Annals of Software Engineering

, Volume 6, Issue 1–4, pp 295–321 | Cite as

A stakeholder win–win approach to software engineering education

  • Barry Boehm
  • Alexander Egyed
  • Dan Port
  • Archita Shah
  • Julie Kwan
  • Ray Madachy


We have been applying the stakeholder win–win approach to software engineering education. The key stakeholders we are trying to simultaneously satisfy are the students; the industry recipients of our graduates; the software engineering community as parties interested in improved practices; and ourselves as instructors and teaching assistants. In order to satisfy the objectives or win conditions of these stakeholders, we have formed a strategic alliance with the USC Libraries to have software engineering student teams work with Library clients to define, develop, and transition USC digital library applications into operational use. This adds another set of key stakeholders: the Library clients of our class projects. This paper summarizes our experience in developing, conducting, and iterating the course. It concludes by evaluating the degree to which we have been able to meet the stakeholder-determined course objectives.


Operating System Engineering Community Software Engineering Digital Library Engineering Education 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AT&T (1993), Best Current Practices: Software Architecture Validation, AT&T, Murray Hill, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Basili, V.R., R.W. Selby and D.H. Hutchens (1986), “Experimentation in Software Engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, July, 733–743.Google Scholar
  3. Boehm, B.W. (1988), “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement,” Computer 21, 5, 61–72.Google Scholar
  4. Boehm, B.W. (1991), “Software Risk Management: Principles and Practices,” IEEE Software, 32–41.Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, B.W. (1996), “Anchoring the Software Process,” IEEE Software 13, 4, 73–82.Google Scholar
  6. Boehm, B.W. and P. Bose (1994), “A Collaborative Spiral Software Process Model Based on Theory W,” In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the Software Process, Applying the Software Process, IEEE, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  7. Boehm, B.W., P. Bose, E. Horowitz and M.J. Lee (1994), “Software Requirements As Negotiated Win Conditions,” In Proceedings of ICRE, pp. 74–83.Google Scholar
  8. Boehm, B.W., B.K. Clark, E. Horowitz, R. Madachy, R.W. Selby and C. Westland (1995), “Cost Models for Future Software Processes: COCOMO 2.0,” Annals of Software Engineering 1, 57–94.Google Scholar
  9. Boehm, B.W., A.F. Egyed, J. Kwan and R. Madachy (1997), “Developing Multimedia Applications with the WinWin Spiral Model,” In Proceedings of ESEC/FSE 97, Springer, pp. 20–39.Google Scholar
  10. Boehm, B.W., J.F. Elwell, A.B. Pyster, E.D. Stuckle and R.D. Williams (1982), “The TRW Software Productivity System,” In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM/IEEE, pp. 148–156.Google Scholar
  11. Boehm, B.W. and D. Port (1998), “Conceptual Modeling Challenges for Model Based Architecting and Software Engineering (MBASE),” In Proceedings of Symposium on Conceptual Modeling, Springer, to appear.Google Scholar
  12. Boehm, B.W. and R. Ross (1989), “Theory W Software Project Management: Principles and Examples,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 902–916.Google Scholar
  13. Booch, G. (1994), Object-Oriented Analysis and Design, 2nd ed., Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  14. Booch, G., I. Jacobson and J. Rumbaugh (1997), “The Unified Modeling Language for Object-Oriented Development,” Documentation set, version 1.0, Rational Software Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. Carmel, E., R. Whitaker and J. George (1993), “PD and Joint Application Design: A Transatlantic Comparison,” Communications of the ACM, June, 40–48.Google Scholar
  16. Conklin, J. and M. Begeman (1988), “gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion,” ACM Transactions OIS, October, 303–331.Google Scholar
  17. Dardenne, A., S. Fickas and A. Lamsweerde (1993), “Goal-Directed Concept Acquisition in Requirement Elicitation,” In Proceedings of 6th IWSSD, IEEE, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar
  18. Finkelstein, A., J. Kramer, B. Nusibeh, L. Finkelstein and M. Goedicke (1992), “Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 31–58.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, R. and W. Ury (1981), Getting to Yes, Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  20. Frazier, T.P. and J.W. Bailey (1996), “The Costs and Benefits of Domain-oriented Software Reuse: Evidence from the STARS Demonstration Projects,” IDA paper P-3191, Institute for Defense Analysis.Google Scholar
  21. Horowitz, E. et al. (1997), “WinWin Reference Manual: A System for Collaboration and Negotiation of Requirements,” Technical Report, Center for Software Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  22. IEEE-EIA (1995), “Software Development,” Trial Use Standard J-STD-016-1995, formerly known as IEEE 1498/EIA 640.Google Scholar
  23. Mullery, G. (1979), “CORE: A Method for Controlled Requirements Specification,” In Proceedings of 4th ICSE, IEEE, pp. 126–135.Google Scholar
  24. Port, D. (1998), Integrated Systems Development Methodology, Telos Press, to appear.Google Scholar
  25. Potts, C. and K. Takahashi (1993), “An Active Hypertext for System Requirements,” In Proceedings of 7th IWSSD, IEEE, pp. 62–68.Google Scholar
  26. Royce, W.E. (1990), “TRW's Ada Process Model for Incremental Development of Large Software Systems,” In Proceedings of 12th ICSE, IEEE/ACM, pp. 2–11.Google Scholar
  27. Rumbaugh, J., M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy and W. Lorensen (1991), Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. Sommerville, I. (1996), Software Engineering, 5th ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  29. SPC (1994), “Process Engineering with the Evolutionary Spiral Process Model,” SPC-93098-CMC, version 01.00.06, Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, VA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Boehm
    • 1
  • Alexander Egyed
    • 1
  • Dan Port
    • 1
  • Archita Shah
    • 1
  • Julie Kwan
    • 2
  • Ray Madachy
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Software Engineering, Henry Salvatori Computer Science 300University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.USC University LibrariesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Litton Data Systems, Guidance & Control SystemsWoodland HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations