1 / 17

Agenda for CBSE-seminar

misu
Download Presentation

Agenda for CBSE-seminar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Seminar on CBSE (component-based software engineering): An industrial survey in Norway, Germany and ItalySimula Research Lab., Oslo, 4 Feb. 2005http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/cbse-survey/Reidar ConradiDept. Computer and Information Science (IDI) NTNU, NO-7491 Trondheimconradi@idi.ntnu.no, Tel +47 73.593444, Fax +47 73.594466 CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  2. Agenda for CBSE-seminar 1130-1200 LUNCH and REFRESHMENTS, buffet syle 1200-1215 Reidar Conradi, NTNU: general intro, why is CBSE important?1215-1230 Christian Bunse, Fraunhofer IESE: CBSE: a short overview.1230-1245 Maurizio Morisio, Politecnico di Torino: COTS and OSS: what is it?1245-1300 Preliminary discussion 1300-1400 Jingyue Li et al., NTNU: Main results from survey                   Section 1: COTS vs. OSS                   Section 2: Risk management in OTS based development                   Section 3: Process improvement for OTS based development1400-1430 Preliminary discussion1430-1435 Reidar Conradi, NTNU: lottery award ceremony for one respondent1435-1500 COFFEE BREAK 1500-1530 Additional and more qualitative comments from three companies:              - Per Spilling, Objectware                - Eivind Tagseth, Abeo (ex-ConsultIT)                    - Rune Rysstad, WM-data1530-1545 Odd Petter Slyngstad, NTNU: Method issues in the survey 1545-1615 Final discussion CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  3. Int’l CBSE survey, 2003-2005 • This is the promised seminar for the survey respondents! • What's in it for you: • learn how to practise CBSE more efficiently • identify the major risks and challenges in using CBSE • learn from other industrial projects • exchange CBSE experiences with industrial colleagues • Target audience: • software professionals and companies that have practiced or want to practice CBSE • researchers that want to learn about issues and results • journalists that want to convey main results back to the ICT community CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  4. Motivation for CBSE Software reuse: • Any software artifact: rqmts, UML designs, Java code, … • Development ”FOR reuse”: making software parts for later reuse. Investing, need domain insight. • Development ”WITH reuse”(CBSE): composing a software system with pre-made parts. Harvesting. • Component = executable software part, open/closed source: • internal • external: COTS (commercial-Off-The-Shelf) • external: OSS (open source software) 100,000s of external ”OTS”-components, available on web. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  5. Component-based system:Application + components + glue/addware CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  6. Reuse/CBSE – key technology for: • Shorter time-to-market (months) • Increased productivity / lower cost (pays off in 3rd project, in 1st with CBSE) • Better quality (well-tested components) • Promoting standards (domain, architecture, platform) • ... • But may have to adjust the software process CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  7. Many CBSE challenges: • OTS componentsused by 30% of Norwegian software projects, 75% are successful. Need guidance. • How to manage risks at different levels – project, requirements, architecture, components, ...? • Process changes: overall planning, increments, requirements management, ”acquire vs. develop”, customer contact, component decisions, … • How to evaluate, integrate and test components? • What is the impact on future maintenance? • How to manage external providers? • … CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  8. Need empirical base for what works or not • Case studies / post-mortems: • Many reported, also in books [Karlsson95]. • At Ericsson-Grimstad: reused components had less defects, more stablethan non-reused ones(Ex.1). • Top 10 COTS issues (Ex.2) [Basili01]. • Controlled experiments: • Hard to apply here, due to lack of realism. • Surveys w/ questionnaires or interviews: • A few studies (Ex.3), including our own. • OSS survey in Italy [Bonaccorsi03]. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  9. Ex.1 GPRS/UMTS system at Ericsson-Grimstad CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  10. Ex.2 10 hypotheses on COTS issues [Basili01]. H1: More than 99% of all executing instructions come from COTS components. H2: More than half the features in large COTS components go unused. H3: Average COTS component has new release every 8-9 months. H4: Dev. and post-deployment costs go by (#COTS comp.)**2. H5: Post-deployment costs exceed development costs. H6: Glue-code less than half dev. effort, costing 3x more per LOC. H7: Non-development costs, e.g. licensing fees, are significant. H8: Component assessment and tailoring efforts vary greatly by COTS product classes. H9: Personnel capability and experience are dominant cost factors. H10: COTS-based development is currently high-risk, although many have used it successfully. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  11. Ex.3 COTS usage contradicts “common wisdom” Structured interviews of 7 Norwegian and Italian SMEs: Thesis T1: Open-source software is often used as closed source. Thesis T2: Integration problems result primarily from lack of compliance with standards; not architectural mismatches. Thesis T3: Custom code is mainly devoted to add functionalities. Thesis T4: Formal selection seldom used; rather familiarity with product or generic architecture. Thesis T5: Architecture more important than requirements to select components. Thesis T6: Tendency to increase level of control over vendor whenever possible. See [Torchiano04]. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  12. Joint CBSE survey in 3 countries • By NTNU/Simula Research Lab, Fraunhofer IESE, and Politecnico di Torino. • Pre-study of 16 projects in Norway in 2003. • Questionnaire in native language + English, using SESE web tool at Simula. • Asking 800-900 companies in 3 countries, aim for 150 reponses (40% of 30%?). • Have ca. 80 responses, 50 from Norway. • Main study: May 2004 - March 2005. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  13. Main results • 30% of the IT companies had applied CBSE. • 3/4 of projects in these had success with CBSE. • Most projects searched the Internet for components, then tried out a few, before making a decision. • An incremental process is advisable to allow (re)negotiation of requirements. • Component quality is not always a major concern. • Local expert on the actual components is a big asset. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  14. Other results • OSS components (open source) might be preferred, as they allow local changes. • COTS providers gave better technial support than OSS ones. • COTS components generally followed market trends. • Underestimation of integration and maintenance effort was a problem. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  15. Conclusion • First representative, int’l CBSE survey • Many interesting results, some surprising (web-based evaluation process) • Later supplement by qualitative interviews and real case studies, also look at WebServices • Re-do survey in UK and USA? • Surveys (as any other studies) are hard work! CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  16. Literature list (1) • [Basili01] Victor R. Basili and Barry Boehm, “COTS-Based Systems Top 10 List”, IEEE Computer, 34(5):91-93, May/June 2001. • [Boehm99] Barry W. Boehm and Chris Abts, “COTS integration: Plug and Pray?”, IEEE Computer, 32(1):135-138, Jan. 1999. • [Boehm03b] Donald J. Reifer, Victor R. Basili, Barry W. Boehm, and Betsy Clark, “Eight Lessons Learned in COTS-based Systems Maintenance”, IEEE Software, 20(5):94-96, Sept./Oct. 2003. • [Bonaccorsi03] Andrea Bonaccorsi and Cristina Rossi, "Why Open Source software may succeed”, Research Policy, 32(7):1243–1258, 2003. • [COCOTS00] Chris Abts, Barry W. Boehm, and Elizabeth Bailey Clark, “COCOTS: A COTS Software Integration Lifecycle Cost Model- Model Overview and Preliminary Data Collection Findings”. Technical report: USC-CSE-2000-501, http://sunset.usc.edu/publications/TECHRPTS/2000/usccse2000-501/usccse2000-501.pdf. • [Comella-Dorda02] Santiago Comella-Dorda, John C. Dean, Edwin Morris, and Patricia Oberndorf, “A Process for COTS Software Product Evaluation”, First Int’l Conference on COTS-Based Software Systems (ICCBSS’02), Orlando, FL, USA, February 4-6, 2002, Springer Verlag LNCS 2255, ISBN 3-540-43100-4, pp. 176-187. • [Heineman00] George T. Heineman, William T. Councill, Janet S. Flynt, Alok Mehta, John R. Speed, and Mary Shaw, “Component-based software engineering and the issue of trust”, 22nd Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’2000), Limerick, Ireland, IEEE-CS Press, 4-11 June 2000, pp. 661-664. • [Frakes95] William B. Frakes and Christopher J. Fox, “Sixteen Questions About Software Reuse”, CACM, 38(6):75-87, June 1995. • [Karlsson95] Even-André Karlsson (Ed.), "Software Reuse: A Holistic Approach" (The REBOOT Methodology Handbook), Wiley Series in Software Based Systems. John Wiley. 510 p., 1995. ISBN 0-471-95819-0. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

  17. Literature list (2) • [Li04] Jingyue Li, Finn Olav Bjørnson, Reidar Conradi, and Vigdis By Kampenes, "An Empirical Study of Variations in COTS-based Software Development Processes in Norwegian IT Industry", 10th IEEE International Metrics Symposium (Metrics'04), Sept. 14-16, 2004, Chicago, p. 72-83. Recommended for journal publication in Empirical Software Engineering. This contains results from the pre-study in Norway in 2003. • [Li05] Jingyue Li, Reidar Conradi, Odd Petter N. Slyngstad, Christian Bunse, Marco Torchiano, and Maurizio Morisio, "Preliminary Results of a State-of-the-Practice Survey on Motivations of Using Off-The-Shelf Components", Submitted to 6th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES'2005), 13-16 June, 2005, Oulu, Finland, 17 p. This serves as the technical report of the main study in 2004, the OTS survey. • [Mohagheghi04] Parastoo Mohagheghi, Reidar Conradi, Ole M. Killi, and Henrik Schwarz, "An Empirical Study of Software Reuse vs. Defect Density and Stability", 26th Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'2004), 23-28 May 2004, Edinburgh, Scotland, IEEE-CS Press, pp. 282-292 (given one of the five Distinguished Paper Awards at ICSE’04). • [Morisio00] Maurizio Morisio, Carolyn B. Seaman, Amy T. Parra, Victor R. Basili, Steve E. Kraft, and Steven E. Condon, “Investigating and Improving a COTS-Based Software Development Process”, 22nd Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’2000), Limerick, Ireland, IEEE-CS Press, 4-11 June 2000, pp. 31-40. • [Morisio02] Maurizio Morisio, Michel Ezran, and Colin Tully, “Success and Failure Factors in Software Reuse”, IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 28(4):340-357, April 2002. • [Ropponen00] Janne Ropponen and Kalle Lyytinen, “Components of Software Development Risk: How to Address”, IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 26(2):98-111, Feb. 2000. • [Szyperski03] Clemens A. Szyperski, “Component Technology - What, Where, and How?”, 25th Int’l Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’2003), Portland, Oregon, USA, IEEE-CS Press, 3-10 May 2003, pp. 684-693. • [Torchiano04] Marco Torchiano and Maurizio Morisio, "Overlooked Facts on COTS-based Development", IEEE Software, 21(2):88-93, March/April, 2004. CBSE seminar, Simula Research Lab., 4 Feb. 2005

More Related