Significant Productivity Enhancement through Model Driven Techniques: A Success Story

Hossler, J.; Kath, Olaf; Soden, Moritz von; Born, Marc; Saito, Shinobu

doi:10.1109/edoc.2006.53

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[121], [135], [146], [150], [152], [154]- [156], [166], [179], [180], [188], [191], [196], [202], [205], [206], [208], [209], [219], [238], [240], [249], [258], [260], [262], [266] 27…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

“…However, the validity of this strategy, in terms [120], [122], [124], [125], [128], [129], [133], [135], [138], [139], [142], [144], [145], [147], [150], [152], [154]- [156], [160], [165], [168]- [170], [173], [179], [180], [182], [183], [185], [187], [188], [190]- [192], [195]- [197], [200], [201], [204], [209], [210], [215], [216], [219], [221], [225], [226], [228]- [230], [237]- [241], …”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[121], [127], [128], [136], [145], [147], [150], [152], [159], [165], [167], [169], [174], [180], [183], [188], [190], [191], [195], [197], [204], [208], [216], [219], [227], [229]- [231], [240], [242], [244], [247]- [249], [251], [253], [256], [257], [259], [261], [265] 41 Defects This success indicator is to group metrics that are solely intended to measure the defects without relating them to quality.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[132], [133], [142], [146], [151], [161], [166], [167], [180], [193], [195], [197], [198], [208], [209], [212], [216], [219], [226], [239], [243], [252] 22 Customer Satisfaction (Qualitative)…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Unterkalmsteiner

Gorschek

Islam

et al. 2012

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND-Software Process Improvement (SPI) is a systematic approach to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development organization and to enhance software products. OBJECTIVE-This paper aims to identify and characterize evaluation strategies and measurements used to assess the impact of different SPI initiatives. METHOD-The systematic literature review includes 148 papers published between 1991 and 2008. The selected papers were classified according to SPI initiative, applied evaluation strategies and measurement perspectives. Potential confounding factors interfering with the evaluation of the improvement effort were assessed. RESULTS-Seven distinct evaluation strategies were identified, whereas the most common one, "Pre-Post Comparison", was applied in 49% of the inspected papers. Quality was the most measured attribute (62%), followed by Cost (41%) and Schedule (18%). Looking at measurement perspectives, "Project" represents the majority with 66%. CONCLUSION-The evaluation validity of SPI initiatives is challenged by the scarce consideration of potential confounding factors, particularly given that "Pre-Post Comparison" was identified as the most common evaluation strategy, and the inaccurate descriptions of the evaluation context. Measurements to assess the short and mid-term impact of SPI initiatives prevail, whereas long-term measurements in terms of customer satisfaction and return on investment tend to be less used.

show abstract

“…[121], [135], [146], [150], [152], [154]- [156], [166], [179], [180], [188], [191], [196], [202], [205], [206], [208], [209], [219], [238], [240], [249], [258], [260], [262], [266] 27…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Unterkalmsteiner

Gorschek

Islam

et al. 2012

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fortunately, some promising projects can be found when looking beyond the narrow scope of the eleven academic tools from the UML-to-CSP contest: both ToolNet [1] and Medini [8] are industrial tool integration environments that tackle issues related to the kind of variability discussed in this paper. Both environments systematically integrate visual modeling techniques in the transformation environment, which indicates that graph transformation approaches find their way into industry [9], [7].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Executing a Standard Compliant Transformation Model on a Non-standard Platform

Muliawan

Gorp

Keller

et al. 2008

2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Model-Driven Engineering is a software development method that enables one to model applications at a high level of abstraction and introduce platform specific details automatically by means of model transformations. Similarly, models specified in human-readable languages can be mapped automatically onto languages that support the analysis of formal properties such as termination, deadlock freeness, etc. In an industrial context, the transformations that automate such mappings should be able to consume input models from a variety of commercial tools. Unfortunately, such tools tend to store models in slightly different ways and do not fully comply to standards. Obviously, it is undesirable to implement another version of a transformation for each specific modeling tool. Instead, there is a need for additional techniques that enable the development of transformations in a platform independent manner. This paper illustrates such techniques on an example related to the transformation of visual process models (UML activity diagrams) into low-level algebraic (CSP) programs that support formal verification. In turn, the platform independent and human-readable transformation model is translated into code that can transform UML inputs even when these are nonstandard.

show abstract

Dealing with variability within a family of domain-specific languages: comparative analysis of different techniques

Ober

Féraud

Percebois

2010

Innovations Syst Softw Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost a decade has passed since the OMG has issued the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) initiative. It soon became obvious that raising the level of abstraction in development and reasoning at the model level would help in asking the right questions at the right time. Based on a concrete problem, we discuss four alternative solutions to a multi-language system design problem. These solutions use a traditional approach, a technique based on modeling, a domain-specific approach, and a mix of modeling and domain-specific techniques, respectively. The solutions depend on the problem, but they are representative for the situations we encounter in practice, therefore giving us a good basis for a larger discussion on the appropriateness of using modeling techniques and on the place of MDA in current software engineering practice and design.

show abstract

Significant Productivity Enhancement through Model Driven Techniques: A Success Story

Cited by 10 publications

References 2 publications

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Executing a Standard Compliant Transformation Model on a Non-standard Platform

Dealing with variability within a family of domain-specific languages: comparative analysis of different techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About