The Anatomy of a Sales Configurator: An Empirical Study of 111 Cases

Abbasi, Ebrahim; Hubaux, Arnaud; Acher, Mathieu; Boucher, Quentin; Heymans, Patrick

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38709-8_11

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Abbasi et al [87] study 111 web-based product configurators. They develop a JavaScript-based analysis tool to semi-automatically extract datasets (configuration options and attributes) from the configurators.…”

Section: Knowledge-based Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Variability Models and Languages in the Systems Software Domain

Berger

She

Lotufo

et al. 2013

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

156

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Variability models represent the common and variable features of products in a product line. Since the introduction of FODA in 1990, several variability modeling languages have been proposed in academia and industry, followed by hundreds of research papers on variability models and modeling. However, little is known about the practical use of such languages. We study the constructs, semantics, usage, and associated tools of two variability modeling languages, Kconfig and CDL, which are independently developed outside academia and used in large and significant software projects. We analyze 128 variability models found in twelve open source projects using these languages. Our study (1) supports variability modeling research with empirical data on the real-world use of its flagship concepts. However, we (2) also provide requirements for concepts and mechanisms that are not commonly considered in academic techniques, and (3) challenge assumptions about size and complexity of variability models made in academic papers. These results are of interest to researchers working on variability modeling and analysis techniques and to designers of tools, such as feature dependency checkers and interactive product configurators.

show abstract

Section: Knowledge-based Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Variability Models and Languages in the Systems Software Domain

Berger

She

Lotufo

et al. 2013

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

156

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• We classified the set of candidate pages according to the number of comparison criteria they have: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] ..., [91-100], and [100+] and obtained a PCM distribution. When a comparison page contains more than one table, we consider a page with merged tables with the addition of all criteria, and a maximum value when looking at the products.…”

Section: B a Qualitative Analysis Of 50 Wikipedia Pcmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This sets the challenge to propose a complete tool chain from these PCMs, to their formalization and usage through efficient configurators that guide users to desirable -and valid -product configurations [7].…”

Section: B Towards Deriving Configuratorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From comparison matrix to Variability Model: The Wikipedia case study

Sannier

Acher

Baudry

2013

2013 28th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Product comparison matrices (PCMs) provide a convenient way to document the discriminant features of a family of related products and now abound on the internet. Despite their apparent simplicity, the information present in existing PCMs can be very heterogeneous, partial, ambiguous, hard to exploit by users who desire to choose an appropriate product. Variability Models (VMs) can be employed to formulate in a more precise way the semantics of PCMs and enable automated reasoning such as assisted configuration. Yet, the gap between PCMs and VMs should be precisely understood and automated techniques should support the transition between the two. In this paper, we propose variability patterns that describe PCMs content and conduct an empirical analysis of 300+ PCMs mined from Wikipedia. Our findings are a first step toward better engineering techniques for maintaining and configuring PCMs.

show abstract

“…Extracted models and an infrastructure to analyze them is also available online. 1 In addition to extensions brought by these languages (e.g., diagram shapes, layers, binding modes, expressive constraints, cardinalities, and typed edges) we find some further concepts in the literature. Among these are defaults [21,48] and visibility conditions [26].…”

Section: Feature Modeling Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Reverse-engineering examples: Synthesize a feature model from command-line parameters and the respective source-code in which they are used, from configuration files or from product comparison matrices; re-engineer web configurators [1]; extraction of feature models and reusable assets from clone & own-based systems. Composition examples: Combine multiple product lines; or use of composition and slicing operations over feature models to build a specific viewpoint on the variability.…”

Section: Reverse Engineering and Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usage Scenarios for a Common Feature Modeling Language

Berger

Collet

2019

Proceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature models are recognized as a de facto standard for variability modeling. Presented almost three decades ago, dozens of different variations and extensions to the original feature-modeling notation have been proposed, together with hundreds of variability management techniques building upon feature models. Unfortunately, despite several attempts to establish a unified language, there is still no emerging consensus on a feature-modeling language that is both intuitive and simple, but also expressive enough to cover a range of important usage scenarios. There is not even a documented and commonly agreed set of such scenarios.Following an initiative among product-line engineering researchers in September 2018, we present 14 usage scenarios together with examples and requirements detailing each scenario. The scenario descriptions are the result of a systematic process, where members of the initiative authored original descriptions, which received feedback via a survey, and which we then refined and extended based on the survey results, reviewers' comments, and our own expertise. We also report the relevance of supporting each usage scenario for the language, as perceived by the initiative's members, prioritizing each scenario. We present a roadmap to build and implement a first version of the envisaged common language. CCS CONCEPTS• Software and its engineering → Software product lines.

show abstract

The Anatomy of a Sales Configurator: An Empirical Study of 111 Cases

Cited by 23 publications

References 22 publications

A Study of Variability Models and Languages in the Systems Software Domain

A Study of Variability Models and Languages in the Systems Software Domain

From comparison matrix to Variability Model: The Wikipedia case study

Usage Scenarios for a Common Feature Modeling Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About