268,702 research outputs found

    A framework for software reference architecture analysis and review

    Get PDF
    Premio al mejor artículo, X Workshop Latinoamericano Ingeniería de Software Experimental, ESELAW 2013Tight time-to-market needs pushes software companies and IT consulting firms to continuously look for techniques to improve their IT services in general, and the design of software architectures in particular. The use of soft-ware reference architectures allows IT consulting firms reusing architectural knowledge and components in a systematic way. In return, IT consulting firms face the need to analyze the return on investment in software reference architectures for organizations, and to review these reference architectures in order to ensure their quality and incremental improvement. Little support exists to help IT consulting firms to face these challenges. In this paper we present an empirical framework aimed to support the analysis and review of software reference architectures and their use in IT projects by harvesting relevant evidence from the wide spectrum of involved stakeholders.Award-winningPostprint (author’s final draft

    A reference architecture for the collaborative planning modelling process in multi-tier supply chain networks: a Zachman-based approach

    Full text link
    A prominent and contemporary challenge for supply chain (SC) managers concerns the coordination of the efforts of the nodes of the SC in order to mitigate unpredictable market behaviour and satisfy variable customer demand. A productive response to this challenge is to share pertinent market-related information, on a timely basis, in order to effectively manage the decision-making associated with the SC production and transportation planning processes. This paper analyses the most well-known reference modelling languages and frameworks in the collaborative SC field and proposes a novel reference architecture, based upon the Zachman Framework (ZF), for supporting collaborative plan- ning (CP) in multi-level, SC networks. The architecture is applied to an automotive supply chain configuration, where, under a collaborative and decentralised approach, improvements in the service levels for each node were observed. The architecture was shown to provide the base discipline for the organisation of the processes required to manage the CP activity.The authors thanks the support from the project 'Operations Design and Management in Global Supply Chains (GLOBOP)' (Ref. DPI2012-38061-C02-01), funded by the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain, for the supply chain environment research contribution.Hernández Hormazábal, JE.; Lyons, AC.; Poler, R.; Mula, J.; Goncalves, R. (2014). A reference architecture for the collaborative planning modelling process in multi-tier supply chain networks: a Zachman-based approach. Production Planning and Control. 25(13-14):1118-1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2013.808842S111811342513-14Al-Mutawah, K., Lee, V., & Cheung, Y. (2008). A new multi-agent system framework for tacit knowledge management in manufacturing supply chains. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 20(5), 593-610. doi:10.1007/s10845-008-0142-0Baïna, S., Panetto, H., & Morel, G. (2009). New paradigms for a product oriented modelling: Case study for traceability. Computers in Industry, 60(3), 172-183. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2008.12.004Berasategi, L., Arana, J., & Castellano, E. (2011). A comprehensive framework for collaborative networked innovation. Production Planning & Control, 22(5-6), 581-593. doi:10.1080/09537287.2010.536628Chan, H. K., & Chan, F. T. S. (2009). A review of coordination studies in the context of supply chain dynamics. International Journal of Production Research, 48(10), 2793-2819. doi:10.1080/00207540902791843Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647-659. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016Choi, Y., Kang, D., Chae, H., & Kim, K. (2006). An enterprise architecture framework for collaboration of virtual enterprise chains. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(11-12), 1065-1078. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0789-7Choi, Y., Kim, K., & Kim, C. (2005). A design chain collaboration framework using reference models. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 26(1-2), 183-190. doi:10.1007/s00170-004-2262-9COLQUHOUN, G. J., BAINES, R. W., & CROSSLEY, R. (1993). A state of the art review of IDEFO. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 6(4), 252-264. doi:10.1080/09511929308944576Danilovic, M., & Winroth, M. (2005). A tentative framework for analyzing integration in collaborative manufacturing network settings: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1-2), 141-158. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2004.11.008Derrouiche, R., Neubert, G., Bouras, A., & Savino, M. (2010). B2B relationship management: a framework to explore the impact of collaboration. Production Planning & Control, 21(6), 528-546. doi:10.1080/09537287.2010.488932Dudek, G., & Stadtler, H. (2005). Negotiation-based collaborative planning between supply chains partners. European Journal of Operational Research, 163(3), 668-687. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.01.014Gruat La Forme, F.-A., Genoulaz, V. B., & Campagne, J.-P. (2007). A framework to analyse collaborative performance. Computers in Industry, 58(7), 687-697. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.007Gutiérrez Vela, F. L., Isla Montes, J. L., Paderewski Rodríguez, P., Sánchez Román, M., & Jiménez Valverde, B. (2007). An architecture for access control management in collaborative enterprise systems based on organization models. Science of Computer Programming, 66(1), 44-59. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2006.10.005Hernández, J. E., Poler, R., Mula, J., & Lario, F. C. (2010). The Reverse Logistic Process of an Automobile Supply Chain Network Supported by a Collaborative Decision-Making Model. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(1), 79-114. doi:10.1007/s10726-010-9205-7Hernández, J. E., J. Mula, R. Poler, and A. C. Lyons. 2013. “Collaborative Planning in Multi-Tier Supply Chains Supported by a Negotiation-Based Mechanism and Multi-Agent System.”Group Decision and Negotiation Journal. doi:10.1007/s10726-013-9358-2.Jardim-Goncalves, R., Grilo, A., Agostinho, C., Lampathaki, F., & Charalabidis, Y. (2013). Systematisation of Interoperability Body of Knowledge: the foundation for Enterprise Interoperability as a science. Enterprise Information Systems, 7(1), 7-32. doi:10.1080/17517575.2012.684401Kampstra, R. P., Ashayeri, J., & Gattorna, J. L. (2006). Realities of supply chain collaboration. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 17(3), 312-330. doi:10.1108/09574090610717509Kim, W., Chung, M. J., Qureshi, K., & Choi, Y. K. (2006). WSCPC: An architecture using semantic web services for collaborative product commerce. Computers in Industry, 57(8-9), 787-796. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2006.04.007Ku, K.-C., Kao, H.-P., & Gurumurthy, C. K. (2007). Virtual inter-firm collaborative framework—An IC foundry merger/acquisition project. Technovation, 27(6-7), 388-401. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.02.010LEE, J., GRUNINGER, M., JIN, Y., MALONE, T., TATE, A., YOST, G., & OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PIF WORKING GROUP. (1998). The Process Interchange Format and Framework. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(1), 91-120. doi:10.1017/s0269888998001015Lee, J., Chae, H., Kim, C.-H., & Kim, K. (2009). Design of product ontology architecture for collaborative enterprises. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2300-2309. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.042Liu, J., Zhang, S., & Hu, J. (2005). A case study of an inter-enterprise workflow-supported supply chain management system. Information & Management, 42(3), 441-454. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.01.010Marques, D. M. N., & Guerrini, F. M. (2011). Reference model for implementing an MRP system in a highly diverse component and seasonal lean production environment. Production Planning & Control, 23(8), 609-623. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.572469Mula, J., Peidro, D., & Poler, R. (2010). The effectiveness of a fuzzy mathematical programming approach for supply chain production planning with fuzzy demand. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 136-143. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.06.007Murata, T. (1989). Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(4), 541-580. doi:10.1109/5.24143Noran, O. (2003). An analysis of the Zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the GERAM perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 163-183. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2003.09.002Olorunniwo, F. O., & Li, X. (2010). Information sharing and collaboration practices in reverse logistics. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(6), 454-462. doi:10.1108/13598541011080437Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., … Green, P. (2009). Business Process Modeling- A Comparative Analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(04), 333-363. doi:10.17705/1jais.00193Rodriguez, K., & Al-Ashaab, A. (2005). Knowledge web-based system architecture for collaborative product development. Computers in Industry, 56(1), 125-140. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2004.07.004Romero, F., Company, P., Agost, M.-J., & Vila, C. (2008). Activity modelling in a collaborative ceramic tile design chain: an enhanced IDEF0 approach. Research in Engineering Design, 19(1), 1-20. doi:10.1007/s00163-007-0040-zSandberg, E. (2007). Logistics collaboration in supply chains: practice vs. theory. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 18(2), 274-293. doi:10.1108/09574090710816977Spekman, R. E., & Carraway, R. (2006). Making the transition to collaborative buyer–seller relationships: An emerging framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(1), 10-19. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.07.002Stevens, W. P., Myers, G. J., & Constantine, L. L. (1974). Structured design. IBM Systems Journal, 13(2), 115-139. doi:10.1147/sj.132.0115Ulieru, M. (2000). A multi-resolution collaborative architecture for web-centric global manufacturing. Information Sciences, 127(1-2), 3-21. doi:10.1016/s0020-0255(00)00026-8Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (1999). Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Information and Software Technology, 41(10), 639-650. doi:10.1016/s0950-5849(99)00016-6Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276-292. doi:10.1147/sj.263.0276Zapp, M., Forster, C., Verl, A., & Bauernhansl, T. (2012). A Reference Model for Collaborative Capacity Planning Between Automotive and Semiconductor Industry. Procedia CIRP, 3, 155-160. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.028Zeng, Y., Wang, L., Deng, X., Cao, X., & Khundker, N. (2012). Secure collaboration in global design and supply chain environment: Problem analysis and literature review. Computers in Industry, 63(6), 545-556. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2012.05.00

    Towards interoperability through inter-enterprise collaboration architectures

    Full text link
    Most enterprise architectures published so far are capable of generating reasonably good descriptive models for individual enterprises to enable integration, organization and synchronization of enterprise elements: organizational structure, business processes, information systems and technology infrastructure, among others. However, research in this field applied to the extended enterprise or inter-enterprise architectures that takes into account the growing trend towards complex collaborative environments is very scarce. In this sense, this article seeks to analyze, link and synthesize the researches that has addressed the disciplines of enterprise architecture and business collaboration, in order to identify possible future research needs from the conceptualization made.Vargas, A.; Boza Garcia, A.; Cuenca, L. (2011). Towards interoperability through inter-enterprise collaboration architectures. En On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2011 Workshops. Springer Verlag (Germany). 7046:102-111. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25126-9_18S1021117046Adam, O., Hofer, A., Zang, S., Hammer, C., Jerrentrup, M., Leinenbach, S.: A Collaboration Framework for Cross-enterprise Business Process Management. In: First International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Application, Geneva (2005)Chalmeta, R., Grangel, R.: ARDIN extension for virtual enterprise integration. The Journal of Systems and Software 67, 141–152 (2003)Choi, Y., Kang, D., Chae, H., Kim, K.: An enterprise architecture framework for collaboration of virtual enterprise chains. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 35, 1065–1078 (2008)Schekkerman, J.: Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework Essentials Guide. Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments, IFEAD (2006), http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/index.htmISO 15704. Industrial automation systems - Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies.: International Organization for Standardization (2000)Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., Zelm, M.: CIMOSA: Enterprise engineering and integration. Computers in Industry 40, 83–97 (1999)Cuenca, L.: Marco arquitectónico para la propuesta IE-GIP. Extensión de la arquitectura CIMOSA. Aplicación a una empresa del sector cerámico. PhD thesis. Universidad Politécnica de ValenciaMolina, A., Panetto, H., Chen, D., Whitman, L.: Enterprise Integration and Networking: challenges and trends. Studies in Informatics and Control 16(4), 353–368 (2007)Ortiz, A., Lario, F., Ros, L.: Enterprise Integration—Business Processes Integrated Management: a proposal for a methodology to develop Enterprise Integration Programs. Computers in Industry 40, 155–171 (1999)Chalmeta, R., Campos, C., Grangel, R.: References architectures for enterprise integration. The Journal of Systems and Software 57, 175–191 (2001)Vernadat, F.: Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control 26, 15–25 (2002)Williams, T., Li, H.: PERA and GERAM enterprise reference architectures in enterprise integration. Information Infrastructure Systems for Manufacturing, 1–27 (1998)Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Arango, M., Londoño, J., Zapata, J.: Arquitectura empresarial- Una visión general. Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín 9(16), 101–111 (2010)Bernard, S.: An introduction to enterprise architecture. AuthorHouse, Bloomington (2005)Cuenca, L., Ortiz, A., Boza, A.: Arquitectura de Empresa. Visión General. In: IX Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización, Gijón (2005)Maya, E.: Arquitectura empresarial: un nuevo reto para las empresas de hoy. Centro de Investigación de las Telecomunicaciones. INTERACTIC: Interacción con la información (2010), http://www.interactic.org.co/THE OPEN GROUP.: ARCHIMATE, The Power of Enterprise Architecture (2009), http://www.archimate.org/en/home/Stelzer, D.: Enterprise Architecture Principles: Literature Review and Research Directions. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 12–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Schekkerman, J.: Enterprise architecture validation. Achieving business-aligned and validated enterprise architectures. Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments, IFEAD (2004), http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/index.htmKosanke, K.: CIMOSA Primer on key concepts, purpose and business value (1996), http://cimosa.cnt.pl/Chen, D., Vallespir, B., Doumeingts, G.: GRAI integrated methodology and its mapping onto generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Computers in Industry 33, 387–394 (1997)Rathwell, G.: PERA Enterprise Integration Web Site (2005), http://www.pera.net/Williams, T., Rathwell, G., Li, H.: A handbook on master planning and implementation for enterprise integration programs. PERA Enterprise Integration Web Site (2001), http://www.pera.net/IFIP.: GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology. International Federation for Information Processing (1999), http://dl.ifip.org/index.php/index/indexOrtiz, A.: Propuesta para el Desarrollo de Programas de Integración Empresarial en Empresas Industriales. Aplicación a una Empresa del Sector Cerámico. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (1998)Cuenca, L., Boza, A., Ortiz, A.: Architecting business and IS/IT strategic alignment for extend enterprises. Studies in Informatics and Control 20(1), 7–18 (2011)The Open Group (2011), https://www.opengroup.org/index.htmGrangel, R.: Propuesta para el Modelado del Conocimiento Empresarial. PhD thesis Universidad Jaume I de Castello (2007)Scheer, A., Schneider, K.: ARIS – Architecture of Integrated Information. Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. International Handbooks on Information Systems 3, 605–623 (2006)ISO/CEN 19439. Enterprise integration - Framework for enterprise modelling.: International Organization for Standardization (2006)Stadtler, H., Kilger, C.: Supply Chain Management and advance planning. Concepts, Models, Sofware and Cases Studies. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Alarcón, F., Ortiz, A., Alemany, M., Lario, F.: Planificación Colaborativa en un contexto de varias Cadenas de Suministro: ventajas y desventajas. In: VIII Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización, Leganés, pp. 857–866 (2004)Alarcón, F.: Desarrollo de una Arquitectura para la definición del proceso de Comprometer Pedidos en contextos de Redes de Suministro Colaborativas. Aplicación a una Red compuesta por Cadenas de Suministro en los Sectores Cerámico y del Mueble. PhD thesis Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (2005)Petersen, K., Ragatz, G., Monczka, R.: An Examination of Collaborative Planning Effectiveness and Supply Chain Performance. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 41(2), 14–25 (2005)Ribas, I., Companys, R.: Estado del arte de la planificación colaborativa en la cadena de suministro: Contexto determinista e incierto. Intangible Capital, 91–121 (2007)Ribas, I., Lario, F., Companys, R.: Modelos para la planificación colaborativa en la cadena de suministro: contexto determinista e incierto. In: Congreso de ingeniería de organización, Valencia, pp. 1–10 (2006)Dudek, G.: Collaborative Planning in Supply Chains. Supply Chain Management and Collaborative Planning. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Stadtler, H.: A framework for collaborative planning and state-of-the-art. OR Spectrum 31, 5–30 (2009)Kilger, C., Reuter, B., Stadtler, H.: Collaborative Planning. In: Stadtler, H., Kilger, C. (eds.) Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning-—Concepts, Models Software and Case Studies, pp. 263–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Audy, J., Lehoux, N., D’Amours, S.: A framework for an efficient implementation of logistics collaborations. International Transactions in Operational Research, 1–25 (2010)Zachman, J.: A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 454–470 (1987

    A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

    Full text link
    [EN] It is widely accepted that software measures provide an appropriate mechanism for understanding, monitoring, controlling, and predicting the quality of software development projects. In software product lines (SPL), quality is even more important than in a single software product since, owing to systematic reuse, a fault or an inadequate design decision could be propagated to several products in the family. Over the last few years, a great number of quality attributes and measures for assessing the quality of SPL have been reported in literature. However, no studies summarizing the current knowledge about them exist. This paper presents a systematic literature review with the objective of identifying and interpreting all the available studies from 1996 to 2010 that present quality attributes and/or measures for SPL. These attributes and measures have been classified using a set of criteria that includes the life cycle phase in which the measures are applied; the corresponding quality characteristics; their support for specific SPL characteristics (e. g., variability, compositionality); the procedure used to validate the measures, etc. We found 165 measures related to 97 different quality attributes. The results of the review indicated that 92% of the measures evaluate attributes that are related to maintainability. In addition, 67% of the measures are used during the design phase of Domain Engineering, and 56% are applied to evaluate the product line architecture. However, only 25% of them have been empirically validated. In conclusion, the results provide a global vision of the state of the research within this area in order to help researchers in detecting weaknesses, directing research efforts, and identifying new research lines. In particular, there is a need for new measures with which to evaluate both the quality of the artifacts produced during the entire SPL life cycle and other quality characteristics. There is also a need for more validation (both theoretical and empirical) of existing measures. In addition, our results may be useful as a reference guide for practitioners to assist them in the selection or the adaptation of existing measures for evaluating their software product lines. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the MULTIPLE (Multimodeling Approach For Quality-Aware Software Product Lines) project with ref. TIN2009-13838.Montagud Gregori, S.; Abrahao Gonzales, SM.; Insfrán Pelozo, CE. (2012). A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines. Software Quality Journal. 20(3-4):425-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9146-7S425486203-4Abdelmoez, W., Nassar, D. M., Shereschevsky, M., Gradetsky, N., Gunnalan, R., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2004). Error propagation in software architectures. In 10th international symposium on software metrics (METRICS), Chicago, Illinois, USA.Ajila, S. A., & Dumitrescu, R. T. (2007). Experimental use of code delta, code churn, and rate of change to understand software product line evolution. Journal of Systems and Software, 80, 74–91.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2006). Experience measuring maintainability in software product lines. In XV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD). Barcelona.Aldekoa, G., Trujillo, S., Sagardui, G., & Díaz, O. (2008). Quantifying maintanibility in feature oriented product lines, Athens, Greece, pp. 243–247.Alves de Oliveira Junior, E., Gimenes, I. M. S., & Maldonado, J. C. (2008). A metric suite to support software product line architecture evaluation. In XXXIV Conferencia Latinamericana de Informática (CLEI), Santa Fé, Argentina, pp. 489–498.Alves, V., Niu, N., Alves, C., & Valença, G. (2010). Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Information & Software Technology, 52(8), 806–820.Bosch, J. (2000). Design and use of software architectures: Adopting and evolving a product line approach. USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Briand, L. C., Differing, C. M., & Rombach, D. (1996a). Practical guidelines for measurement-based process improvement. Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 2, 253–280.Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R. (1996b). Property based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Eng., 22(1), 68–86.Calero, C., Ruiz, J., & Piattini, M. (2005). Classifying web metrics using the web quality model. Online Information Review, 29(3): 227–248.Chen, L., Ali Babar, M., & Ali, N. (2009). Variability management in software product lines: A systematic review. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2002). Software product lines. 2003. Software product lines practices and patterns. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Crnkovic, I., & Larsson, M. (2004). Classification of quality attributes for predictability in component-based systems. Journal of Econometrics, pp. 231–250.Conference Rankings of Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE). (2010). Available in http://core.edu.au/index.php/categories/conference%20rankings/1 .Davis, A., Dieste, Ó., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2006). Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In 14th IEEE international conference requirements engineering, pp. 179–188.de Souza Filho, E. D., de Oliveira Cavalcanti, R., Neiva, D. F. S., Oliveira, T. H. B., Barachisio Lisboa, L., de Almeida E. S., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2008). Evaluating domain design approaches using systematic review. In 2nd European conference on software architecture, Cyprus, pp. 50–65.Ejiogu, L. (1991). Software engineering with formal metrics. QED Publishing.Engström, E., & Runeson, P. (2011). Software product line testing—A systematic mapping study. Information & Software Technology, 53(1), 2–13.Etxeberria, L., Sagarui, G., & Belategi, L. (2008). Quality aware software product line engineering. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 14(1), Campinas Mar.Ganesan, D., Knodel, J., Kolb, R., Haury, U., & Meier, G. (2007). Comparing costs and benefits of different test strategies for a software product line: A study from Testo AG. In 11th international software product line conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 74–83, September 2007.Gómez, O., Oktaba, H., Piattini, M., & García, F. (2006). A systematic review measurement in software engineering: State-of-the-art in measures. In First international conference on software and data technologies (ICSOFT), Setúbal, Portugal, pp. 11–14.IEEE standard for a software quality metrics methodology, IEEE Std 1061-1998, 1998.Inoki, M., & Fukazawa, Y. (2007). Software product line evolution method based on Kaizen approach. In 22nd annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Korea.Insfran, E., & Fernandez, A. (2008). A systematic review of usability evaluation in Web development. 2nd international workshop on web usability and accessibility (IWWUA’08), New Zealand, LNCS 5176, Springer, pp. 81–91.ISO/IEC 25010. (2008). Systems and software engineering. Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and software quality models.ISO/IEC 9126. (2000). Software engineering. Product Quality.Johansson, E., & Höst, R. (2002). Tracking degradation in software product lines through measurement of design rule violations. In 14th International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, Ischia, Italy, pp. 249–254.Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. (2010). Available in http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports/ .Khurum, M., & Gorschek, T. (2009). A systematic review of domain analysis solutions for product lines. The Journal of Systems and Software.Kim, T., Ko, I. Y., Kang, S. W., & Lee, D. H. (2008). Extending ATAM to assess product line architecture. In 8th IEEE international conference on computer and information technology, pp. 790–797.Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report, Keele University, UK.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., & Fenton, N. (1995). Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(12).Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Mendes, E. (2005). A systematic review of Web engineering research. International symposium on empirical software engineering. Noosa Heads, Australia.Meyer, M. H., & Dalal, D. (2002). Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for non assembled products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(4), 277–293.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). Gathering Current knowledge about quality evaluation in software product lines. In 13th international software product lines conferences (SPLC), San Francisco, USA.Montagud, S., & Abrahão, S. (2009). A SQuaRE-bassed quality evaluation method for software product lines. Master’s thesis, December 2009 (in Spanish).Needham, D., & Jones, S. (2006). A software fault tree metric. In 22nd international conference on software maintenance (ICSM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.Niemelä, E., & Immonen, A. (2007). Capturing quality requirements of product family architecture. Information and Software Technology, 49(11–12), 1107–1120.Odia, O. E. (2007). Testing in software product lines. Master Thesis Software Engineering of School of Engineering, Bleking Institute of Technology. Thesis no. MSE-2007:16, Sweden.Olumofin, F. G., & Mišić, V. B. (2007). A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 49, 309–323.Pérez Lamancha, B., Polo Usaola, M., & Piattini Velthius, M. (2009). Software product line testing—a systematic review. ICSOFT, (1), 23–30.Poels, G., & Dedene, G. (2000). Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 42(I), 35–46.Prehofer, C., van Gurp, J., & Bosch, J. (2008). Compositionality in software platforms. In Emerging methods, technologies and process management in software engineering. Wiley.Rahman, A. (2004). Metrics for the structural assessment of product line architecture. Master Thesis on Software Engineering, Thesis no. MSE-2004:24. School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.Sethi, K., Cai, Y., Wong, S., Garcia, A., & Sant’Anna, C. (2009). From retrospect to prospect: Assessing modularity and stability from software architecture. Joint working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture, 2009 & European conference on software architecture. WICSA/ECSA.Shaik, I., Abdelmoez, W,. Gunnalan, R., Shereshevsky, M., Zeid, A., Ammar, H. H., et al. (2005). Change propagation for assessing design quality of software architectures. 5th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA’05).Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., Kuhlemann, M., Kästner, C., & Saake, G. (2008). Measuring non-functional properties in software product lines for product derivation. In 15th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, Beijing, China.Sun Her, J., Hyeok Kim, J., Hun Oh, S., Yul Rhew, S., & Dong Kim, S. (2007). A framework for evaluating reusability of core asset in product line engineering. Information and Software Technology, 49, 740–760.Svahnberg, M., & Bosch, J. (2000). Evolution in software product lines. In 3rd international workshop on software architectures for products families (IWSAPF-3). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.Van der Hoek, A., Dincel, E., & Medidović, N. (2003). Using services utilization metrics to assess the structure of product line architectures. In 9th international software metrics symposium (METRICS), Sydney, Australia.Van der Linden, F., Schmid, K., & Rommes, E. (2007). Software product lines in action. Springer.Whitmire, S. (1997). Object oriented design measurement. John Wiley & Sons.Wnuk, K., Regnell, B., & Karlsson, L. (2009). What happened to our features? Visualization and understanding of scope change dynamics in a large-scale industrial setting. In 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference.Yoshimura, K., Ganesan, D., & Muthig, D. (2006). Assessing merge potential of existing engine control systems into a product line. In International workshop on software engineering for automative systems, Shangai, China, pp. 61–67.Zhang, T., Deng, L., Wu, J., Zhou, Q., & Ma, C. (2008). Some metrics for accessing quality of product line architecture. In International conference on computer science and software engineering (CSSE), Wuhan, China, pp. 500–503

