Context: Variability (i.e., the ability of software systems or artifacts to be adjusted for different contexts) became a key property of many systems. Objective: We analyze existing research on variability in software systems. We investigate variability handling in major software engineering phases (e.g., requirements engineering, architecting). Method: We performed a systematic literature review. A manual search covered 13 premium software engineering journals and 18 premium conferences, resulting in 15,430 papers searched and 196 papers considered for analysis. To improve reliability and to increase reproducibility, we complemented the manual search with a targeted automated search. Results: Software quality attributes have not received much attention in the context of variability. Variability is studied in all software engineering phases, but testing is underrepresented. Data to motivate the applicability of current approaches are often insufficient; research designs are vaguely described. Conclusions: Based on our findings we propose dimensions of variability in software engineering. This empirically grounded classification provides a step towards a unifying, integrated perspective of variability in software systems, spanning across disparate or loosely coupled research themes in the software engineering community. Finally, we provide recommendations to bridge the gap between research and practice and point to opportunities for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract-Architecture decisions are often not explicitly documented in practice but reside in the architect's mind as tacit knowledge, even though explicit capturing and documentation of architecture decisions has been associated with a multitude of benefits. As part of a research collaboration with ABB, we developed a tool to document architecture decisions. This tool is an add-in for Enterprise Architect and is an implementation of a viewpoint-based decision documentation framework. To validate the add-in, we conducted an exploratory case study with ABB architects. In the study, we assessed the status quo of architecture decision documentation, identified architects' expectations of the ideal decision documentation tool, and evaluated the new add-in. We found that although awareness of decision documentation is increasing at ABB, several barriers exist that limit the use of decisions in practice. Regarding their ideal tool, architects want a descriptive and efficient approach. Supplemental features like reporting or decision sharing are requested. The new add-in, was well-perceived by the architects. As a result of the study, we propose a clearer separation of problem, outcomes, and alternatives for the decision documentation framework.

No abstract