Advertisement

Monitoring System-of-Systems Requirements in Multi Product Lines

  • Thomas Klambauer
  • Gerald Holl
  • Paul Grünbacher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7830)

Abstract

[Context and motivation] Large-scale software-intensive systems are often considered as systems of systems comprising several interrelated product lines from which system variants are derived to meet the overall requirements. [Question/problem] If multiple teams and experts configure these individual systems, their individual configuration choices might conflict with the system-of-systems requirements. [Principal ideas/results] This research preview paper presents our ongoing work on a tool-supported approach for monitoring system-of-systems requirements formalized as constraints during distributed product derivation in multi product lines. [Contribution] The approach allows detecting violations of multi system requirements during the configuration of individual systems and provides immediate feedback to the involved configurers. Our approach is integrated in the product configuration tool DOPLER developed in cooperation with an industrial partner.

Keywords

Individual System DOPLER Product Automate Software Engineer Multiple Team Mold Thickness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Holl, G., Grünbacher, P., Rabiser, R.: A systematic review and an expert survey on capabilities supporting multi product lines. Information and Software Technology 54(8), 828–852 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holl, G., Grünbacher, P., Elsner, C., Klambauer, T.: Supporting awareness during collaborative and distributed configuration of multi product lines. In: Proc. of the 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Hong Kong (2012) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Northrop, L., Feiler, P., Gabriel, R., Goodenough, J., Linger, R., Longstaff, T., Kazman, R., Klein, M., Schmidt, D., Sullivan, K., Wallnau, K.: Ultra-Large-Scale Systems – The Software Challenge of the Future. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robinson, W.N.: A requirements monitoring framework for enterprise systems. Requir. Eng. 11(1), 17–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maiden, N.: Monitoring our requirements. IEEE Software 30(1), 16–17 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vogl, H., Lehner, K., Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A.: Reconciling requirements and architectures with the CBSP approach in an iPhone app project. In: 19th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Trento, Italy, pp. 273–278 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glinz, M.: A risk-based, value-oriented approach to quality requirements. IEEE Software 25(2), 34–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendonca, M., Cowan, D., Oliveira, T.: A process-centric approach for coordinating product configuration decisions. In: Proc. of the 40th Annual Hawaii Int’l Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hubaux, A., Classen, A., Heymans, P.: Formal modelling of feature configuration workflows. In: Proc. of the 13th Int’l Software Product Line Conference, San Francisco, USA, pp. 221–230 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holl, G., Thaller, D., Grünbacher, P., Elsner, C.: Managing emerging configuration dependencies in multi product lines. In: Proc. of the 6th Int’l Workshop on Variability Modeling of Software-Intensive Systems, pp. 3–10. ACM, Leipzig (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dhungana, D., Grünbacher, P., Rabiser, R.: The DOPLER meta-tool for decision-oriented variability modeling: a multiple case study. Automated Software Engineering 18(1), 77–114 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 381–390 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vierhauser, M., Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A., Rabiser, R., Heider, W.: Flexible and scalable consistency checking on product line variability models. In: Pecheur, C., Andrews, J., Nitto, E.D. (eds.) Proceedings 25th IEEE/ACM Int’l Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Antwerp, Belgium, September 20-24, pp. 63–72. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vierhauser, M., Grünbacher, P., Heider, W., Holl, G., Lettner, D.: Applying a consistency checking framework for heterogeneous models and artifacts in industrial product lines. In: Proc. of the 15th Int’l Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages & Systems, Innsbruck, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabiser, R., Grünbacher, P., Lehofer, M.: A qualitative study on user guidance capabilities in product configuration tools. In: Proc. of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Essen, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salinesi, C., Diaz, D., Djebbi, O., Mazo, R., Rolland, C.: Exploiting the versatility of constraint programming over finite domains to integrate product line models. In: 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2009, pp. 375–376 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Klambauer
    • 1
  • Gerald Holl
    • 1
  • Paul Grünbacher
    • 2
  1. 1.Christian Doppler Laboratory for Automated Software EngineeringJohannes Kepler University LinzAustria
  2. 2.Institute for Systems Engineering and AutomationJohannes Kepler University LinzAustria

Personalised recommendations