Advertisement

Co-knowledge Acquisition of Software Organizations and Academia

  • Dirk Draheim
  • Gerald Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3096)

Abstract

In this workshop contribution we discuss general conditions for a lightweight approach to collaborative learning of software engineering organizations and academia. Knowledge acquisition is a cornerstone in both professional and academic activities. However goals and driving forces are different in industry and academia. Therefore concepts can be perceived differently in professional and academic learning processes. Co-knowledge acquisition is capable to mitigate the gap that stems from different views. It is amenable to clarify misconceptions that are risk factors. We argue that it is sufficient to employ a lightweight cooperation between software organizations and academia in order to be beneficial for both. However, we argue that this cooperation should be targeted and between equals.

Keywords

Collaborative Learning Software Project Engineering Organization Software Organization Capability Maturity Model 
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.
    Abran, A., Moore, J.W., Bourue, P., Dupuis, R. (eds.): SWEBOK - Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, Trial Version 1.00, May 2001. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, C.: A Pattern Language - Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander, C.: Patterns in Architecture. Keynote Speech, OOSPLA 1996 - Object- Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications. In: Conference Video (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.H.: The Experience Factory. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 469–476. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basili, V.R., Lindvall, M., Costa, P.: Implementing the Experience Factory concepts as a set of Experience Bases, SEKE 2003 Keynote Speech by Victor R. Basili. In: Proceedings of 13 th International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering, pp. 102-109 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks, F.P.: No Silver Bullet - Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer 20(4) (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brugger, U.: Huge Systems - A Deutsche Bahn Software Architects Viewpoint. Talk in the Computer Science Colloquium at Freie Universtität Berlin (June 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dixon, N.: The Organizational Learning Cycle. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Draheim, D.: Learning Software Engineering with EASE. In: van Weert, T.J., Munro, R.K. (eds.) Informatics and the Digital Society, January 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Draheim, D., Fehr, E., Weber, G.: Improving the Web Presentation Layer Architecture. In: Zhou, X., Zhang, Y., Orlowska, M.E. (eds.) APWeb 2003. LNCS, vol. 2642, pp. 324–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draheim, D., Weber, G.: Software Architecture for Enterprise Applications - Towards a Field Study Approach. Talk in the Software Systems Colloquium at DB Systems GmbH Frankfurt (February 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Draheim, D., Weber, G.: Form-Oriented Analysis - A New Methodology to Model Form-Based Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foreman, J., Brune, K., McMillan, P., Rosenstein, R.: Software Technology Review. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegy Mellon University (July 1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garratt, B.: The Learning Organisation: Developing Democracy at Work. Harper-Collins Business (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Standard ISO 9000-3:1991(E). Quality management and quality assurance standards - Part 3 : Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001 to the developement, supply and maintenance of software. ISO (1991) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer, B.: Software Engineering in the Academia. In: IEEE Computer, May 2001, vol. 34(5), IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morel, R., Draheim, D., Pilloud, M., Farooq, M.: Recommendations of the Working Group on Social Issues and Powershifts at SECIII. In: van Weert, T.J., Munro, R.K. (eds.) Informatics and the Digital Society, January 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paulk, M.C., Weber, C., Garcia, S., Chrissis, M.B., Bush, M.: Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model Version 1.1. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-025 (February 1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T.: The Learning Company: a Strategy for Sustainable Development. McGraw-Hill, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Revans, R.: What is Action Learning? The Journal of Management Development 1(3), 64–75 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Revans, R.: The ABC of Action Learning. Lemos & Crane (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watson, G.H.: Strategic Benchmarking - How to Rate Your Company’s Performance Against the World’s Best. John Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Royce, W.W.: Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE WESCON Conference, August 1970, pp. 1–9. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1970)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Draheim
    • 1
  • Gerald Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations