Metrics for the Evaluation of Feature Models in an Industrial Context: A Case Study at Opel

  • Olesia Oliinyk
  • Kai Petersen
  • Manfred Schoelzke
  • Martin Becker
  • Soeren Schneickert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9013)


[Context & motivation] Feature models are used in product line engineering to document possible product configurations on the feature level. [Problem] In order to quantify the success of adopting feature modeling in practice, we need to understand the industry relevant metrics for feature model evaluation. [Solution] In order to identify the metrics a Goal-Question-Metric approach was used in the context of a case study conducted at Adam Opel AG. [Contribution:] We identified seven goals (quality criteria) we should strive for and evaluate when using feature models. Furthermore, we identified 18 sub-goals, 27 questions and corresponding metrics. The metrics were used to reflect on the feature modeling conducted at the company.


Feature modelling Evaluation GQM House of Quality Automotive Opel 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Technical report, DTIC Document (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bezerra, C.I.M., Andrade, R.M.C., Monteiro, J.M.S.: Measures for quality evaluation of feature models. In: Schaefer, I., Stamelos, I. (eds.) ICSR 2015. LNCS, vol. 8919, pp. 282–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madu, C.N.: House of quality (QFD) in a minute: Quality function deployment. Chi Publishers Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caldiera, V.R.B.G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering 2(1994), 528–532 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, vol. 17, p. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sundmark, D., Petersen, K., Larsson, S.: An exploratory case study of testing in an automotive electrical system release process. In: 2011 6th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES), Vasteras, Sweden, June 15–17 , 2011, pp. 166–175 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thiel, S., Hein, A.: Modeling and using product line variability in automotive systems. IEEE Software 19(4), 66–72 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14(2), 131–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pascoe, N.: Reliability Technology: Principles and Practice of Failure Prevention in Electronic Systems. John Wiley & Sons (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pohl, R., Stricker, V., Pohl, K.: Measuring the structural complexity of feature models. In: 2013 IEEE/ACM 28th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 454–464. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Štuikys, V., Damaševicius, R.: Measuring complexity of domain models represented by feature diagrams. Information Technology and Control 38(3), 179–187 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bagheri, E., Gasevic, D.: Assessing the maintainability of software product line feature models using structural metrics. Software Quality Journal 19(3), 579–612 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger, T., Guo, J.: Towards system analysis with variability model metrics. In: The Eighth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems, VaMoS 2014, p. 23 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Cortés, A.R.: Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review. Inf. Syst. 35(6), 615–636 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olesia Oliinyk
    • 1
  • Kai Petersen
    • 2
  • Manfred Schoelzke
    • 3
  • Martin Becker
    • 4
  • Soeren Schneickert
    • 4
  1. 1.CapgeminiFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Blekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden
  3. 3.Adam Opel AGRüsselsheimGermany
  4. 4.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations