Identifying and classifying attributes of packaging for customer satisfaction-A Kano Model Approach

[EN] The packaging industry in India is predicted to grow at 18% annually. In recent years Packaging becomes a potential marketing tool. The marketer should design the packaging of high quality from customer perspective.  As the research in the area of packaging is very few, study of quality attributes of Packaging is the need of the hour and inevitable. An empirical research was conducted by applying Kano Model. The researcher is interested to find out the perception of the customers on 22 quality attributes of packaging. 500 respondents which were selected randomly were asked about their experience of packing on everyday commodities through a well-structured questionnaire.  The classification of attribute as must-be quality, one-dimensional quality, attractive quality, indifferent quality and reverse quality was done by three methods. Marketer should make a note of it and prioritise the attributes for customer satisfaction.Dash, SK. (2021). Identifying and classifying attributes of packaging for customer satisfaction-A Kano Model Approach. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering. 9(1):57-64. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2021.13683OJS576491Bakhitar, A.,Hannan, A., Basit, A., Ahmad, J.(2015). Prioritization of value based services of software by using AHP and fuzzy KANO model. International Conference on Computational and Social Sciences, 8, 25- 27.Basfirinci, C., Mitra, A. (2015). A cross cultural investigation of airlines service quality through integration of Servqual and the Kano model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42(1), 239-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.11.005Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., Walden, D. (1993). Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality. The Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), 2-36.Brown, G.H. (1950). Measuring consumer attitudes towards products. Journal of Marketing, 14(5), 691-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224295001400505Chaudha, A., Jain, R., Singh, A.R., Mishra, P.K. (2011). Integration of Kano's Model into Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Journal Advice Manufacture Technology, 53, 689-698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2867-0Cole, R.E. (2001). From continuous improvement to continuous innovation. Quality Management Journal, 8(4), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2001.11918977Dash, S.K. (2019). Application of Kano Model in Identifying Attributes. A Case Study on School Bus Services. International Journal of Management Studies, 6(1), 31-37. https://doi.org/10.18843/ijms/v6i1(3)/03Dziuba, S.T., Śron, B. (2014). FAM-FMC system as an alternative element of the software used in a grain and flour milling enterprise. Production Engineering Archives, 4(3),29-31. https://doi.org/10.30657/pea.2014.04.08Ernzer, M., Kopp, K.(2003). Application of KANO method to life cycle design. IEEE Proceedings of Eco Design: Third International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious De-sign and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo Japan, December 8-11, 383-389. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECODIM.2003.1322697Feigenbaum, A.V. (1991).Total Quality Control. McGraw-Hill. Fundin, A., Nilsson, L. (2003). Using Kano's theory of attractive quality to better understand customer satisfaction with e-services. Asian Journal on Quality, 4(2), 32-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/15982688200300018Friman, M., Edvardsson, B. (2003). A content analysis of complaints and compliments. Managing Service Quality, 13(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520310456681Garvin, D.A. (1987). Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review, 65(6), 101-109.Hanan, M., Karp, P. (1989). Customer satisfaction, how to maximise, measure and market your company's "ultimate product". AMACOM.Herzberg, F., Bernard, M., Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. John Wiley and Sons.Hoch, S.J., Ha, Y.W. (1986). Consumer learning: advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221-33.https://doi.org/10.1086/209062Johnson, M.D., Nilsson, L. (2003). The Importance of Reliability and Customization from Goods to Services. Quality Management Journal, 10(1), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2003.11919049Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 41, 39-48.Kapalle, P.K, Lehmann, D.R. (1995). The effects of advertised and observed quality on expectations about new product quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(8), 280-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379503200304Lee, M.C., Newcomb, J.F. (1997). Applying the Kano methodology to meet customer requirements: NASA's microgravity science program. Quality Management Journal, 4(3), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.1997.11918805Löfgren, M. (2005). Winning at the first and second moments of truth: An exploratory study. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 15(1), 102-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520510575290Löfgren, M., Witell, L. (2005). Kano's Theory of Attractive Quality and Packaging. Quality Management Journal, 12(3), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2005.11919257Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H., Bailom, F., Sauerwein, E. (1996). How to delight your customers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(2), 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429610119469Miarka, D., Żukowska, J., Siwek, A., Nowacka,A., Nowak, D. (2015). Microbial hazards reduction during creamy cream cheese production. Production Engineering Archives, 6(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.30657/pea.2015.06.10Nelson, P. (1970), Information and consumer behaviour. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 311-29. https://doi.org/10.1086/259630Nilsson-Witell, L, Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: a test of Kano's theory of attractive quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230510592289Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 25(2), 154-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894351Parasuraman, A., Colby, C.L. (2001). Techno-Ready Marketing. Free Press.Qiting, P., Uno, N., Kubota, Y. (2013). Kano Model Analysis of Customer Needs and Satisfaction at the Shanghai Disneyland. In Proceedings of the 5th Intl Congress of the Intl Association of Societies of Design Research, Tokyo, Japan. http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/papers/1835-1b.pdf Accessed on January 2021.Sauerwein, E., Bailom, F., Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H. (1996). The Kano Model: How to delight your Customers. Volume I of the IX. International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Innsbruck/Igls/Austria, February 19-23 1996, pp. 313-327. https://is.muni. cz/el/econ/podzim2009/MPH_MAR2/um/9899067/THE_KANO_MODEL_-_HOW_TO_DELIGHT_YOUR_CUSTOMERS.pdfShewhart, W.A. (1931). Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. (2002). Packaging as Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 58-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501926Underwood, R.L. Klein, N.M., Burke, R.R. (2001). Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), 403-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420110410531Watson, G.H. (2003), "Customer focus and competitiveness", in Stephens, K.S. (Ed.), Six Sigma and Related Studies in the Quality Disciplines, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.Williams, D. (2020). The future of the packaging industry in India. Packaging Gateway. https://packaging-gateway.com/features/futurepackaging-industry-in-india Accessed on January 2021.Williams,H., Wikström,F., Löfgren.M. (2008). A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development." Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(7), 853-859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.006Woodruff, R.B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139- 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894350Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429880520030

Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6The virtue of quality is not itself a subject; it depends on a subject. In the software engineering field, quality means good software products that meet customer expectations, constraints, and requirements. Despite the numerous approaches, methods, descriptive models, and tools, that have been developed, a level of consensus has been reached by software practitioners. However, in the model-driven engineering (MDE) field, which has emerged from software engineering paradigms, quality continues to be a great challenge since the subject is not fully defined. The use of models alone is not enough to manage all of the quality issues at the modeling language level. In this work, we present the current state and some relevant considerations regarding quality in MDE, by identifying current categories in quality conception and by highlighting quality issues in real applications of the model-driven initiatives. We identified 16 categories in the definition of quality in MDE. From this identification, by applying an adaptive sampling approach, we discovered the five most influential authors for the works that propose definitions of quality. These include (in order): the OMG standards (e.g., MDA, UML, MOF, OCL, SysML), the ISO standards for software quality models (e.g., 9126 and 25,000), Krogstie, Lindland, and Moody. We also discovered families of works about quality, i.e., works that belong to the same author or topic. Seventy-three works were found with evidence of the mismatch between the academic/research field of quality evaluation of modeling languages and actual MDE practice in industry. We demonstrate that this field does not currently solve quality issues reported in industrial scenarios. The evidence of the mismatch was grouped in eight categories, four for academic/research evidence and four for industrial reports. These categories were detected based on the scope proposed in each one of the academic/research works and from the questions and issues raised by real practitioners. We then proposed a scenario to illustrate quality issues in a real information system project in which multiple modeling languages were used. For the evaluation of the quality of this MDE scenario, we chose one of the most cited and influential quality frameworks; it was detected from the information obtained in the identification of the categories about quality definition for MDE. We demonstrated that the selected framework falls short in addressing the quality issues. Finally, based on the findings, we derive eight challenges for quality evaluation in MDE projects that current quality initiatives do not address sufficiently.F.G, would like to thank COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) for funding this work through the Colciencias Grant call 512-2010. This work has been supported by the Gene-ralitat Valenciana Project IDEO (PROMETEOII/2014/039), the European Commission FP7 Project CaaS (611351), and ERDF structural funds.Giraldo-Velásquez, FD.; España Cubillo, S.; Pastor López, O.; Giraldo, WJ. (2016). Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering. Software Quality Journal. 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-016-9350-6S166(1985). Iso information processing—documentation symbols and conventions for data, program and system flowcharts, program network charts and system resources charts. ISO 5807:1985(E) (pp. 1–25).(2011). Iso/iec/ieee systems and software engineering – architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011(E) (Revision of ISO/IEC 42010:2007 and IEEE Std 1471-2000) (pp. 1–46).Abran, A., Moore, J.W., Bourque, P., Dupuis, R., & Tripp, L.L. (2013). Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) version 3 public review. IEEE. ISO Technical Report ISO/IEC TR 19759.Agner, L.T.W., Soares, I.W., Stadzisz, P.C., & Simão, J.M. (2013). A brazilian survey on {UML} and model-driven practices for embedded software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(4), 997–1005. {SI} : Software Engineering in Brazil: Retrospective and Prospective Views.Amstel, M.F.V. (2010). The right tool for the right job: assessing model transformation quality. pages 69–74. Affiliation: Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, Netherlands. Cited By (since 1996):1.Aranda, J., Damian, D., & Borici, A. (2012). Transition to model-driven engineering: what is revolutionary, what remains the same?. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems, MODELS’12 (pp. 692–708). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Arendt, T., & Taentzer, G. (2013). A tool environment for quality assurance based on the eclipse modeling framework. Automated Software Engineering, 20(2), 141–184.Atkinson, C., Bunse, C., & Wüst, J. (2003). Driving component-based software development through quality modelling, volume 2693. Cited By (since 1996):3.Baker, P., Loh, S., & Weil, F. (2005). Model-driven engineering in a large industrial context—motorola case study. In Briand, L., & Williams, C. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 3713 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 476–491). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Barišić, A., Amaral, V., Goulão, M., & Barroca, B. (2011). Quality in use of domain-specific languages: a case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN workshop on evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools, PLATEAU ’11 (pp. 65–72). New York: ACM.Becker, J., Bergener, P., Breuker, D., & Rackers, M. (2010). Evaluating the expressiveness of domain specific modeling languages using the bunge-wand-weber ontology. In 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1–10).Bertrand Portier, L.A. (2009). Model driven development misperceptions and challenges.Bézivin, J., & Kurtev, I. (2005). Model-based technology integration with the technical space concept. In Proceedings of the Metainformatics Symposium: Springer.Brambilla, M. (2016). How mature is of model-driven engineering as an engineering discipline @ONLINE.Brambilla, M., & Fraternali, P. (2014). Large-scale model-driven engineering of web user interaction: The webml and webratio experience. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 71 – 87. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Brown, A. (2009). Simple and practical model driven architecture (mda) @ONLINE.Bruel, J.-M., Combemale, B., Ober, I., & Raynal, H. (2015). Mde in practice for computational science. Procedia Computer Science, 51, 660–669.Budgen, D., Burn, A.J., Brereton, O.P., Kitchenham, B.A., & Pretorius, R. (2011). Empirical evidence about the uml: a systematic literature review. Software: Practice and Experience, 41(4), 363–392.Burden, H., Heldal, R., & Whittle, J. (2014). Comparing and contrasting model-driven engineering at three large companies. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’14 (pp. 14:1–14:10). New York: ACM.Cabot, J. Has mda been abandoned (by the omg)?Cabot, J. (2009). Modeling will be commonplace in three years time @ONLINE.Cachero, C., Poels, G., Calero, C., & Marhuenda, Y. (2007). Towards a Quality-Aware Engineering Process for the Development of Web Applications. Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/462, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.Challenger, M., Kardas, G., & Tekinerdogan, B. (2015). A systematic approach to evaluating domain-specific modeling language environments for multi-agent systems. Software Quality Journal, 1–41.Chaudron, M.V., Heijstek, W., & Nugroho, A. (2012). How effective is uml modeling? Software & Systems Modeling, 11(4), 571–580. J2: Softw Syst Model.Chenouard, R., Granvilliers, L., & Soto, R. (2008). Model-driven constraint programming. pages 236–246. Affiliation: CNRS, LINA, Universit de Nantes, France; Affiliation: Pontificia Universidad Catlica de, Valparaiso, Chile. Cited By (since 1996):8.Clark, T., & Muller, P.-A. (2012). Exploiting model driven technology: a tale of two startups. Software and Systems Modeling, 11(4), 481–493.Corneliussen, L. (2008). What do you think of model-driven software development?Costal, D., Gómez, C., & Guizzardi, G. (2011). Formal semantics and ontological analysis for understanding subsetting, specialization and redefinition of associations in uml. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6998 LNCS:189–203. cited By (since 1996)3.Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Maes, A., Género, M., Poels, G., & Piattini, M. (2010). The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of uml statechart diagrams. Information Sciences, 180(11), 2209–2220. Cited By (since 1996):14.Cuadrado, J.S., Izquierdo, J.L.C., & Molina, J.G. (2014). Applying model-driven engineering in small software enterprises. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 176 – 198. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Da Silva, A.R. (2015). Model-driven engineering: a survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Computer Languages Systems and Structures, 43, 139–155.Da Silva Teixeira, D.G.M., Quirino, G.K., Gailly, F., De Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G., & Perini Barcellos, M. (2016). PoN-S: a Systematic Approach for Applying the Physics of Notation (PoN), (pp. 432–447). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Gallo, S. (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 58(3), 358 – 380. Including the special issue : {ER} 2004ER 2004.Davies, J., Milward, D., Wang, C.-W., & Welch, J. (2015). Formal model-driven engineering of critical information systems. Science of Computer Programming, 103(0), 88 – 113. Selected papers from the First International Workshop on Formal Techniques for Safety-Critical Systems (FTSCS 2012).De Oca, I.M.-M., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., & Rodríguez-Morffi, A. (2015). A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and Software Technology, 58, 187–205.DenHaan, J. (2009). 8 reasons why model driven development is dangerous @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2010). Model driven engineering vs the commando pattern @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2011a). Why aren’t we all doing model driven development yet @ONLINE.DenHaan, J. (2011b). Why there is no future model driven development @ONLINE.Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., & Pierantonio, A. (2013). Managing the coupled evolution of metamodels and textual concrete syntax specifications. cited By (since 1996)0.Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., & Ouyang, C. (2008). Semantics and analysis of business process models in {BPMN}. Information and Software Technology, 50(12), 1281–1294.Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., Ramos, I., & Fernández, L. (2011). A framework for the quality evaluation of mdwe methodologies and information technology infrastructures. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 2(4), 11–22.Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., & Torres, A.H. (2010). A quality model in a quality evaluation framework for mdwe methodologies. pages 495–506. Affiliation: Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informíticos, University of Seville, Seville, Spain., Cited By (since 1996):1.Dubray, J.-J. (2011). Why did mde miss the boat?.Escalona, M.J., Gutiérrez, J.J., Pérez-Pérez, M., Molina, A., Domínguez-Mayo, E., & Domínguez-Mayo, F.J. (2011). Measuring the Quality of Model-Driven Projects with NDT-Quality, (pp. 307–317). New York: Springer.Espinilla, M., Domínguez-Mayo, F.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M., Ross, M., & Staples, G. (2011). A Method Based on AHP to Define the Quality Model of QuEF (Vol. 123, pp. 685–694). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Fabra, J., Castro, V.D., Álvarez, P., & Marcos, E. (2012). Automatic execution of business process models: exploiting the benefits of model-driven engineering approaches. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 607–625. Novel approaches in the design and implementation of systems/software architecture.Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J.L.H., Rolland, C., Stamper, R.K., Assche, F.J.M.V., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., & Voss, K. (1996). Frisco: a framework of information system concepts. Technical report, The IFIP WG 8. 1 Task Group FRISCO.Fettke, P., Houy, C., Vella, A.-L., & Loos, P. (2012). Towards the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Conceptual Model Quality Discourses – Methodical Framework and Application in the Context of Model Understandability, volume 113 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, chapter 28, pages 406–421, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Finnie, S. (2015). Modeling community: Are we missing something?Fournier, C. (2008). Is uml [email protected], R., & Rumpe, B. (2007). Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In Future of Software Engineering, 2007, FOSE ’07 (pp. 37–54).Gallego, M., Giraldo, F.D., & Hitpass, B. (2015). Adapting the pbec-otss software selection approach for bpm suites: an application case. In 2015 34th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1–10).Galvão, I., & Goknil, A. (2007). Survey of traceability approaches in model-driven engineering. cited By (since 1996)22.Giraldo, F., España, S., Giraldo, W., & Pastor, O. (2015). Modelling language quality evaluation in model-driven information systems engineering: a roadmap. In 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 64–69).Giraldo, F., España, S., & Pastor, O. (2014). Analysing the concept of quality in model-driven engineering literature: a systematic review. In 2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) (pp. 1–12).Giraldo, F.D., España, S., & Pastor, O. (2016). Evidences of the mismatch between industry and academy on modelling language quality evaluation. arXiv: 1606.02025 .González, C., & Cabot, J. (2014). Formal verification of static software models in mde: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 56(8), 821–838. cited By (since 1996)0.González, C.A., Büttner, F., Clarisó, R., & Cabot, J. (2012). Emftocsp: a tool for the lightweight verification of emf models. pages 44–50. Affiliation: cole des Mines de Nantes, INRIA, LINA, Nantes, France; Affiliation: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. Cited By (since 1996):1.Gorschek, T., Tempero, E., & Angelis, L. (2014). On the use of software design models in software development practice: an empirical investigation. Journal of Systems and Software, 95(0), 176– 193.Goulão, M., Amaral, V., & Mernik, M. (2016). Quality in model-driven engineering: a tertiary study. Software Quality Journal, 1–33.Grobshtein, Y., & Dori, D. (2011). Generating sysml views from an opm model: design and evaluation. Systems Engineering, 14(3), 327–340.Haan, J.d. (2008). 8 reasons why model-driven approaches (will) fail.Harel, D., & Rumpe, B. (2000). Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff, part i: The basic stuff, Israel. Technical report Jerusalem Israel.Harel, D., & Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of semantics? Computer, 37(10), 64–72.Hebig, R., & Bendraou, R. (2014). On the need to study the impact of model driven engineering on software processes. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2014 (pp. 164–168). New York: ACM.Heidari, F., & Loucopoulos, P. (2014). Quality evaluation framework (qef): modeling and evaluating quality of business processes. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 15(3), 193–223. Business Process Modeling.Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.Y., Trigaux, J.C., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., & Classen, A. (2008). Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. Software, IET, 2(3), 281–302. ID 2.Hindawi, M., Morel, L., Aubry, R., & Sourrouille, J.-L. (2009). Description and Implementation of a UML Style Guide (Vol. 5421, pp. 291–302). Berlin: Springer.Hoang, D. (2012). Current limitations of mdd and its implications @ONLINE.Hodges, W. (2013). Model theory Zalta, E.N. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2013 edition.Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., & Whittle, J. (2011a). Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’11 (pp. 633–642). New York: ACM.Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., & Rouncefield, M. (2014). Model-driven engineering practices in industry: social, organizational and managerial factors that lead to success or failure. Science of Computer Programming, 89 Part B(0), 144–161. Special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering.Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., & Kristoffersen, S. (2011b). Empirical assessment of mde in industry. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’11 (pp. 471–480). New York: ACM.Igarza, I.M.H., Boada, D.H.G., & Valdés, A.P. (2012). Una introducción al desarrollo de software dirigido por modelos. Serie Científica, 5(3).ISO/IEC (2001). ISO/IEC 9126. Software engineering—Product quality. ISO/IEC.Izurieta, C., Rojas, G., & Griffith, I. (2015). Preemptive management of model driven technical debt for improving software quality. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA’15 (pp. 31–36). New York: ACM.Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012). Systematic literature studies: Database searches vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM’12 (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM.Kahraman, G., & Bilgen, S. (2013). A framework for qualitative assessment of domain-specific languages. Software & Systems Modeling, 1–22.Kessentini, M., Langer, P., & Wimmer, M. (2013). Searching models, modeling search: On the synergies of sbse and mde (pp. 51–54).Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report.Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D., El Emam, K., & Rosenberg, J. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8), 721–734.Klinke, M. (2008). Do you use mda/mdd/mdsd, any kind of model-driven approach? Will it be the future?Köhnlein, J. (2013). Eclipse diagram editors from a user’s perspective.Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., & Polack, F.A. (2008). The grand challenge of scalability for model driven engineering. In Models in Software Engineering (pp. 48–53): Springer.Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S., De Lara, J., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Tisi, M., & Cabot, J. (2013). A research roadmap towards achieving scalability in model driven engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Scalability in Model Driven Engineering, BigMDE’13 (pp. 2:1–2:10). New York: ACM.Krill, P. (2016). Uml to be ejected from microsoft visual studio (infoworld).Krogstie, J. (2012a). Model-based development and evolution of information systems: a quality approach, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.Krogstie, J. (2012b). Quality of modelling languages, (pp. 249–280). London: Springer.Krogstie, J. (2012c). Quality of models, (pp. 205–247). London: Springer.Krogstie, J. (2012d). Specialisations of SEQUAL, (pp. 281–326). London: Springer.Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., & Sindre, G. (1995). Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conference on Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views (pp. 216–231). London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.Kruchten, P. (2000). The rational unified process: an introduction, 2nd edn. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Kruchten, P., Nord, R., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: from metaphor to theory and practice. Software, IEEE, 29(6), 18–21.Kulkarni, V., Reddy, S., & Rajbhoj, A. (2010). Scaling up model driven engineering – experience and lessons learnt. In Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., & Haugen, y. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 6395 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 331–345). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Laguna, M.A., & Marqués, J.M. (2010). Uml support for designing software product lines: the package merge mechanism, 16(17), 2313–2332.Lange, C. (2007a). Model size matters. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 4364 LNCS:211–216. cited By (since 1996)1.Lange, C., & Chaudron, M. (2005). Managing Model Quality in UML-Based Software Development. In 13th IEEE International Workshop on Technology and Engineering Practice, 2005 (pp. 7–16).Lange, C., Chaudron, M.R.V., Muskens, J., Somers, L.J., & Dortmans, H.M. (2003). An empirical investigation in quantifying inconsistency and incompleteness of uml designs. In Incompleteness of UML Designs, Proceedings Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, 6th International Conference on Unified Modeling Language, UML, 2003.Lange, C., DuBois, B., Chaudron, M., & Demeyer, S. (2006). An experimental investigation of uml modeling conventions. In Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., & Reggio, G. (Eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, volume 4199 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 27–41). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Lange, C.F.J., & Chaudron, M.R.V. (2006). Effe

Semi-automatic assessment of unrestrained Java code: a Library, a DSL, and a workbench to assess exams and exercises

© ACM 2015. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive Version of Record was published in http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742615Automated marking of multiple-choice exams is of great interest in university courses with a large number of students. For this reason, it has been systematically implanted in almost all universities. Automatic assessment of source code is however less extended. There are several reasons for that. One reason is that almost all existing systems are based on output comparison with a gold standard. If the output is the expected, the code is correct. Otherwise, it is reported as wrong, even if there is only one typo in the code. Moreover, why it is wrong remains a mystery. In general, assessment tools treat the code as a black box, and they only assess the externally observable behavior. In this work we introduce a new code assessment method that also verifies properties of the code, thus allowing to mark the code even if it is only partially correct. We also report about the use of this system in a real university context, showing that the system automatically assesses around 50% of the work.This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish Ministerio de Economíay Competitividad (Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación) under grant TIN2013-44742-C4-1-R and by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEOII2015/013. David Insa was partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación under FPU grant AP2010-4415.Insa Cabrera, D.; Silva, J. (2015). Semi-automatic assessment of unrestrained Java code: a Library, a DSL, and a workbench to assess exams and exercises. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742615SK. A Rahman and M. Jan Nordin. A review on the static analysis approach in the automated programming assessment systems. In National Conference on Programming 07, 2007.K. Ala-Mutka. A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. In Computer Science Education, volume 15, pages 83--102, 2005.C. Beierle, M. Kula, and M. Widera. Automatic analysis of programming assignments. In Proc. der 1. E-Learning Fachtagung Informatik (DeLFI '03), volume P-37, pages 144--153, 2003.J. Biggs and C. Tang. Teaching for Quality Learning at University : What the Student Does (3rd Edition). In Open University Press, 2007.P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, E. Tempero, and J. Hendrickx. CodeWrite: Supporting student-driven practice of java. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 09--12, 2011.R. Hendriks. Automatic exam correction. 2012.P. Ihantola, T. Ahoniemi, V. Karavirta, and O. Seppala. Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 86--93, 2010.H. Kitaya and U. Inoue. An online automated scoring system for Java programming assignments. In International Journal of Information and Education Technology, volume 6, pages 275--279, 2014.M.-J. Laakso, T. Salakoski, A. Korhonen, and L. Malmi. Automatic assessment of exercises for algorithms and data structures - a case study with TRAKLA2. In Proceedings of Kolin Kolistelut/Koli Calling - Fourth Finnish/Baltic Sea Conference on Computer Science Education, pages 28--36, 2004.Y. Liang, Q. Liu, J. Xu, and D. Wang. The recent development of automated programming assessment. In Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering, pages 1--5, 2009.K. A. Naudé, J. H. Greyling, and D. Vogts. Marking student programs using graph similarity. In Computers & Education, volume 54, pages 545--561, 2010.A. Pears, S. Seidman, C. Eney, P. Kinnunen, and L. Malmi. Constructing a core literature for computing education research. In SIGCSE Bulletin, volume 37, pages 152--161, 2005.F. Prados, I. Boada, J. Soler, and J. Poch. Automatic generation and correction of technical exercices. In International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education (ICECE 2005), 2005.M. Supic, K. Brkic, T. Hrkac, Z. Mihajlovic, and Z. Kalafatic. Automatic recognition of handwritten corrections for multiple-choice exam answer sheets. In Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pages 1136--1141, 2014.S. Tung, T. Lin, and Y. Lin. An exercise management system for teaching programming. In Journal of Software, 2013.T. Wang, X. Su, Y. Wang, and P. Ma. Semantic similarity-based grading of student programs. In Information and Software Technology, volume 49, pages 99--107, 2007