Visualization of Software and Systems as Support Mechanism for Integrated Software Project Control

  • Peter Liggesmeyer
  • Jens Heidrich
  • Jürgen Münch
  • Robert Kalcklösch
  • Henning Barthel
  • Dirk Zeckzer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5610)


Many software development organizations still lack support for obtaining intellectual control over their software development processes and for determining the performance of their processes and the quality of the produced products. Systematic support for detecting and reacting to critical process and product states in order to achieve planned goals is usually missing. One means to institutionalize measurement on the basis of explicit models is the development and establishment of a so-called Software Project Control Center (SPCC) for systematic quality assurance and management support. An SPCC is comparable to a control room, which is a well known term in the mechanical production domain. One crucial task of an SPCC is the systematic visualization of measurement data in order to provide context-, purpose-, and role-oriented information for all stakeholders (e.g., project managers, quality assurance managers, developers) during the execution of a software development project. The article will present an overview of SPCC concepts, a concrete instantiation that supports goal-oriented data visualization, as well as examples and experiences from practical applications.


Software Project Control Centers Visualization Mechanisms Data Visualization GQM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agresti, W., Card, D., Church, V.: Manager’s Handbook for Software Development. SEL 84-101, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Greenbelt, Maryland (November 1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barborak, M., Malek, M., Dahbura, A.T.: The Consensus Problem in Fault-Tolerant Computing. ACM Computing Surveys 25(2), 171–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.: The Experience Factory. Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering 1, 469–476 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bülte, H., Mäckel, O.: Mehr sehen mit sira: Mit einem Blick IT-Projekte durchleuchten. In: SE 2009, Kaiserslautern, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciolkowski, M., Heidrich, J., Münch, J., Simon, F., Radicke, M.: Evaluating Software Project Control Centers in Industrial Environments. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 314–323. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciolkowski, M., Heidrich, J., Simon, F., Radicke, M.: Empirical results from using custom-made software project control centers in industrial environments. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 243–252. ACM, Kaiserslautern, Germany (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibbs, W.W.: Software’s Chronic Crisis. Scientific American, 86–95 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heidrich, J., Münch, J.: Goal-Oriented Setup and Usage of Custom-Tailored Software Cockpits. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 4–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heidrich, J., Münch, J.: Cost-Efficient Customisation of Software Cockpits by Reusing Configurable Control Components. In: Dekkers, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th Software Measurement European Forum, SMEF 2007, Rome, Italy, May 9-11, 2007, pp. 19–32 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 9126: Software Engineering – Product Quality. Technical Report. ISO/IEC TR 9126. Geneva (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalcklösch, R.: Gossip-Based Diagnosis of Arbitrary Component-Oriented Systems. Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, PhD Thesis (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kitchenham, B.A.: Software Metrics. Blackwell, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhl, J.G., Reddy, S.M.: Distributed fault-tolerance for large multiprocessor systems. In: ISCA 1980: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, La Baule, United States, pp. 23–30. ACM Press, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGarry, J., Card, D., Jones, C., Layman, B., Clark, E., Dean, J., Hall, F.: Practical Software Measurement – Objective Information for Decision Makers, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (October 15, 2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Münch, J., Heidrich, J.: Software Project Control Centers: Concepts and Approaches. Journal of Systems and Software 70(1), 3–19 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preparata, F.P., Metze, G., Chien, R.T.: On the Connection Assignment Problem of Diagnosable Systems. IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers EC-16(6), 848–854 (1967)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Project Management Institute: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) 2000 edn. Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA 19073-3299 USA (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rombach, H.D., Verlage, M.: Directions in Software Process Research. Advances in Computers 41, 1–63 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaw, M.: Prospects for an Engineering Discipline of Software. IEEE Software 7(6), 15–24 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeckzer, D., Schröder, L., Kalcklösch, R., Hagen, H., Klein, T.: Analyzing the Reliability of Communication between Software Entities Using 3D Force-Directed Layout of Clustered Graphs. In: ACM Conference on Software Visualization (SoftVis 2008), Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany, September 16-17 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Liggesmeyer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jens Heidrich
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 1
  • Robert Kalcklösch
    • 2
  • Henning Barthel
    • 1
  • Dirk Zeckzer
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.TU KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations