Advertisement

Annals of Software Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 1–4, pp 311–328 | Cite as

Are software engineers true engineers?

  • Claus Lewerentz
  • Heinrich Rust
Article

Abstract

Software engineering is an often used term to describe the activities, methods, and tools of large scale software development. There is an ongoing discussion whether Software Engineering can be considered as an engineering discipline. In many respects the development of software shares common properties of other engineering disciplines. In contrast to “classical” engineering fields, theories, questions, and approaches from the social sciences are more important than those from the natural sciences. This is investigated here by comparing the situation found in software engineering with several concepts of engineering in general. Three viewpoints are used to guide this comparison: one is a social stereotype of engineers; the second is the organization of engineering profession organizations; and the third are capabilities which the engineers of the future will need.

Keywords

Software Engineering Software Engineer Social Competence Work Process Engineering Discipline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Argyris, C. (1992), On Organizational Learning, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  2. CoVan, J.P. (1994), Safety Engineering, Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Coy, W. (1989), "Brauchen wir eine Theorie der Informatik?," Informatik-Spektrum 12, 5, 256–266.Google Scholar
  4. Coy, W. (1992), "F¨ureine Theorie der Informatik!," In Sichtweisen der Informatik, Coy, W., F.Nake, J.-M.Google Scholar
  5. Pfl¨uger, A. Rolf, J. Seetzen, D. Siefkes, and R. Stransfeld, Eds., Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  6. Coy, W. (1997), "Defining Discipline," In Foundations of Computer Science: Potential-Theory-Cognition, Freksa, C., M. Jantzen, and R. Valk, Eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, Mentor, New American Library, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Dunlop, C. and R. Kling, Eds. (1991), Computerization and Controversy, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  9. Dyer, M. (1992), The Cleanroom Approach to Quality Software Development, Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Fenton, N.E. and S.L. Pfleeger, (1996), Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, International Thomson Computer Press, London, UK, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P.K. (1975), Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, NLB, London, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Goetz, P.W., Ed. (1991), The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, IL, 15th edition.Google Scholar
  13. Grady, R.B. (1997), Successful Software Process Improvement, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Henning, K. and J.E. Staufenbiel (1996), Berufsplanung f¨ur Ingenieure, Staufenbiel, K¨oln, Germany, 11th edition.Google Scholar
  15. Humphrey, W.S. (1995), A Discipline for Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Kemper, J.D. (1993), Introduction to the Engineering Profession, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  17. Kletz, T. (1991), An Engineer's View of Human Error, Institution of Chemical Engineers.Google Scholar
  18. Kornwachs, K. (1997), "Um wirklich Informatiker zu sein, gen¨ugt es nicht, Informatiker zu sein," Informatik Spektrum 20, 2, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhlmann, A. (1986), Introduction to Safety Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Leveson, N.G. (1995), Safeware, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  22. McGraw-Hill (1992), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 7th edition.Google Scholar
  23. Mills, H.D., M. Dyer, and R.C. Linger (1987), "Cleanroom Software Engineering," IEEE Software, pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
  24. Paulk, M.C., B. Curtis, M.B. Chrissis, and C.V. Weber (1993a), "Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1," Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, Software Engineering Insitute.Google Scholar
  25. Paulk, M.C., C.W. Weber, S.M. Garcia, M.B. Chrissis, and M. Busch (1993b), "Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1," Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-025, Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Perrow, C. (1984), Normal Accidents, Basic Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1991), Technikbewertung-Begriffe und Grundlagen. Erl¨auterungen und Hinweise zur VDI-Richtline 3780, VDI, D¨usseldorf, Germany.Google Scholar
  28. Windograd, T., Ed. (1995), Bringing Design to Software, ACM Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Winograd, T. and F. Flores (1986), Understanding Computers and Cognition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Zuse, H. (1998), A Framework of Software Measurement, de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus Lewerentz
  • Heinrich Rust

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations