Value-based software engineering (VBSE)

We consider a set of programs a family when it pays to look at their common aspects before looking at their differences. For commercial software developers the implications are twofold: First, making rational decisions about product-line processes and products requires the ability to answer the question: “Does it pay?” Second, whether or not something pays is ultimately a business (rather than software engineering) question. In short, making sound software engineering decisions requires understanding the business implications of those decisions, and vice versa. This paper describes work in progress to develop a product-line process model and common value metric that adequately link product value drivers (what it pays) with the software engineering decisions that affect those drivers. We describe a systematic approach to quantifying the return on both product and process improvements, based on common software engineering principles and a common value metric, customer value .

[1]  R. Harmon,et al.  Linking marketing strategy to customer value: implications for technology marketers , 1997, Innovation in Technology Management. The Key to Global Leadership. PICMET '97.

[2]  Paul Clements,et al.  Software architecture in practice , 1999, SEI series in software engineering.

[3]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  Structured programming , 1972, A.P.I.C. Studies in data processing.

[4]  David M. Weiss,et al.  Engineering domains: executable commands as an example , 1998, Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on Software Reuse (Cat. No.98TB100203).

[5]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  On the Design and Development of Program Families , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[6]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  Notes on structured programming , 1970 .

[7]  David Raffo,et al.  Empirical analysis in software process simulation modeling , 2000, J. Syst. Softw..

[8]  Stuart R. Faulk.  Achieving industrial relevance with academic excellence: lessons from the Oregon master of software engineering , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[9]  Steve McConnell,et al.  Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules , 1996 .

[10]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[11]  David Raffo,et al.  Software process simulation to achieve higher CMM levels , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[12]  M. E. Conway.  HOW DO COMMITTEES INVENT , 1967 .

[13]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  Review of David L. Parnas' "Designing Software for Ease of Extension and Contraction" , 2004 .

[14]  Robert R. Harmon,et al.  The Persuasive Effects of Source Credibility in Buy and Lease Situations , 1982 .

[15]  David Raffo,et al.  Modeling software processes quantitatively and assessing the impact of potential process changes on process performance , 1996 .

[16]  S. H. Star,et al.  Advanced Marketing Strategy : Phenomena, Analysis and Decisions , 1991 .

[17]  Ulrich Lauther.  Introduction to Synthesis , 1992 .

[18]  Jennifer Stapleton,et al.  Developing A RAD Standard , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[19]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference , 1972 .

[20]  R. Belk.  An Exploratory Assessment of Situational Effects in Buyer Behavior , 1974 .

[21]  Klaus Schmid,et al.  A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[22]  J. Hauser,et al.  The House of Quality , 1988 .

[23]  R. Belk.  Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior , 1975 .