Characterizing configurable software product families and their derivation

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 41-60

  Raatikainen, Mikko ^a   Soininen, Timo ^a   Männistö, Tomi ^a   Mattila, Antti ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Case study; Configurable product base; Configurable software product family; Product derivation; Software product family

Indexed keywords

CHARACTERIZATION; CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; DATABASE SYSTEMS; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; SALES; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

CASE STUDY; CONFIGURABLE PRODUCT BASE; CONFIGURABLE SOFTWARE PRODUCT FAMILY; PRODUCT DERIVATION; SOFTWARE PRODUCT FAMILY;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 15244350293     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.211     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Armitage JW, Kellner MI. 1994. A conceptual schema for process definitions and models. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process, Reston, VA, USA, 153-165.
2. Asikainen T, Männistö T, Soininen T. 2004. Using a configurator for modelling and configuring software product lines based on feature models. In Proceeding of Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation - Towards Tool Support, Boston, MA, USA, 24-35.
3. ATLAS.ti User's manual and reference, version 4.2. 2000.
4. Bachmann F, Bass L. 2001. Managing variability in software architectures. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Software Reusability Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 126-132.
5. Bayer J, Gacek C, Muthig D, Widen T. 2000. PuLSE-I: deriving instances from a product line infrastructure. In Proceeding of the Seventh IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, Edinburgh, Scottland, UK, 237-245.
6. Birk A, Heller G, John I, Schmid K, von der Massen T, Müller K. 2003. Product line engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE Software 20(6): 52-60.
7. Bosch J. 2000. Design and Use of Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley: New York, NY, USA.
8. Bosch J. 2002. Maturity and evolution in software product line: approaches, artefacts and organization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2379: 257-271.
9. Clements P, Northrop LM. 2001. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA.
10. Clements PC, Northrop LM. 2002. Salion, inc.: a software product line case study. Technical Report. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. CMU/SEI-2002-TR-038.
11. Czarnecki K, Eisenecker UW. 2000. Generative Programming. Addison-Wesley: New York, NY, USA.
12. Faltings B, Freuder EC. 1998. Guest editors' introduction: configuration. IEEE Intelligent Systems 13(4): 32-33.
13. Hein A, MacGregor J. 2003. Managing variability with configuration techniques. International Workshop on Software Variability Management, Groningen, The Netherlands.
14. Hotz L, Krebs T, Wolter K. 2004. Combining software product lines and structure based configuration - methods and experiences. Proceeding of Workshop on Software Variability Management for Product Derivation - Towards Tool Support, Boston, MA, USA, 12-23.
15. IEEE. 1998. IEEE standard for functional modeling language-syntax and semantics for IDEFO. Std 1320.1-1998.
16. Kang K, Cohen S, Hess J, Novak W, Peterson S. 1990. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) - feasibility study. Technical Report. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21.
17. Kang KC, Kim S, Lee J, Kim K, Shin E, Huh M. 1998. FORM: a feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5:143-168.
18. Knauber P, Muthig D, Widen T. 2000. Applying product line concepts in small and medium-sized companies. IEEE Software 17(5): 88-95.
19. Kojo T, Soininen T, Männistö T. 2003. Towards intelligent support for managing evolution of configurable software product families. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2649: 86-101.
20. MacGregor J. 2001. A proposal for a product line product derivation process. In Proceedings of the 2nd ICSE Workshop on Software Product Lines: Economics, Architectures, and Implications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
21. Männistö T, Soininen T, Sulonen R. 2001. Product configuration view to software product families. In Proceedings of Software Configuration Management Workshop (SCM-10), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
22. Maxwell JA. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review 62(3): 279-300.
23. McGregor J, Northrop LM, Jarrad S, Pohl K. 2002. Guest editor's introduction: initiating software product lines. JEEE Software 19(4): 24-27.
24. Morisio M, Ezran M, Tully C. 2002. Success and failure factors in software reuse. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(4): 340-357.
25. Raatikainen M. 2003. A research instrument for an empirical study of software product families. Master's thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
26. Strauss A, Corbin J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
27. Svahnberg M, Bosch J. 2000. Issues concerning variability in software product lines. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1951: 146-157.
28. Thiel S, Hein A. 2002. Modeling and using product line variability in automotive systems. IEEE Software 19(4): 66-72.
29. van der Linden F. 2002. Software product families in Europe: the Esaps and Cafe projects. IEEE Software 19(4): 41-49.
30. van Gurp J, Bosch J. 2001. On the notion of variability in software product lines. In Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture 45-54.
31. van Ommering R, Bosch J. 2002. Widening the scope of software product lines - from variation to composition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2379: 328-346.
32. Weiss D, Lai CTR. 1999. Software Product-line Engineering: A Family Based Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA.
33. Yin RK. 1994. Case Study Research. 2nd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.