Advertisement

Value-Based Software Engineering: Seven Key Elements and Ethical Considerations

  • Barry W. Boehm

Abstract:

This chapter presents seven key elements that provide candidate foundations for value-based software engineering:
  1. 1.

    Benefits Realization Analysis

     
  2. 2.

    Stakeholder Value Proposition Elicitation and Reconciliation

     
  3. 3.

    Business Case Analysis

     
  4. 4.

    Continuous Risk and Opportunity Management

     
  5. 5.

    Concurrent System and Software Engineering

     
  6. 6.

    Value-Based Monitoring and Control

     
  7. 7.

    Change as Opportunity

     
Using a case study we show how some of these elements can be used to incorporate ethical considerations into daily software engineering practice.

Keywords:

Benefits realization business case analysis cost-benefit analysis investment analysis return on investment risk management stakeholder values software economics software engineering ethics value-based software engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (ACM/IEEE, 1998).
    ACM/IEEE: The Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. http://www.acm.org, http://www.computer.org (1998)Google Scholar
  2. (Ahern et al., 2001)
    Ahern, D., Clouse, A., Turner, R.: CMMI Distilled (Addison Wesley, 2001)Google Scholar
  3. (Al-Said, 2003).
    Al-Said, M.: Identifying, Analyzing, and Avoiding Software Model Clashes PhD Dissertation (USC, 2003)Google Scholar
  4. (Amram and Kulatilaka, 1999).
    Amram, M., Kulatilaka, N.: Real Options (Harvard Business School Press, 1999)Google Scholar
  5. (Anderson et al., 1993)
    Anderson, R., Johnson, D., Gotterbarn, D., Perolle, J.: Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making (Comm. ACM, February 1993), pp 98–105Google Scholar
  6. (Baird et al., 2000)
    Baird, R., Ramsower, R., Rosenbaum, S.: Cyberethics (Prometheus Books, 2000)Google Scholar
  7. (Baldwin and Clark, 2000).
    Baldwin, C., Clark, K.: Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, 2000)Google Scholar
  8. (Boehm and Turner, 2004).
    Boehm, B. W., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline (Addison Wesley, 2004)Google Scholar
  9. (Boehm et al., 2000)
    Boehm, B. W., Port, D., Al-Said, M.: Avoiding the Software Model-Clash Spiderweb (Computer, 2000), pp 120–122Google Scholar
  10. (Boehm et al., 2002a)
    Boehm, B. W., Port, D., Jain, A., Basili, V.: Achieving CMMI Level 5 Improvements with MBASE and the CeBASE Method (Cross Talk, 2002)Google Scholar
  11. (Boehm et al., 2002b)
    Boehm, B. W., Port, D., Huang, L., Brown, A. W.: Using the Spiral Model and MBASE to Generate New Acquisition Process Models: SAIV, CAIV, and SCQAIV (Cross Talk, 2002)Google Scholar
  12. (Boehm and Huang, 2003).
    Boehm, B. W. and Huang, L.G.: Value-based Software Engineering: A Case Study, IEEE Computer, March 2003 pp 33–41Google Scholar
  13. (Boehm and Port, 2001).
    Boehm, B. W., Port, D.: Balancing Discipline and Flexibility with the Spiral Model and MBASE (Cross Talk, 2001)Google Scholar
  14. (Boehm and Ross, 1989).
    Boehm, B. W., Ross, R.: Theory-W Software Project Management: Principles and Examples (IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1989), pp 902–916Google Scholar
  15. (Carr, 2002).
    Carr, D.: Sweet Victory (Baseline, 2002)Google Scholar
  16. (Cohen, 1995).
    Cohen, L.: Quality Function Deployment (Prentice Hall, 1995)Google Scholar
  17. (Collins et al., 1994)
    Collins, W., Miller, K., Spielman, B., Wherry, J.: How Good is Good Enough? (Comm. ACM, 1994), pp 81–91Google Scholar
  18. (Cusumano and Selby, 1995).
    Cusumano, M., Selby, R.: Microsoft Secrets, How the World’s Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets, and Manages People (The Free Press, 1995)Google Scholar
  19. (Ehn, 1990).
    Ehn P. (ed): Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts (Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1990)Google Scholar
  20. (Ermann and Shauf, 2003).
    Ermann, M. D., Shauf, M.: Computers, Ethics, and Society 3 (Oxford U. Press, 2003)Google Scholar
  21. (FAA, 1997).
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The Integrated Capability Maturity Model (1997)Google Scholar
  22. (Faulk et al., 2000)
    Faulk, S., Harmon, D., Raffo, D.: Value-Based Software Engineering (VBSE): A Value-Driven Approach to Product-Line Engineering. Proceedings, First International Conference on Software Product Line Engineering (August 2000)Google Scholar
  23. (Highsmith, 2000).
    Highsmith, J.: Adaptive Software Development (Dorset House, 2000)Google Scholar
  24. (Highsmith, 2002).
    Highsmith, J.: Agile Software Development Ecosystems, (Addison Wesley, 2002)Google Scholar
  25. (Jacobson et al., 1999)
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process (Addison Wesley, 1999)Google Scholar
  26. (Johnson and Nissenbaum, 1995).
    Johnson, D., Nissenbaum, H.: Computers, Ethics, and Social Values (Prentice Hall, 1995)Google Scholar
  27. (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).
    Kaplan, R., Norton, D.: The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action (Harvard Business School Press, 1996)Google Scholar
  28. (Kauffman, 1995).
    Kauffman, S.: At Home in the Universe (Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
  29. (Kruchten, 2001).
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process 3 (Addison Wesley, 2001)Google Scholar
  30. (Paulk et al., 1994)
    Paulk, M., Weber, C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.: The Capability Maturity Model (Addison Wesley, 1994)Google Scholar
  31. (Parnas, 1979).
    Parnas, D.: Designing Software for Ease of Extension and Contraction (IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1979), pp 128–137Google Scholar
  32. (Rawls, 1971).
    Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice (Belknap/Harvard U. Press, 1971)Google Scholar
  33. (Reifer, 2002).
    Reifer, D.: Making the Software Business Case (Addison Wesley, 2002)Google Scholar
  34. (Royce, 1998).
    Royce, W. E.: Software Project Management (Addison-Wesley, 1998)Google Scholar
  35. (Morton, 1991).
    Morton, M. S.: The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and Organization Transformation (Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar
  36. (SEI, 2002).
    Software Engineering Institute (SEI): Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1 (CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012, 2002)Google Scholar
  37. (SPC, 1992).
    Software Productivity Consortium (SPC): The Evolutionary Spiral Process. SPC Technical Report (Herndon, VA, 1992)Google Scholar
  38. (Sullivan et al., 2001)
    Sullivan, K., Cai, Y., Hallen, B., Griswold, W.: The Structure and Value of Modularity in Software Design. Proceedings, ESEC/FSE, 2001 (ACM Press, 2001), pp 99–108Google Scholar
  39. (Thorp and DMR).
    Thorp, J., DMR: The Information Paradox (McGraw Hill, 1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry W. Boehm
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Software EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations