Advertisement

Evolving an Experience Base for Software Process Research

  • Zhihao Chen
  • Daniel Port
  • Yue Chen
  • Barry Boehm
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3840)

Abstract

Since 1996 the USC Center for Software Engineering has been accumulating a large amount of software process experience through many real-client project software engineering practices. Through the application of the Experience Factory approach, we have collected and evolved this experience into an experience base (eBASE) which has been leveraged successfully for empirically based software process research. Through eBASE we have realized tangible benefits in automating, organizational learning, and strategic advantages for software engineering research. We share our rationale for creating and evolving eBASE, give examples of how the eBASE has been used in recent process research, discuss current limitations and challenges with eBASE, and what we hope to do achieve in the future with it.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Organizational Learning Unify Modeling Language Model Software Development Project Unify Modeling Language Class Diagram 
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. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., McGarry, F., Pajerski, R., Page., G., Waligora, S.: The software engineering laboratory: an operational software experience factory. In: International Conference on Software Engineering archive. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering table of contents, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 370–381 (1992) ISBN:0-89791-504-6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.H.: The Experience Factory. Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering -2 Volume Set, pp. 469–476 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Althoff, K.-D., Decker, B., Hartkopf, S., Jedlitschka, A., Nick, M., Rech, J.: Experience Management: The Fraunhofer IESE Experience Factory. In: Perner, P. (ed.) Proc. Industrial Data Mining Conference, Leipzig, Institut für Bildverarbeitung und angewandte Informatik, July 2001, pp. 24–25 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rech, J., Decker, B., Althoff, K.-D.: Using Knowledge Discovery Technology in Experience Management Systems. In: Proc. Workshop "Maschinelles Lernen (FGML 2001)", GI-Workshop-Woche "Lernen - Lehren - Wissen - Adaptivität (LLWA 2001)", Universität Dortmund (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, B.: Anchoring the Software Process. IEEE Software, 73–82 (July 1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boehm, B., Abi-Antoun, M., Port, D., Kwan, L.: Requirements Engineering, Expectations Management, and the Two Cultures. International Conference on Requirements Engineering (June 1999), http://sunset.usc.edu/TechRpts/Papers/usccse98-518/usccse98-518.pdf
  9. 9.
    Boehm, B., Port, D.: Escaping the Software Tar Pit: Model Clashes and How to Avoid Them. ACM Software Engineering Notes, 36–48 (January 1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boehm, B., Port, D.: When Models Collide: Lessons from Software Systems Analysis. IEEE IT Professional, 49–56 (January/February 1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boehm, B., Port, D., Abi-Antoun, M., Egyed, A.: Guidelines for the Life Cycle Objectives (LCO) and the Life Cycle Architecture (LCA) deliverables for Model-Based Architecting and Software Engineering (MBASE). USC Technical Report USC-CSE-98-519 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park, R.: Software Size Measurement: A Framework for Counting Source Statements. CMU/SEI-92-TR-20, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, Y., Boehm, B., Madachy, R., Valerdi, R.: An Empirical Study of eServices Product UML Sizing Metrics. In: ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (August 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boehm, B., In, H.: Aids for Identifying Conflicts Among Quality Requirements. In: Proceedings, ICRE 1996 and IEEE Software (March 1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boehm, B., Basili, V., Port, D., Jain, A.: Achieving CMMI Level 5 Improvements with MBASE and the CeBASE Method. CrossTalk 15(5), 9–16 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thorp, J.: The Information Paradox: Realizing the Business Benefits of Information Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Boehm, B., In, H.: Cost vs. Quality Requirements: Conflict Analysis and Negotiation Aids. Software Quality Professional 1(2), 38–50 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boehm, B., Abts, C., et al.: Software Cost Estimation With COCOMO II. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000) ISBN 0-13-026692-2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhihao Chen
    • 1
  • Daniel Port
    • 2
  • Yue Chen
    • 1
  • Barry Boehm
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Software EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Information Technology ManagementUniversity HawaiiHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations