A usage coverage based approach for assessing product family design

En adoptant un point de vue utilitariste du consommateur sur certains produits orientés service, nous avons d'abord contribué à la proposition d un modèle de contextes d usage que se doit de couvrir au mieux un produit. Le modèle conduit à une meilleure intégration des analyses de marketing et d ingénierie de la conception amenant à une optimisation d'un produit paramétré plus orientée vers les besoins du marché ou à un meilleur étagement d'une famille de produits. Nous proposons une série d'indices qui révèlent l'adéquation entre les usages couverts par un produit de dimensions données ou une famille de produits donnée avec un espace d'usages cible qu il s agit de couvrir dans sa totalité ou en partie mais d'une manière suffisamment dominante par rapport à la concurrence. En premier lieu, l'indice de couverture d usage (UCI) pour un produit unique est introduit par la cartographie du produit relativement à un ensemble d utilisateurs représentatifs définis par des usages attendus. Sur cette base, l'UCI pour une famille de produits est construite pour évaluer la composition de la famille et la redondance des produits qui la composent. Les avantages par rapport à la traditionnelle estimation de la demande en marketing sont de réduire la complexité de l'enquête et de l'analyse des données et de pouvoir estimer le niveau de compétitivité d une offre innovante sans nécessiter de retour d expérience du marché. Nous expérimentons nos propositions sur un problème de reconception d une famille de scies sauteuses. L'approche proposée permet d'évaluer l'adaptabilité, pour une famille de produits de tailles croissantes, à divers scénarios dans le contexte d'usage d'un marché cible. Les concepteurs peuvent s'appuyer sur les résultats pour éliminer les produits redondants au sein d'une famille. Des configurations de produits de tailles croissantes peuvent aussi être rapidement simulées et comparées de manière à aboutir à une famille minimale de produits idéalement étagée.Adopting a utilitarian viewpoint of consumers on some service-oriented goods, we have first contributed to the proposal of a usage contexts model that a product should cover at most. The model leads to a higher integration of design engineering and marketing analyses which results in a more market-oriented optimization of a parameterized product or a better sampling of a product family. We propose a series of usage coverage indices that reveal the adequacy of a dimensioned product or a given product family to a targeted usage space to cover in its whole or for a part but sufficiently in a dominant way compared to competing products. First, the Usage Coverage Index (UCI) for single product is introduced by mapping the given product with a set of representative users defined by expected usages. On that basis, the UCI for a product family is constructed to evaluate the composition and redundancy of the family. The advantage compared to traditional demand estimation in marketing research is to reduce the complexity of survey and data analysis and to assess the competitiveness level of an innovative service offer without needing any return of experience from the market. We experiment our proposals on a jigsaw product family redesign problem. The proposed analysis approach helps to evaluate the adaptability, for a given scale-based product family, to diverse usage context scenarios in a target market. Designers can rely on the results to filter out redundant products within a family. Scale-based configurations of the products can also be rapidly simulated and compared to find out an appropriate sampled series of products.CHATENAY MALABRY-Ecole centrale (920192301) / SudocSudocFranceF

Iterative criteria-based approach to engineering the requirements of software development methodologies

Software engineering endeavours are typically based on and governed by the requirements of the target software; requirements identification is therefore an integral part of software development methodologies. Similarly, engineering a software development methodology (SDM) involves the identification of the requirements of the target methodology. Methodology engineering approaches pay special attention to this issue; however, they make little use of existing methodologies as sources of insight into methodology requirements. The authors propose an iterative method for eliciting and specifying the requirements of a SDM using existing methodologies as supplementary resources. The method is performed as the analysis phase of a methodology engineering process aimed at the ultimate design and implementation of a target methodology. An initial set of requirements is first identified through analysing the characteristics of the development situation at hand and/or via delineating the general features desirable in the target methodology. These initial requirements are used as evaluation criteria; refined through iterative application to a select set of relevant methodologies. The finalised criteria highlight the qualities that the target methodology is expected to possess, and are therefore used as a basis for de. ning the final set of requirements. In an example, the authors demonstrate how the proposed elicitation process can be used for identifying the requirements of a general object-oriented SDM. Owing to its basis in knowledge gained from existing methodologies and practices, the proposed method can help methodology engineers produce a set of requirements that is not only more complete in span, but also more concrete and rigorous

Rethinking Sanitation: Lessons and Innovation for Sustainability and Success in the New Millennium

This report highlights some of the key lessons learned from the past about sustainable sanitation solutions, new thinking emerging from consolidated learning and innovative experimentation on-the-ground, and some of the conditions necessary for success if real improvements in sanitation are to be achieved and sustained in rural and urban areas. Special attention is placed on the shift from supply-led sanitation projects to demand-led and market-oriented projects. The report concludes that with much deeper attention and broadened interest in sanitation, a more realistic view of the complexity, time, resources and effort needed to meet the challenge of large-scale sustainable changes in sanitation at the household level

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

[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

An Analysis of Service Ontologies

Services are increasingly shaping the world’s economic activity. Service provision and consumption have been profiting from advances in ICT, but the decentralization and heterogeneity of the involved service entities still pose engineering challenges. One of these challenges is to achieve semantic interoperability among these autonomous entities. Semantic web technology aims at addressing this challenge on a large scale, and has matured over the last years. This is evident from the various efforts reported in the literature in which service knowledge is represented in terms of ontologies developed either in individual research projects or in standardization bodies. This paper aims at analyzing the most relevant service ontologies available today for their suitability to cope with the service semantic interoperability challenge. We take the vision of the Internet of Services (IoS) as our motivation to identify the requirements for service ontologies. We adopt a formal approach to ontology design and evaluation in our analysis. We start by defining informal competency questions derived from a motivating scenario, and we identify relevant concepts and properties in service ontologies that match the formal ontological representation of these questions. We analyze the service ontologies with our concepts and questions, so that each ontology is positioned and evaluated according to its utility. The gaps we identify as the result of our analysis provide an indication of open challenges and future work

An AIHW framework for assessing data sources for population health monitoring: working paper

This paper outlines the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare\u27s (AIHW) assessment framework for determining the suitability of specific data sources for population health monitoring. AIHW\u27s Assessment Framework When identifying potential data sources for population health monitoring, it is important to ensure they are \u27fit-for-purpose\u27. The AIHW has developed a 3-step process to assess potential data sources for population health monitoring: Step 1 collects information about the data source Step 2 identifies the potential to inform key monitoring areas Step 3 assesses the quality of the data, using a modified version of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Data Quality Framework (ABS 2009), to determine its \u27fitness-for-purpose\u27 by establishing its utility, strengths and limitations. The assessment framework has been designed for use by the AIHW and others with an interest in assessing new data sources for use in population health monitoring. With adaptation, it may also have wider applications in other sectors or subject areas. For an example of the application of the assessment framework, see the AIHW working paper Assessment of the Australian Rheumatology Association Database for national population health monitoring (AIHW 2014a)

Performance assessment of urban precinct design: a scoping study

Executive Summary: Significant advances have been made over the past decade in the development of scientifically and industry accepted tools for the performance assessment of buildings in terms of energy, carbon, water, indoor environment quality etc. For resilient, sustainable low carbon urban development to be realised in the 21st century, however, will require several radical transitions in design performance beyond the scale of individual buildings. One of these involves the creation and application of leading edge tools (not widely available to built environment professions and practitioners) capable of being applied to an assessment of performance across all stages of development at a precinct scale (neighbourhood, community and district) in either greenfield, brownfield or greyfield settings. A core aspect here is the development of a new way of modelling precincts, referred to as Precinct Information Modelling (PIM) that provides for transparent sharing and linking of precinct object information across the development life cycle together with consistent, accurate and reliable access to reference data, including that associated with the urban context of the precinct. Neighbourhoods are the ‘building blocks’ of our cities and represent the scale at which urban design needs to make its contribution to city performance: as productive, liveable, environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive places (COAG 2009). Neighbourhood design constitutes a major area for innovation as part of an urban design protocol established by the federal government (Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2011, see Figure 1). The ability to efficiently and effectively assess urban design performance at a neighbourhood level is in its infancy. This study was undertaken by Swinburne University of Technology, University of New South Wales, CSIRO and buildingSMART Australasia on behalf of the CRC for Low Carbon Living

CHORUS Deliverable 3.4: Vision Document

The goal of the CHORUS Vision Document is to create a high level vision on audio-visual search engines in order to give guidance to the future R&D work in this area and to highlight trends and challenges in this domain. The vision of CHORUS is strongly connected to the CHORUS Roadmap Document (D2.3). A concise document integrating the outcomes of the two deliverables will be prepared for the end of the project (NEM Summit)