outcome. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY Software Process Improvement (SPI) encompasses the analysis and modification of the processes within software development, aimed at improving key areas that contribute to the organizations' goals. The task of evaluating whether the selected improvement path meets these goals is challenging. On the basis of the results of a systematic literature review on SPI measurement and evaluation practices, we developed a framework (SPI Measurement and Evaluation Framework (SPI-MEF)) that supports the planning and implementation of SPI evaluations. SPI-MEF guides the practitioner in scoping the evaluation, determining measures, and performing the assessment. SPI-MEF does not assume a specific approach to process improvement and can be integrated in existing measurement programs, refocusing the assessment on evaluating the improvement initiative's outcome. Sixteen industry and academic experts evaluated the framework's usability and capability to support practitioners, providing additional insights that were integrated in the application guidelines of the framework. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In software intensive products such as cars or telecom systems, software has traditionally been associated with cost, and there has been no real perception of its value in relation to the entire product offering. How-ever, because software is becoming a larger part of the main competitive advantage, driving innovation and product differentiation, hardware is becoming more standardized, thus the valuation of software is becoming critical. In existing literature, several value constructs and corresponding valuation/measurement solutions needed for making decisions about software product development are presented. However, the contributions are often isolated with respect to a certain perspective such as focusing on product's internal or external quality aspects only. Consequently, a complete view of value constructs relevant from different perspectives required for making decisions about software product development is missing. This paper presents a consolidated view of the software value concept utilizing the major perspectives and introduces a software value map. The created value map was evaluated through an industry case study through the development of impact evaluation patterns, which were subsequently used by professionals in industry, and experiences gathered. During industry evaluation, practitioners found substantial benefits of having a consolidated, vastly improved, and extended value aspect's view of software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY The area of software product development of software intensive products has received much attention, especially in the area of requirements engineering and product management. Many companies are faced with new challenges when operating in an environment where potential requirements number in thousands or even tens of thousands, and where a product does not have a customer, but any number of customers or markets. The development organization carries not only all the costs of development, but also takes all the risks. In this environment traditional bespoke requirements engineering, together with traditional process assessment and improvement models fall short as they do not address the unique challenges of a market-driven environment. This paper introduces the Market-driven Requirements Engineering Process Model, aimed at enabling process improvement and process assurance for organizations faced with these new challenges. The model is also validated in the industry through three case studies where the model is used for process assessment and improvement suggestion. Initial results show that the model is appropriate for process improvement for organizations operating in a market-driven environment. In addition, the model was designed to be light weight in terms of low cost and thus adapted not only for large organizations but suitable for small and medium enterprises as well. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]