    Advanced Techniques for Assets Maintenance Management

    Get PDF
    16th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing INCOM 2018 Bergamo, Italy, 11–13 June 2018. Edited by Marco Macchi, László Monostori, Roberto PintoThe aim of this paper is to remark the importance of new and advanced techniques supporting decision making in different business processes for maintenance and assets management, as well as the basic need of adopting a certain management framework with a clear processes map and the corresponding IT supporting systems. Framework processes and systems will be the key fundamental enablers for success and for continuous improvement. The suggested framework will help to define and improve business policies and work procedures for the assets operation and maintenance along their life cycle. The following sections present some achievements on this focus, proposing finally possible future lines for a research agenda within this field of assets management

    Towards guidelines for building a business case and gathering evidence of software reference architectures in industry

    Get PDF
    Background: Software reference architectures are becoming widely adopted by organizations that need to support the design and maintenance of software applications of a shared domain. For organizations that plan to adopt this architecture-centric approach, it becomes fundamental to know the return on investment and to understand how software reference architectures are designed, maintained, and used. Unfortunately, there is little evidence-based support to help organizations with these challenges. Methods: We have conducted action research in an industry-academia collaboration between the GESSI research group and everis, a multinational IT consulting firm based in Spain. Results: The results from such collaboration are being packaged in order to create guidelines that could be used in similar contexts as the one of everis. The main result of this paper is the construction of empirically-grounded guidelines that support organizations to decide on the adoption of software reference architectures and to gather evidence to improve RA-related practices. Conclusions: The created guidelines could be used by other organizations outside of our industry-academia collaboration. With this goal in mind, we describe the guidelines in detail for their use.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

    A hierarchy of SPI activities for software SMEs: results from ISO/IEC 12207-based SPI assessments

    Get PDF
    In an assessment of software process improvement (SPI) in 15 software small- and –medium-sized enterprises (software SMEs), we applied the broad spectrum of software specific and system context processes in ISO/IEC 12207 to the task of examining SPI in practice. Using the data collected in the study, we developed a four-tiered pyramidal hierarchy of SPI for software SMEs, with processes in the higher tiers undergoing SPI in more companies than processes on lower level tiers. The development of the hierarchy of SPI activities for software SMEs can facilitate future evolutions of process maturity reference frameworks, such as ISO/IEC 15504, in better supporting software development in software SMEs. Furthermore, the findings extend our body of knowledge concerning the practice of SPI in software SMEs, a large and vital sector of the software development community that has largely avoided the implementation of established process maturity and software quality management standards
    corecore