Advertisement

Towards Quantitative Evaluation of Reuse Within Safety-Oriented Process Lines

  • Barbara GallinaEmail author
  • Shankar Iyer
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 896)

Abstract

Recently, Safety-oriented Process Line Engineering (SoPLE) has been proposed as a sound solution to systematize reuse in the context of safety-oriented processes described within safety-related standards. Currently, however, no metrics have been used to measure the actual gain in terms of reuse that the application of this engineering method entails. To overcome this lack of quantitative evidence, we adopt the GQM\(^{+}\) Strategies model, an extension of the Goal/Question/Metric (GQM) paradigm, for measurements. After having defined our specific measurement goals, we build on top of existing metrics, defined for measuring product-related reuse, and we translate them in our semantic space to evaluate our goals. We then apply our GQM\(^{+}\) Strategies model on a ECSS-compliant SoPL to illustrate and assess its usefulness.

Keywords

SoPLs Process improvement Change management GQM\(^{+}\) Strategies GQM ECSS-E-ST-40C 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by EU and VINNOVA via the ECSEL JU under grant agreement No 692474, AMASS project [7].

References

  1. 1.
    BVR Tool. http://modelbased.net/tools/bvr-tool/. Accessed 9 July 2018
  2. 2.
    Eclipse Process Framework Project. http://www.eclipse.org/epf/. Accessed 9 July 2018
  3. 3.
    ECSS, ECSS-E-ST-40C: Space Engineering-Software. http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/2R690/doc/ECSS-E-ST-40C(6March2009).pdf. Accessed 9 July 2018
  4. 4.
    ECSS, ECSS-M-ST-10C: Space project management - Project planning and implementation. http://everyspec.com/ESA/download.php?spec=ECSS-M-ST-10C.048180.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2018
  5. 5.
    AMASS. Deliverable D1.1: Case Studies Description and Business Impact (2017). Accessed 9 July 2018Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    AMASS. Deliverable D1.3: Evaluation framework and quality metrics (2017). Accessed 9 July 2018Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    AMASS: Architecture-driven, Multi-concern and Seamless Assurance and Certification of Cyber-Physical Systems. http://www.amass-ecsel.eu. Accessed 9 July 2018
  8. 8.
    AMASS Consortium: Objectives. AMASS. http://www.amass-ecsel.eu/content/objectives. Accessed 9 July 2018
  9. 9.
    Basili, V., et al.: GQM+strategies in a nutshell. Aligning Organizations Through Measurement. TFISSSE, pp. 9–17. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05047-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach, 1994. Citado 3, 11 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker, M., Laue, R.: A comparative survey of business process similarity measures. Comput. Ind. 63(2), 148–167 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berger, C., Rendel, H., Rumpe, B.: Measuring the ability to form a product line from existing products. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6583 (2014)
  13. 13.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36, 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallina, B., Kashiyarandi, S., Martin, H., Bramberger, R.: Modeling a safety-and automotive-oriented process line to enable reuse and flexible process derivation. In: IEEE 38th International Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW), pp. 504–509 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallina, B., Kashiyarandi, S., Zugsbratl, K., Geven, A.: Enabling cross-domain reuse of tool qualification certification artefacts. In: Bondavalli, A., Ceccarelli, A., Ortmeier, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8696, pp. 255–266. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10557-4_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gallina, B., Nyberg, M.: Reconciling the ISO 26262-compliant and the agile documentation management in the swedish context. In: Critical Automotive applications: Robustness and Safety (CARS), Matthieu Roy. HAL, Paris, September 2015Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gallina, B., Sljivo, I., Jaradat, O.: Towards a safety-oriented process line for enabling reuse in safety critical systems development and certification. In: 35th Annual IEEE Software Engineering Workshop (SEW), pp. 148–157 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Her, J.S., Kim, J.H., Oh, S.H., Rhew, S.Y., Kim, S.D.: A framework for evaluating reusability of core asset in product line engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49(7), 740–760 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Javed, M.A., Gallina, B.: Safety-oriented process line engineering via seamless integration between EPF composer and BVR tool. In: 22nd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), 10–14 September, Gothenburg, Sweden. ACM Digital Library (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, M., Gomez, E., Mantineo, A., Mortensen, U.K.: Introducing ECSS software-engineering standards within ESA, August 2002. http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet111/chapter21_bul111.pdf
  21. 21.
    Korsaa, M., et al.: The SPI manifesto and the ECQA SPI manager certification scheme. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 25(5), 525–540 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Korsaa, M., et al.: The people aspects in modern process improvement management approaches. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 25(4), 381–391 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Messnarz, R., et al.: Social responsibility aspects supporting the success of SPI. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 26(3), 284–294 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pries-Heje, J., Johansen, J. (eds.) MANIFESTO Software Process Improvement eurospi.net, Alcala, Spain (2010). http://www.iscn.com/Images/SPI_Manifesto_A.1.2.2010.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2018
  25. 25.
    Varkoi, T., Mäkinen, T., Gallina, B., Cameron, F., Nevalainen, R.: Towards systematic compliance evaluation using safety-oriented process lines and evidence mapping. In: Stolfa, J., Stolfa, S., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2017. CCIS, vol. 748, pp. 83–95. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDTMälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations