Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training Cincinnati, OH February 25, 2002

1. International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC): A Glimpse into the Future of University and Industry Collaboration Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training Cincinnati, OH February 25, 2002

2. Professor Kenneth L. ModesittDepartment of Computer ScienceIndiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW)Fort Wayne, IN 46825 USAmodesitk@ipfw.edu(260) 481-6237

3. Assumptions: Make explicit per Dave Parnas (ICSE 2001) • Software is pervasive worldwide and the slope is increasing, including for person-rated systems and in large exposure arenas, e.g. financial, entertainment, transportation • Most software is currently developed by people who do not know what they are doing. Pressman estimates: 2-3 million English-speaking people world wide doing software development. How many trained in SE?

4. Assumptions: Make explicit per Dave Parnas (cont.) • Most of these individuals are professional and ethical, and consequently concerned/bothered by that fact (and so are many employers!) • It is increasingly likely that more software will fail in really major ways • Corporations do not want to see that happen (can get sued, go out of business, could not bid on future contracts, etc.). I would also hope that some of them are ethical!

5. Ergo... • One solution to provide better and more convenient access to SE expertise • for SE practitioners • from SE academics • via distance learning and F2F • Better than increasing H1-B visas to U.S.A. (hardly a local issue) • Better than having incompetent people build SW systems

6. This requires... • State-of-the-art knowledge about SE expertise sources and practitioners • HELP from all academic SE locations, especially outside U.S. A.!!! • Fill out SE survey and return • consider possible participation in International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC -- “I see, you see”) • www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS • New initiatives and degree proposals for both

7. How could it be done?

8. How? Apply SW life cycle principles, using spiral methods • Determine initial desire of stakeholders: ISEUC universities and industry • Determine feasibility/constraints • Pilot the collaborative arrangement, using • requirements engineering, design, implementation, test, deliver • pervasive QA and management • evaluation/lessons learned • Cycle above steps for next spiral

9. International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC) • Mission Statement • Background • Essential Components: Lessons Learned • Broad Objectives • Specific Schedule and Goals • Proposed Curriculum

10. International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC): cont • Benefits • Personal Visits – Details • Administration • Characteristics • Next Steps • Summary

11. ISEUC (“I see, You see”) We must become the change we want to see. -- Mahatma Gandhi

12. Mission Statement of ISEUC:www.iseuc.org • Lifelong learning on the part of people performing software development is required -- ISEUC provides easy access to them for such learning, via a combination of distributed learning (DL) and face-to-face. • Software Engineering educators should expand the scope of their courses beyond their campuses to reach these developers -- ISEUC provides the infrastructure to do this.

13. ISEUC “One-liner” To provide academic software engineering expertise globally to those with the need to know now, from those in the know.

14. Background: Pre-cursor is Annual Survey of International SE Programs • Funded in August, 1999 by ACM and IEEE-Computer Society • Current status on: http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/Survey_ISEAP_2001/Survey_ISEAP.html • Results to date: 6796 graduates; 7922 students; 11 countries; 116 programs; 480 full-time faculty • Estimate that the number of respondents to date is about 40-50% of actual total -- get more here -- fill out survey! • Supply is dramatically less than world-wide demand, according to most sources: OPPORTUNITY!

15. SE Survey Current Results: Numbers, Graphs • 116 SE programs offered by 75 respondents • Degrees, by level • Academic departments that house the degree • Countries that have responded to date • SE “definitions”

20. Additional survey questions considered for version 2 • Content of curricula, e.g., formal methods, discrete math, etc., by level • Availability via distance learning • Female/male enrollments • Interaction with industry • Assistantships/fellowships • Interest in inter-institutional collaboration • Others?

21. Be cognizant of funding source viability Build in buffers for project plan Contacts must include e-mail addresses Build on shoulders of each others, not toes! Continue spiral model for development Be more global and not so “USA-centric” Backup! Team is essential Lessons Learned from SE Survey

22. ISEUC: Background • Initial SE survey results published and included overview of possible future • Proposal sent to survey responders • Several (>35) world-wide indicated interest • Author arranged visits with virtually all of the positive responders, during sabbatical and Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment with U.S. TACOM Lab during 2000-2001. • Some of the following material was used during the visits

23. What Could Be?A Modest Proposal International Software Engineering University Consortium -- ISEUC

24. Why are we meeting now? Incentive to visit in person Quality of Relationships Quality of Reinforcing Engine ofQuality of Results SuccessThinking Quality of Actions As the quality of relationships rises, the quality of thinking improves, leading to an increase in the quality ofactions and results. Achieving high quality results has a positive effect on the quality of relationships, creating a reinforcing engine of success.

25. Where are we now?ISEUC Visits: by date • U.S.A. MM/DD/YY • National Technological University 10/30/00 • Texas Tech University 11/01/00 • Cal State University, Northridge 11/02/00 • Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo 11/02/00 • Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey* 11/03/00 • George Mason University 11/27/00 • Rochester Institute of Technology 11/28/00 • Monmouth University 11/29/00 *Postponed as Dr. Luqi was late arriving back in the country

26. Where are we now?ISEUC Visits (cont) • U.S.A. • Stevens Institute of Technology 11/30/00 • Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 12/01/00 • Carnegie Mellon University 01/10/01 • Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 01/16/01 • Butler University 01/17/01 • Indiana Univ. Purdue Univ. Indianapolis 01/17/01 • Purdue University 01/17/01

27. Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) • U.S.A. • Mercer University 01/31/01 • Milwaukee School of Engineering 02/08/01 • Oregon Master of Software Engineering04/10/01 • California State Univ.-Sacramento 04/11/01 • University of Washington-Bothell 04/12/01 • Seattle University 04/12/01

28. Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) • UNITED KINGDOM/EUROPE • University of Wales, Aberystwyth 03/14/01 • University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 03/15/01 • University of Durham 03/15/01 • Imperial College, London 03/16/01 • University of Birmingham TBD • University of Lancaster TBD • University of Manchester TBD • Slovak Institute of Technology TBD

29. Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) • CANADA • McMaster University TBD • University of Calgary TBD • University of Western Ontario 05/09/01 • University of Ottawa 05/10/01 • Concordia University TBD • Royal Military School TBd

30. Where are we now? ISEUC Visits (cont) • AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND • University of Melbourne 05/25/01 • Swinburne University 05/28/01 • LaTrobe University 05/28/01 • Monash University 05/29/01 • Murdoch University 06/01/01 • University of Western Australia 06/01/01 • Edith Cowan University 06/01/01 • University of Queensland 06/05/01 • Queensland University of Technology 06/05/01 • Australian National University TBD • University of Auckland TBD

31. Essential Components for ISEUC via Lessons Learned, to Date • Excellent SE faculty and Program • Normally means industry experienced faculty • Industrial Advisory Board • Infrastructure (most likely gap) • Development Incentive: Release time, $$ • Development Support: Staff, Tools, Processes, Course resources, e.g, simulation for Proj.Mgt • Operations Incentive: $$/DL student • Operations Support: Staff, Tools, Logistics

32. Broad Objectives • Increase the number of SE professionals • Enhance the skills of existing professionals from many disciplines • Facilitate cross-discipline training and awareness for management • Increase accessibility by hybrid model of DL courses from “primary universities” coupled with traditional F2F aid from “associate universities” that are physically closer to the student

33. Where could we be?Proposal: Preliminary Goals • August/September, 2002 • 10-12 SE courses via Asynchronous DL • 5-6 Universities, from 1-3 countries • 50-60 additional students, with 50% from industry • August-December, 2003 • 60 SE courses via Asynchronous DL • 30 Universities, from 10 countries • 500 additional students, with >50% from industry

34. Current Goals for August/September, 2002 • ISEUC Catalog • 14 Universities, from 3 countries • pool of 171 English and 18 French Courses from which to draw • Calendar: 12 courses via Asynchronous DL • Trying to interest additional students: industry • Trying to obtain funding for infrastructure support (from U.S.A, trying FIPSE “Learning Anywhere Anytime Partnership -- LAAP” Grant, and other sources).

35. Proposed Curriculum • Core courses • Methodology • Requirements • Design • Construction • Project Management • Evolution • Capstone Projects

36. Proposed Curriculum:cont • Recurring Courses • Ethics and Professionalism • Processes • Quality • Modeling • Metrics • Tools and Environments • Documentation

37. Benefits: Consortium Participants • For a “primary” university, additional students would enroll in existing SE DL courses • New SE DL courses may be developed for additional university revenue from a world-wide population of students • Participation as an “associate” university would also increase revenues

38. Benefits:Students • New state-of-the-art courses from universities world-wide • Accessibility: time and place • Synchronous mode, when required, is available from mediator at associate university • Single point of contact • Administration • Enrollment at any ISEUC member university • Payment for credit courses, with reimbursement from industry employer

39. Benefits:Industry • Additional qualified SE professionals • Added breadth and depth of professional and management • Better accessibility to academic centers of SE expertise

40. Personal Visits: Sites • Made to 35 universities, institutes, and colleges around the world from October 30, 2000 through June 5, 2001 • Australia 9 • Canada 2 • United Kingdom 4 • United Stated 20 Total 35

41. Personal Visits: Participants • Faculty, department chairs, deans, heads of schools, provosts, DL staff, development staff, industry [NOT all at the same meeting or the same time!] • Length varied from 30 minutes to six hours, with median of two to three hours • Locations included conference rooms, department chair offices, and industry sites

42. Personal Visits:Joint dialogue based on material at www.iseuc.org • Why are we here? (Context) • Where are we now? (Current status) • Where could we be? (Proposal) • Why would we want to do this: Faculty, Administration, Industry? • How could it be done? • What are the next steps? • So what? • Supporting material • Sample scenarios

43. Personal Visits • Topics selected depended on university – wide variance in DL expertise • Others more interested in consortium – used analogy of “Star Alliance” – a group of international airline carriers that the author frequently used during the travels

44. Why a Consortium? What are the discriminators for a prospective student “customer” ? • Service • Features • Quality • Cost

45. Service Made all reservations (United and Ansett) via single POC Did electronic visa at the same time Prompt e-mail confirmation and ticket mailings Special bus at Air New Zealand LAX terminal #2 to #7 (United) Features Interface very smooth among members, e.g., United and Ansett or LH and United ( took emergency flight in Feb. from Frankfurt) Interface smooth with non-members: Interline baggage with NWA Multi-cultural Why a Consortium for customer? An existing one: Star Alliance

46. Quality On-time arrival of flights AND baggage Best-in-class among individual members Synergy demonstrated when working together Each member keeps its own identity Cost Healthy competition among members, e.g., Air New Zealand and United Customer is the beneficiary in obtaining best value Why a Consortium for customer? An existing one: Star Alliance (2)

47. Why a Consortium for a customer? A prospective one: ISEUC • Quality • top-flight individual members in SE • Features • convenient access via Internet, multi-cultural • Service • one-stop “shopping”, single POC, F2F mediator • Cost • far less than transporting employees, less opportunity cost lost

48. Personal Visits: Lessons Learned • Lessons learned posted on www.iseuc.org, based on responses to queries: • Your current status of SE and DL • Your unique characteristics in SE and DL • Your taxonomy of SE • Your next steps for involvement with ISEUC

49. Operation of ISEUC requires following services • Administration • Marketing • Coordination • Single Point Of Contact (POC) for students taking courses from several universities • Soliciting recommendations from ISEUC university member advisory board • Soliciting recommendations from ISEUC industry member advisory board

50. Fulfills a real client need in timely and cost-effective fashion High quality Built from tested components Built-in redundancy High reliability Easy to learn Easy to use Affordable Robust Exceeds expectations of clients! Characteristics of ISEUC: sound familiar???