Advertisement

Mapping Agility to Automotive Software Product Line Concerns

  • Philipp HohlEmail author
  • Sven Theobald
  • Martin Becker
  • Michael Stupperich
  • Jürgen Münch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11271)

Abstract

Context: Software product lines are widely used in automotive embedded software development. This software paradigm improves the quality of software variants by reuse. The combination of agile software development practices with software product lines promises a faster delivery of high quality software. However, the set up of an agile software product line is still challenging, especially in the automotive domain. Goal: This publication aims to evaluate to what extend agility fits to automotive product line engineering. Method: Based on previous work and two workshops, agility is mapped to software product line concerns. Results: This publication presents important principles of software product lines, and examines how agile approaches fit to those principles. Additionally, the principles are related to one of the four major concerns of software product line engineering: Business, Architecture, Process, and Organization. Conclusion: Agile software product line engineering is promising and can add value to existing development approaches. The identified commonalities and hindering factors need to be considered when defining a combined agile product line engineering approach.

Keywords

Software product line Agile Agility Automotive software development Commonalities Hindering factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Taiber, J., McGregor, J.D.: Efficient engineering of safety-critical, software-intensive systems. In: 2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), pp. 836–841Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oliveira, P., Ferreira, A.L., Dias, D., Pereira, T., Monteiro, P., Machado, R.J.: An analysis of the commonality and differences between ASPICE and ISO26262 in the context of software development. In: Stolfa, J., Stolfa, S., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2017. CCIS, vol. 748, pp. 216–227. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pretschner, A., Salzmann, C., Schätz, B., Staudner, T.: Fourth International Workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive Systems (SEAS 2007): Proceedings, ICSE 2007 Workshops, 20–26 May 2007, Minneapolis ICSE 2007. IEEE, Piscataway (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Contag, M., et al.: How they did it: an analysis of emission defeat devices in modern automobiles. In: 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 231–250. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Münch, J., Schmid, K., Rombach, H.D.: Perspectives on the Future of Software Engineering: Essays in Honor of Dieter Rombach. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37395-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broy, M.: Challenges in automotive software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2006, pp. 33–42. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCaffery, F., Pikkarainen, M., Richardson, I.: Ahaa-agile, hybrid assessment method for automotive, safety critical smes. In: Schäfer, W. (ed.) Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, p. 551. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leitner, A., Mader, R., Kreiner, C., Steger, C., Weiß, R.: A development methodology for variant-rich automotive software architectures. e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 128(6), 222–227 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thiel, S., Babar, M.A., Botterweck, G., O’Brien, L.: Software product lines in automotive systems engineering. SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars Electron. Electr. Syst. 1(1), 531–543 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wozniak, L., Clements, P.: How automotive engineering is taking product line engineering to the extreme. In: Schmidt, D.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Product Line, pp. 327–336. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: Supporting variability through agility to achieve adaptable architectures. In: Agile Software Architecture, pp. 139–159. Elsevier (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hohl, P., Münch, J., Stupperich, M.: Forces that support agile adoption in the automotive domain. In: Software Engineering (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bosch, J., Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M.: Introducing agile customer-centered development in a legacy software product line. Softw. Pract. Exp. 41(8), 871–882 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eliasson, U., Heldal, R., Lantz, J., Berger, C.: Agile model-driven engineering in mechatronic systems - an industrial case study. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 433–449. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katumba, B., Knauss, E.: Agile development in automotive software development: challenges and opportunities. In: Jedlitschka, A., Kuvaja, P., Kuhrmann, M., Männistö, T., Münch, J., Raatikainen, M. (eds.) PROFES 2014. LNCS, vol. 8892, pp. 33–47. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13835-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hohl, P., Stupperich, M., Münch, J., Schneider, K.: Die variantenvielfalt agil managen: agile software-produktlinien im automobilsegment. In: Tagungsband - Embedded Software Engineering Kongress 2016 : 28. November bis 2. Dezember 2016, Sindelfingen, pp. 427–433 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martini, A., Pareto, L., Bosch, J.: Communication factors for speed and reuse in large-scale agile software development. In: Jarzabek, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 17th International Software Product Line Conference, p. 42. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    KUGLER MAAG CIE GmbH: Agile in automotive - state of practice 2015, April 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The Scrum Guide (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diebold, P., Ostberg, J.-P., Wagner, S., Zendler, U.: What do practitioners vary in using scrum? In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 40–51. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schloßer, A., Schnitzler, J., Sentis, T., Richenhagen, J.: Agile processes in automotive industry – efficiency and quality in software development. In: Bargende, M., Reuss, H.C., Wiedemann, J. (eds.) 16. Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium. Proceedings, pp. 489–503. Springer, Wiesbaden (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13255-2_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Valade, R.: The big projects always fail: Taking an enterprise agile. In: Agile 2008 Conference, pp. 148–153 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Antinyan, V., et al.: Identifying risky areas of software code in agile/lean software development: an industrial experience report. In: 2014 Software Evolution Week - IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Reengineering and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE), pp. 154–163 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hayashi, K., Aoyama, M., Kobata, K.: A concurrent feedback development method and its application to automotive software development. In: 2015 Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp. 362–369 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hohl, P., Münch, J., Schneider, K., Stupperich, M.: Forces that prevent agile adoption in the automotive domain. In: Abrahamsson, P., Jedlitschka, A., Nguyen Duc, A., Felderer, M., Amasaki, S., Mikkonen, T. (eds.) PROFES 2016. LNCS, vol. 10027, pp. 468–476. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hohl, P., Ghofrani, J., Münch, J., Stupperich, M., Schneider, K.: Searching for common ground: existing literature on automotive agile software product lines. In: Bendraou, R., Raffo, D., LiGuo, H., Maggi, F.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Software and System Process - ICSSP 2017, pp. 70–79. ACM Press (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Linden, F.: Family evaluation framework overview & introduction, 29 August 2005Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Linden, F., Schmid, K., Rommes, E.: Software Product Lines in Action. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71437-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wentzel, K.D.: Software reuse—facts and myths. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 1994, pp. 267–268. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blau, B., Hildenbrand, T.: Product line engineering in large-scale lean and agile software product development environments - towards a hybrid approach to decentral control and managed reuse. In: 2011 Sixth International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES), pp. 404–408 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Black, S., Boca, P.P., Bowen, J.P., Gorman, J., Hinchey, M.: Formal versus agile: survival of the fittest. Computer 42(9), 37–45 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buckle, G., Clements, P.C., McGregor, J.D., Muthig, D., Schmid, K.: Calculating roi for software product lines. IEEE Softw. 21(3), 23–31 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    International Organization for Standardization: Software and systems engineering – reference model for product line engineering and management, 01 December 2015Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tian, K.: Adding more agility to software product line methods: a feasibility study on its customization using agile practices. Int. J. Knowl. Syst. Sci. 5(4), 17–34 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hohl, P., Stupperich, M., Münch, J., Schneider, K.: An assessment model to foster the adoption of agile software product lines in the automotive domainGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    VDA QMC Working Group 13/Automotive SIG: Automotive spice process assessment/reference model, 01 November 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Hohl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sven Theobald
    • 2
  • Martin Becker
    • 2
  • Michael Stupperich
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 3
  1. 1.Daimler AG, Research and DevelopmentUlmGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.Reutlingen UniversityReutlingenGermany

Personalised recommendations