Advertisement

Abstract

Model-driven development aims at increasing productivity by raising the abstraction level of software specifications and introducing automated transformations for replacing lower level specifications. To assess benefits of replacing a legacy development process with a model-driven approach, one needs to establish a baseline of the current process with respect to the effort invested in the development artefacts. In this paper we report on an initial case study in which we investigate the main artefacts in the analysis and design phase with respect to required effort and perceived importance. We studied a non-model driven development of software based automotive functionality and our initial results show that a few artefacts receive the majority of effort, and that the artefacts that receive the most effort are not the most important ones. The initial results indicate that the distribution of effort between models and other artefacts is similar to that of model-driven projects in spite of the project being perceived and characterized as code-centric.

Keywords

Software engineering Requirements Analysis Design Modelling Process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., Kuhne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Sw. 20, 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, A.: An introduction to Model Driven Architecture - Part I: MDA and today’s systems, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/3100.html
  3. 3.
    Brown, A.W.: Model driven arch.: Principles and practice. Sw. and Sys. Model 3, 314–327 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weigert, T., Weil, F., Marth, K., Baker, P., Jervis, C., Dietz, P., Gui, Y., van den Berg, A., Fleer, K., Nelson, D., Wells, M., Mastenbrook, B.: Experiences in Deploying Model-Driven Engineering. In: Gaudin, E., Najm, E., Reed, R. (eds.) SDL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4745, pp. 35–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heijstek, W., Chaudron, M.: Empirical Investigations of Model Size, Complexity and Effort in a Large Scale, Distributed Model Driven Development Process. In: 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 2009. SEAA 2009, pp. 113–120 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker, P., Loh, S., Weil, F.: Model-Driven Engineering in a Large Industrial Context — Motorola Case Study. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 476–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Staron, M.: Transitioning from code-centric to model-driven industrial projects – empirical studies in industry and academia. In: Model Driven Software Development: Integrating Quality Assurance. Information Science Reference, pp. 236–262 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where Is the Proof? - A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mellegård, N., Staron, M.: Use of Models in Automotive Software Development: A Case Study. Presented at the First Workshop on Model Based Engineering for Embedded Systems Design, Dresden, Germany, March 12 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38, 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rolland, C.: Method eng.: towards methods as services. Sw. Process: Improvement and Practice 14, 143–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlsson, F.: Meta - Method for Method Configuration: A Rational Unified Process Case, dissertation, Linköping University of Management and Engineering, VITS-Development of Informations Systems and Work Context (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bollain, M., Garbajosa, J.: A Metamodel for Defining Development Methodologies. Software and Data Technologies, 414–425 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO - International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 24744:2007, software Engineering – Metamodel for Development Methodologies (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broy, M.: Challenges in automotive software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 33–42. ACM, Shanghai (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ludewig, J.: Models in software eng. – an introduction. Sw. and Sys. Modeling 2, 5–14 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mellegård, N., Staron, M.: A Domain Specific Modelling Language for Specifying and Visualizing Requirements. In: The First Int. Workshop on Domain Engineering. DE@CAiSE, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poppendieck, M.: Lean Software Development. In: Companion to the proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 165–166. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D.: Managing software requirements. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rausch, A., Bartelt, C., Ternité, T., Kuhrmann, M.: The V-Modell XT Applied–Model-Driven and Document-Centric Development. In: 3rd World Congress for Software Quality (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas Mellegård
    • 1
  • Miroslaw Staron
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Information TechnologyChalmers University of Technology, University of Gothenburg 

Personalised recommendations