Evaluating the Impact of a Model-Driven Web Engineering Approach on the Productivity and the Satisfaction of Software Development Teams

  • Yulkeidi Martínez
  • Cristina Cachero
  • Santiago Meliá
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7387)


BACKGROUND: Model-Driven Engineering claims a positive impact on software productivity and satisfaction. However, few efforts have been made to collect evidences that assess its true benefits and limitations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the productivity and satisfaction of junior Web developers during the development of the business layer of a Web 2.0 Application when using either a code-centric, a model-based (UML) or a Model-Driven Engineering approach (OOH4RIA).

RESEARCH METHOD: We designed a full factorial, intra-subject experiment in which 26 subjects, divided into five groups, were asked to develop the same three modules of a Web application, each one using a different method. We measured their productivity and satisfaction with each approach.

RESULTS: The use of Model-Driven Engineering practices seems to significantly increase both productivity and satisfaction of junior Web developers, regardless of the particular application. However, modeling activities that are not accompanied by a strong generation environment make productivity and satisfaction decrease below code-centric practices. Further experimentation is needed to be able to generalize the results to a different population, different languages and tools, different domains and different application sizes.


Software Development Process Software Development Team Model Drive Development Data Access Object Satisfaction Hypothesis 
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.


  1. 1.
    CMU/SEI: CMMI Product Development Team, CMMI for Development verion 1.2 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3), 192–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler, M.: UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kleppe, A.G., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA explained: the model driven architecture: practice and promise. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruckhaus, T., Madhavii, N.H., Janssen, I., Henshaw, J.: The impact of tools on software productivity. IEEE Software 13(5), 29–38 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Visaggio, A., Canfora, G., Piattini, M.: Building measure-based prediction models for UML class diagram maintainability. Empirical Software Engineering 12(5), 517–549 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abrahão, S., Iborra, E., Vanderdonckt, J.: Usability evaluation of user interfaces generated with a model-driven architecture tool. Maturing Usability, 3–32 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mellor, S.J., Clark, T., Futagami, T.: Model-driven development: guest editors’ introduction. IEEE Software 20(5), 14–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heijstek, W., Chaudron, M.R.V.: 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, SEAA 2009, pp. 113–120. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mohagheghi, P.: An Approach for Empirical Evaluation of Model-Driven Engineering in Multiple Dimensions. In: C2M:EEMDD 2010 Workshop- from Code Centric to Model Centric: Evaluating the Effectiveness of MDD, pp. 6–17. CEA LIST Publication (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Turner, M., Charters, S., Linkman, S.: Large-scale software engineering questions-expert opinion or empirical evidence? IET Software 1(5), 161–171 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Springer, Netherlands (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zelkowitz, M.V.: An update to experimental models for validating computer technology. Journal of Systems and Software 82(3), 373–376 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Abrahão, S., Poels, G.: A family of experiments to evaluate a functional size measurement procedure for Web applications. Journal of Systems and Software 82(2), 253–269 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Afonso, M., Vogel, R., Teixeira, J.: From code centric to model centric software engineering: practical case study of MDD infusion in a systems integration company (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krogmann, K., Becker, S.: A Case Study on Model-Driven and Conventional Software Development: The Palladio Editor. Software Engineering, 169–176 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Staron, M.: Transitioning from code-centric to model-driven industrial projects–empirical studies in industry and academia. Model Driven Software Development: Integrating Quality Assurance (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kapteijns, T., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., Houët, H., Barendse, R.: A Comparative Case Study of Model Driven Development vs Traditional Development: The Tortoise or the Hare. From code centric to model centric software engineering: Practices, Implications and ROI, 22 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mellegård, N., Staron, M.: Distribution of Effort among Software Development Artefacts: An Initial Case Study. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 234–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Panach, J.: Incorporación de mecanismos de usabilidad en un entorno de producción de software dirigido por modelos. Tesis doctotal, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kampenes, V., Dyba, T., Hannay, J., Ksjoberg, D.: A systematic review of quasi-experiments in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 51(1), 71–82 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perry, D.E., Porter, A.A., Votta, L.G.: Empirical studies of software engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 345–355. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ambler, S.: Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for eXtreme Programming and the Unified Process. Wiley (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kruchten, P.: The rational unified process: an introduction. Addison-Wesley Professional (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meliá, S., Gómez, J., Pérez, S., Díaz, O.: Architectural and technological variability in rich internet applications. IEEE Internet Computing 14(3), 24–32 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Plonsky, M.: Psychological Statistics (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gollapudi, K.: Function points or lines of code?–an insight. Global Microsoft Business Unit, Wipro Technologies (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seato: Counting Lines of Code in C# (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    SPSS Inc. an IBM CompanyHeadquarters: PASW Statistics 18 - Content Guide (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mauchly, J.W.: Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11(2), 204–209 (1940)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T., Day, A.: Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yulkeidi Martínez
    • 1
  • Cristina Cachero
    • 2
  • Santiago Meliá
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad Máximo Gómez Báez de Ciego de ÁvilaCuba
  2. 2.DLSIUniversidad de AlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations