Aligning Software Configuration with Business and IT Context

  • Fabiano Dalpiaz
  • Raian Ali
  • Paolo Giorgini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7328)


An important activity to maximize Business/IT alignment is selecting a software configuration that fits a given context. Feature models represent the space of software configurations in terms of distinguished characteristics (features). However, they fall short in representing the effect of context on the adoptability and operability of features and, thus, of configurations. Capturing this effect helps to minimize the dependency on analysts and domain experts when deriving a software for a given business and IT environment. In this paper, we propose contextual feature models as a means to explicitly represent and reason about the interplay between the variability of both features and context. We devise a formal framework and automated analyses which enable to systematically derive products aligned with an organizational context. We also propose FM-Context, a support tool for modeling and analysis.


Variability Product Lines Business/IT Alignment 


  1. 1.
    Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A Goal-based Framework for Contextual Requirements Modeling and Analysis. Requirements Engineering 15(4), 439–458 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated Reasoning on Feature Models. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 491–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosch, J.: Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chan, Y.E., Sabherwal, R., Bennet Thatcher, J.B.: Antecedents and outcomes of strategic IS alignment: an empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53(1), 27–47 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Staged Configuration Using Feature Models. In: Nord, R.L. (ed.) SPLC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3154, pp. 266–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Formalizing Cardinality-based Feature Models and their Specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(1), 7–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannila, H.: Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 22(3), 364–418 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartmann, H., Trew, T.: Using Feature Diagrams with Context Variability to Model Multiple Product Lines for Software Supply Chains. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008), pp. 12–21 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson, J.C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal 32(1), 4–16 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Spencer Peterson, A.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang, K.C., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., Huh, M.: FORM: A Feature-oriented Reuse Method with Domain-specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, K., Kang, K.C.: Usage Context as Key Driver for Feature Selection. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds.) SPLC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6287, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3), 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peppard, J., Ward, J.L.: “Mind the Gap”: Diagnosing the Relationship between the IT Organisation and the Rest of the Business. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8(1), 29–60 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.-C.: Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2006), pp. 136–145 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tun, T.T., Boucher, Q., Classen, A., Hubaux, A., Heymans, P.: Relating Requirements and Feature Configurations: a Systematic Approach. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2009), pp. 201–210 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thurimella, A.K., Bruegge, B., Creighton, O.: Identifying and Exploiting the Similarities between Rationale Management and Variability Management. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2008), pp. 99–108 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabiano Dalpiaz
    • 1
  • Raian Ali
    • 2
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TrentoItaly
  2. 2.University of BournemouthUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations