A Platform-Based Software Design Methodology for Embedded Control Systems: An Agile Toolkit

A discrete control system, with stringent hardware constraints, is effectively an embedded real-time system and hence requires a rigorous methodology to develop the software involved. The development methodology proposed in this paper adapts agile principles and patterns to support the building of embedded control systems, focusing on the issues relating to a system's constraints and safety. Strong unit testing, to ensure correctness, including the satisfaction of timing constraints, is the foundation of the proposed methodology. A platform-based design approach is used to balance costs and time-to-market in relation to performance and functionality constraints. It is concluded that the proposed methodology significantly reduces design time and costs, as well as leading to better software modularity and reliability

A Quality Model for Actionable Analytics in Rapid Software Development

Background: Accessing relevant data on the product, process, and usage perspectives of software as well as integrating and analyzing such data is crucial for getting reliable and timely actionable insights aimed at continuously managing software quality in Rapid Software Development (RSD). In this context, several software analytics tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of explainable software analytics that software practitioners trust. Aims: We aimed at creating a quality model (called Q-Rapids quality model) for actionable analytics in RSD, implementing it, and evaluating its understandability and relevance. Method: We performed workshops at four companies in order to determine relevant metrics as well as product and process factors. We also elicited how these metrics and factors are used and interpreted by practitioners when making decisions in RSD. We specified the Q-Rapids quality model by comparing and integrating the results of the four workshops. Then we implemented the Q-Rapids tool to support the usage of the Q-Rapids quality model as well as the gathering, integration, and analysis of the required data. Afterwards we installed the Q-Rapids tool in the four companies and performed semi-structured interviews with eight product owners to evaluate the understandability and relevance of the Q-Rapids quality model. Results: The participants of the evaluation perceived the metrics as well as the product and process factors of the Q-Rapids quality model as understandable. Also, they considered the Q-Rapids quality model relevant for identifying product and process deficiencies (e.g., blocking code situations). Conclusions: By means of heterogeneous data sources, the Q-Rapids quality model enables detecting problems that take more time to find manually and adds transparency among the perspectives of system, process, and usage.Comment: This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of a paper to be published by IEEE in the 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) 2018. The final authenticated version will be available onlin

Innovation and failure in mechatronics design education

Innovative engineering design always has associated with it the risk of failure, and it is the role of the design engineer to mitigate the possibilities of failure in the final system. Education should however provide a safe space for students to both innovate and to learn about and from failures. However, pressures on course designers and students can result in their adopting a conservative, and risk averse, approach to problem solving. The paper therefore considers the nature of both innovation and failure, and looks at how these might be effectively combined within mechatronics design education

An approach to reconcile the agile and CMMI contexts in product line development

Software product line approaches produce reusable platforms and architectures for products set developed by specific companies. These approaches are strategic in nature requiring coordination, discipline, commonality and communication. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) contains important guidelines for process improvement, and specifies "what" we must have into account to achieve the disciplined processes (among others things). On the other hand, the agile context is playing an increasingly important role in current software engineering practices, specifying "how" the software practices must be addressed to obtain agile processes. In this paper, we carry out a preliminary analysis for reconciling agility and maturity models in software product line domain, taking advantage of both.Postprint (published version