Comprehensibility of Variability in Model Fragments for Product Configuration

The ability to manage variability in software has become crucial to overcome the complexity and variety of systems. To this end, a comprehensible representation of variability is important. Nevertheless, in previous works, difficulties have been detected to understand variability in an industrial environment. Specifically, domain experts had difficulty understanding variability in model fragments to produce the software for their products. Hence, the aim of this paper is to further investigate these difficulties by conducting an experiment in which participants deal with variability in order to achieve their desired product configurations. Our results show new insights into product configuration which suggest next steps to improve general variability modeling approaches, and therefore promoting the adoption of these approaches in industry.

[1]  Michal Antkiewicz,et al.  Mapping features to models: a template approach based on superimposed variants , 2005, GPCE'05.

[2]  Paul Clements,et al.  Software product lines - practices and patterns , 2001, SEI series in software engineering.

[3]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Software Product Line Engineering - Foundations, Principles, and Techniques , 2005 .

[4]  Øystein Haugen,et al.  Resolution of Interfering Product Fragments in Software Product Line Engineering , 2014, MoDELS.

[5]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Three Cases of Feature-Based Variability Modeling in Industry , 2014, MoDELS.

[6]  Tanja E. J. Vos,et al.  An empirical approach for evaluating the usability of model-driven tools , 2013, Sci. Comput. Program..

[7]  Kyo Chul Kang,et al.  Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study , 1990 .

[8]  Paul Grünbacher,et al.  Product Line Tools are Product Lines Too: Lessons Learned from Developing a Tool Suite , 2008, 2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering.

[9]  Iris Reinhartz-Berger,et al.  Comprehensibility of orthogonal variability modeling languages: the cases of CVL and OVM , 2014, SPLC.

[10]  Oscar Pastor,et al.  Usability Evaluation of Variability Modeling by means of Common Variability Language , 2015, CAiSE Forum.

[11]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Software Product Line Engineering , 2005 .

[12]  Goetz Botterweck,et al.  Visual Tool Support for Configuring and Understanding Software Product Lines , 2008, 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference.

[13]  Birger Møller-Pedersen,et al.  Confluence in Domain-Independent Product Line Transformations , 2009, FASE.

[14]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[15]  Per Runeson,et al.  Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

[16]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[17]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews , 2002 .

[18]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[19]  Iris Reinhartz-Berger,et al.  Comprehending Feature Models Expressed in CVL , 2014, MoDELS.

[20]  Paul Grünbacher,et al.  Flexibility and End-User Support in Model-Based Product Line Tools , 2009, 2009 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications.

[21]  Márcio Ribeiro,et al.  The Love/Hate Relationship with the C Preprocessor: An Interview Study (Artifact) , 2015, Dagstuhl Artifacts Ser..

[22]  Birger Møller-Pedersen,et al.  Towards Evolution of Generic Variability Models , 2011, MoDELS.

[23]  Iris Reinhartz-Berger,et al.  Experimenting with the Comprehension of Feature-Oriented and UML-Based Core Assets , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.